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

Before posting your proposal:

• 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, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

A proposal

There are hundreds of accounts of Users that have never made an edit at all.

I know that it's not standard practice/policy as the User may at any time return & edit - but there are some Users that have registered in 2004 and have never made an edit. Why not bring up a policy and delete such useless accounts (if anyone returns after three years, he could simply re-register). --PaxEquilibrium 19:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Interiot's edit counter, Tra vanished for 16 months, and has now returned, and has become a highly active user. It may not be a wise idea to block all the accounts that are doing nothing. Also, accounts cannot be deleted. I agree that most of those accounts probably won't do anything, but blocking them all won't solve anything. I actually don't know what to do with them; maybe I could create a new template to place on talk pages saying about a user who has never done any edits, but the account has been around for more than a year. Acalamari 20:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You're effectively proposing WP:DUU90, which gained consensus but was rejected by the developers. --ais523 14:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A comment

This is a hindrance to people trying to register an account.
Yesterday I was trying to register me a username, ... and I am a bit annoyed by the first 20 or so names I came up with already being taken, in most cases with no edits to its credit.

[ comment here deleted and reworded below ]

Since Usurpation isn't allowed for registering new accounts, what I think I'll do is to register my preferred name on some other Wikimedia project, and then wait for it to be given to me on Wikipedia when the transition to Unified login happens. --83.253.36.136 10:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a suggestion for a tip to be added to the message that is displayed on the account creation page

Since more than 1,000,000 usernames have already been registered, most common names and words have already been taken. Therefore, be creative when making up your username: Choose an unusual name or word, make a creative combination of words, or modify the name in a unique way.

--83.253.36.136 10:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Today's picture

I suggest we add the option to have today's picture emailed to people, so that we may send it to friends and stuff. Isn't that how featured articles work? If not, than that option should be made availale. I knwo you can do it by file, but thats so long.Tourskin 21:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't do mass mailings as far as I know, but if you want to e-mail pictures to your frields go right ahread (just be sure to include the license terms in case they want to modify or use them for whatever). If you want to keep tabs on the picture of the day just add {{POTD}} to your userpage. --Sherool (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected, we actualy do have a "daily picture" mailing list. You can sign up here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/daily-image-l --Sherool (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Cross-wiki redirects

I was browsing along the Homestar Runner Wiki after a look at the the Battlestar Galactica Wiki and I thought... how about cross-wiki redirects? By this I means sending people who look up Commander Adama here directly to the BSG wiki and having a link on the diambig page for Deutschmann to the joke on the H*R wiki. I suggest this because:

It would free up space on wikipedia's servers.

It would give credit for wiki-interest in things like Star Trek and Star Wars to where it belongs.

The coverage on the specialized wikis is better.

It will avoid all sorts of unnecessary redundancy.

And it will mean fewer jokes about wikipedia's focus on fictional things (I think they call it "fancruft"). I'm new to Wikipedia, so please forgive if this isn't a new idea. Misaf-Keru 01:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

But then wikipedia is essentially endorsing the other wiki, and giving up on the task of writing an encyclopedic article about the topic. Wikipedia has seriously different standards for articles about fiction than fanwikis. A wikipedia article should focus on things like themes, critical analysis, and reviewer responses, generally real-world impact. Fanwikis focus on extreme levels of detail, and ones like memory alpha explicitly segregate out of universe information into secondary locations. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, but what about providing external links to fanwikis on their associated articles here? What that fit in with WP:EL or instead be a violation; or might it be something worth modifying the policy to provide for? --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 22:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK, how about a policy that further restricts WP's info on this sort of thing but explicitly encourages ELs to other wikis? After further thought, my main point should have been thisː

• That it would add to the credibility here while simultaneously allowing fans access to more detail if they want it. Win-win. So what do you think of this proposal? Misaf-Keru 06:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This proposal will need a change in the MediaWiki software, and will go nowhere here. File this as an enhancement request type "bug" at the Bugzilla mentioned in the header above. Jesse Viviano 22:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy

In the spirit of reducing the confusing and byzantine amount of policy pages... Wikipedia:Attack page basically tells us that attack pages are deleted. In that, it is redundant with WP:CSD, which says the same. Are there any objections to redirecting the former to latter, since it completely overlaps? >Radiant< 16:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems logical Radiant!. (→Netscott) 16:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It even says that it is based on CSD, I would definitely support this. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 16:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see your evil plan policy/guideline-combining plan Radiant, but I shall play along anyway :) Frankly, though, I would support a merge, so long as the deletion criterion is expanded somewhat (so that we don't lose anything), which should be brought up WT:CSD. Gracenotes^T § 21:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the page be retained and expanded to provide a clear definition, of attack pages, alternative approaches to any percieved grounds for creating them and, if all else fails, redress, like:

• WP:NPOV
• WP:VANDAL
• WP:CIVIL

We need a clear definition of an "attack page" including (sic) "user watchlists" that have sprung up and exist soley to publicly monitor and critique other users (which is was DEFINATELY not the purpose of Wikipedia last time I checked). The lack of clear definition encourages wikilawyering, because it means there is no "bottom line" on the subject and obscure half relevancies can be dredged up out of context, ad nauseam, to excuse any aspect of it on either side.

An attack page is a problem, WP:CSD is a solution. Think about it, the main reason for any editor to look up a problem is because he does not know what the solution is. If you start filing all the problems under their solutions, nobody will ever be able to find any policy or guideline. --Zeraeph 14:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the content is small enough to merit merging somewhere, though I don't think WP:CSD is the right place. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 08:04Z

Standardize protection templates

At the moment there are plenty of protection templates, and they are not standardized in any way, both in naming and parameter usage. So I propose that we does some standardization on them.

Here are my proposal:

Prefix

all protection templates should have a unique prefix, alternatives could be pp-, protect-, protection-, protected- etc...

Naming

Including the prefix, they all should have consistent naming scheme. only lowercase letters, and avoid abbreviations. Example high visible template.

Semi-protection

For semi-protection templates, add a string after the prefix, for example semi- or s-.

Parameters

expire=, to define when the template should be expired. reason= optional reason if there is in need of extra reason.

Style

of course all templates should have the same look.

Minis

all templates should/could have a mini-variant, the one with only a keylock-icon, should then have a title on hover to specify type of protection.

Example naming of template could be:

{{protected-semi-high visible template}} {{pp-s-high visible template}}

_→AzaToth 17:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• As (more or less) an information neat freak, I like this idea. Gracenotes^T § 20:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  I'm not an admin, but I think that some more abbreviations would be more convienient. bibliomaniac15 23:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• You are welcome to {{sofixit}}. >Radiant< 12:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • saying {{sofixit}} in such context is the same as saying RTFM _→AzaToth 14:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. I've been thinking we need a Wikipedia:WikiProject Template Harmonization, a parent or sibling of WP:UW. Any interest? —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 08:00Z

Discussions more user friendly

here is a suggestion: put up a page where you can search discussions, view the newest comments, show the most heated discussions, show the most frequently updated discussion and so on...It would also be nice if new coments were automatically highlited in each article. Maybe a special ***Pedia can be created for discussion of specific topics, maybe even put up so that new guys can discuss seperatly from more expert users. thanks. hovru --68.122.82.13 02:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well you can already search discussions (special:search make sure the right boxes are checked at the bottom, or failing that google if you include site:en.wikipedia.org with your query.) As for a wiki of specific topic discussion, have you heard of http://wikireason.net , http://debatepedia.org and wikia:pov? For recent (article) discussions you can see here. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by new comments highlighted. For on wiki discussions there is meta:DPLforum, but that's never going to be enabled on wikipedia. On wikinews we use n:template:flag to highlight important discussions, but I think there is just to many for that sort of system to work here, as well, wikizine, wikipedia-l and the signpost keeps everyone well enough informed of important happenings. Also the talk pages here are not really meeant for discussions unless they help the article develop. Bawolff 00:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

True, I didnt know of the other sites, what i ment by the highlight was like comments made that day would be highlighted in a color so they would stand out, maybe 3 colors: one for 3 days ago, one for 2 days ago, and one for that day, or something simillar. A bot should be able to do this, or it could be an optional standard format for comment makeing. Thanks hovru 68.122.20.195 05:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleting episode summaries

I'd like to propose the removal of episode summaries from Wikipedia. By this, I mean articles created specifically to summarize one single episode of a TV show-- Wikipedia is not a TV guide.

The only reason particular episodes of anything should be mentioned, in my opinion, is if they are particularly noteable. Jtrainor 05:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, we have TONS of episode articles (by TONS, i mean well into the thousands. And i'm not exxaggerating here). There are some series that have pretty good episode articles, a lot of work has gone into them, and i think you're going to be met by a lot of opposition if you suggest we just delete it all (simply because people don't want to see their hard work deleted). Even for episode articles that are really just raw summaries (stuff that blatantly violates WP:NOT), you'll have a hard time trying to get it deleted. I tried running a few dozen episode articles for a certain TV series through AfD late last year, and it got closed as no-consensus. And those episode articles where clearly just summarizes - unlike some episode articles which do have some context and commentary.

I agree with you that we have a problem with episode articles. But you're not going to get anywhere by suggesting we delete them all. --`/aksha 08:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I propose the following: fairly basic articles, such as Legacies (Babylon 5) should be merged into episode lists. When section on particular episode is expanded at least to state of a good stub, it can be splitted to its own page. MaxSem 09:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That is in fact what our current guidelines say to do - start with episode lists for entire seasons/series, and when there's enough to say about each episode, split to episode articles. Sadly, that's not what people do. And very often, efforts to merge stubbed episode articles into larger season articles are met with a lot of resistance. --`/aksha 09:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't resistance rather irrelevant if it has no basis in policy, though? Jtrainor 20:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's a rather naive stance - you will always be outgunned and outnumbered by "fanboys" (and there really is no other term for it) who will argue on mass that the pages are a) vital for wikipedia b) in fact need to be expanded to include details about which socks each character was wearing in each episode and that c) you are an evil elitist. Cyncial I know - I'd suggest you stick to factual articles and just pretend that the cruffy site of wikipedia does not exist - it's better for your blood pressure. --Fredrick day 20:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you cynical devil, Fredrick day :) That apart: Jtrainor certainly has a point: I'm damned if I can see how Lisa's Rival passes WP:N. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm too scared to look at simpsons pages - do they still have quote lists that actually just seem to a dump of the whole script? --Fredrick day 20:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So, who's going to actually start doing the merges, and catch hell for it? (Also, I would bring up the related subject of articles on fictional characters, places, etc., which are probably not notable in their own right, even if their parent work or series is.) I'm currently working on a proposal to transwiki all the stuff on a fictional series to some specific wiki on that work of fiction (just about every work of fiction has a Wikia or similar, if it's at all popular), and then merge into the parent fictional work. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Why limit it to just television episodes? Has anyone seen the amount of songs that have articles here? I'm not talking about songs that actually made it on the radio and had some success, I'm talking about the thousands of articles on b-sides and releases by local bands that didn't even have local success.--Bobblehead 20:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) I wrote an essay on this exact topic and basically agree. It is almost impossible to get these articles successfully through an AfD and therefore editors can get away with violating the WP:EPISODE guideline. I look forward to reading more of this discussion. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 02:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm strongly in favor of this. Many of these episode pages end up looking like IMDB entries filled with trivia and quotes and way more original research than any one article should be capable of having. "Significant" episodes that themselves satisfy notability criteria (independent sources and the like) may be an exception, but just because a show has a high viewership isn't notable at all. I'll be interested in hearing suggestions on how to deal with AfDs in this area as well. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 03:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Episode summaries often act as valid stubs. There's nothing wrong with that, and I strongly oppose any attempts to change that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That's presupposing that there's actually a fracking reason for an encyclopedia to have an article on every episode of every television show in the first place. --Cyde Weys 04:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

if something is going to stay a stub forever, then it's not valid to keep it that way when a perfectly acceptable merge can be performed. most episode articles WILL stay as permanent stubs if we followed WP:V and WP:OR perfectly. Also, articles that are ONLY episode summaries are against WP:NOT. But when you try to explain that on a AfD, the argument that it violates WP:NOT always ends up being washed away by the ton of "Strong keep - the episode is really important" (even if it often is not notable at all) and "Strong keep - it's useful and good information". --`/aksha 07:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The fanboy issue really should be rather irrelevant, as AfDs are not a vote. Invalid arguments in an AfD (for both keep and delete), along with entries that are just votes, should really be discounted, but all too often, arn't.

A major problem with Wikipedia is that all too often, many editors (and admins!) mistake AfDs for a vote instead of a debate, with predictable consequences. Jtrainor 06:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the problem we have when people try to get episode articles deleted (or merged) through AfDs. --`/aksha 07:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So when an AfD is incorrectly handled, why not kick it upstairs to a higher level? Squeaky wheel gets the grease. Jtrainor 20:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The right way
as I understand it is how it's done now. List of episodes, expand like any other topic once a given episode has enough content per policy. Is the section starter, jtrainor, saying we just shouldn't have episode articles in general? I am confused. A TV show episode, a person, a recipe, a fish called Ralph (or Wanda)--if its notable, ATT, etc., it's entitled a fair shake at an article. Also, for the above question, is Lisa's Rival the episode notable? Multiple non-trivial sources. Could probably find way more with a proper news search, that was 120 seconds on Google. - Denny 21:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is, there is no reason to list every episode of anything ever. Only particularly noteable episodes should have articles. Jtrainor 23:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh... I think we're all on the same page then. If a given article on a given episode isn't notable, then delete that one. I think the concern is that there are tens of thousands of possible, and a mass AfD would be completely inappropriate--people would have to rush 24/7 to source dozens, hundreds, or thousands of articles immediately. While it could be easy--I sourced/asserted notability on that Lisa Simpson episode easily--it would be a tremendous volume of work to push down someone's throat immediately and with a <5 day deadline for the mass AfD. If a given episode seems unnotable, go for it, afd it. But dropping a nuke wouldn't be completely appropriate, since from what I've learned massive, sweeping changes like that only will go through without pissing off half the editors if done right and collaboratively. Maybe start on the WP:FICT policy pages and work down from that? - Denny 23:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The only problem with taking episode articles to AfD one at a time is that then an editor points to the tens or hundreds of other similar articles and asks, "Why are you singling this one episode out?" or "It doesn't make sense to delete this one when every other episode has an article." even though the vast majority of those articles are equally non-notable and just plot summary. In that case, I support merging into an episode list article, if one isn't already created. However, when I tried to do a bundled AfD, there was already such an article, so the individual episode articles were completely unnecessary, but it appeared as though AfD would not consent to a delete all, partially due to the Pokemon test. I wrote an essay about my experience. There has to be a better way, but I haven't found it yet. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 06:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You could make the same argument about a lot of Wikipedia article, including most of the articles about movies, porn movies, and the articles for every single Pokemon character. The notability bar, rightly IMO, is set pretty low, and I imagine most TV episode articles would meet it if they came up for AfD. And to answer the question about Simpsons quotes above, some of us Simpsons watchers above the age of 14 have been trying to hold the line on those damn quote sections. An episode capsule may be one thing, but few people want to read a complete script. Natalie 22:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think some episodes are like album-stubs. They're just a tracklisting to start, but it's a framework to come in and hang more information on, like reviews, sales data, etc. For an episode of star trek: voyager, for example, it might start with a basic plot summary, than add mention of the fan response (citing sites that show it) who guest starred, its relevance to the larger series or outside the series (based on other books, director's first break) and a general level of detail that's not just plot. If there's no sign that's going to happen (your average episode of the price is right doesn't have much worth writing about) then it should be merged or deleted. articles need to be more than just plot summary though. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh, we list every book or movie in a series separately. TV shows are just very long series. Owlofcreamcheese

Bot request/question

I don't know if I should make this suggestion here or on Technical. I have already made this request over at WP:BOTREQ but it never went anywhere. Is there anyway we could get a clone of commons:User:FlickreviewR here on en.wiki? It would be best if all images taken from Flickr were uploaded to the Commons, but many new users aren't aware of the Commons and so en.wiki gets a lot of Flickr images. Because of this, we get a lot of Flickr images that aren't allowed on Wikipedia due to their license. But, a lot of these are missed since they have to be manually caught and checked by human editors. I propose that Wikipedia adopt similar measures that exist on the Commons:

1. Add Flickr options to the license drop down on the Upload page;
2. Have these options automatically tag the Flickr image "to be reviewed;"
3. Clone the above mentioned bot to en.wiki and have it check these images;
4. Images that fail should be deleted, images that are indeterminate should be reviewed by an admin, and images that pass should be tagged {{Move to Commons}}.

Thoughts?↔NMajdan•talk 19:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm....apparently that bot hasn't run in awhile. Don't know if it is broken or the owner of it just hasn't ran it in awhile. Nevertheless, if it is not broken, I'd still like to see it cloned here. If not, I still think the appropriate options should be added to the license drop down on the upload page which would add a "to be reviewed" tag to the article and a either an admin or trusted editor could review the image and either move it to the Commons or mark it to be moved. We would have to collaborate with the appropriate people over at the Commons so images the have passed review on en.wiki won't have to go through the process again at the Commons.↔NMajdan•talk 19:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing?↔NMajdan•talk 12:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Complete the shortcut alphabet

The chart below needs the blanks filled in. Some of the missing shortcuts exist, but didn't seem appropriate to add to this list (either because of lack of scope, lack of worldview, etc.). This seems like an issue for the community to resolve, as it may entail reallocation of existing shortcuts.

Just to be clear, the following shortcuts are at issue here: J, L, S, V, W, X, Y, Z.

WP:L stands for logo, for instance, but it is hardly used. A much higher-traffic page is Wikipedia:List. Perhaps "L" should be reallocated to "List".

WP:S leads to statistics, but several other "s" pages have much higher traffic, and perhaps deserve the letter designation.

WP:W goes to "watch" rather than Help:Watchlist, which is more mainstream.

Where an appropriate page does not exist (J, X, Y, Z), the community could discuss the creation of useful pages with appropriate titles.

WP:V stands for "Verifiability", but that page is no longer active. So perhaps this shortcut should be reallocated. Though it's probably still in high-use, so maybe reallocation of it should wait.

To look at a list of possible alternative pages, see Wikipedia:List of base pages in the Wikipedia namespace.

The Transhumanist   23:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Shortcut alphabet

Pagename	Redirects
Wikipedia:Attribution   (policy)	WP:A
Wikipedia:Bots   (policy)	WP:B
Wikipedia:Copyrights   (policy)	WP:C
Wikipedia:Disambiguation   (guideline)	WP:D
Wikipedia:Editing FAQ   (help page)	WP:E
Wikipedia:Fair use   (guideline)	WP:F
Wikipedia:Glossary   (help page)	WP:G
Help:Contents   (help menu)	WP:H
Wikipedia:Introduction   (help page)	WP:I
?
Wikipedia:Keyboard shortcuts   (help page)	WP:K
?
Wikipedia:Mediation   (policy)	WP:M
Wikipedia:Notability   (guideline)	WP:N
Wikipedia:Orphaned Articles   (project)	WP:O
Wikipedia:Portal   (project)	WP:P
Wikipedia:Questions   (help page, directory)	WP:Q
Wikipedia:Redirect   (how-to guideline)	WP:R
?
Wikipedia:Tutorial   (help page)	WP:T
Wikipedia:Username policy   (policy)	WP:U
?
?
?
?
?

By looking through the numbers of links to those shortcuts in Special:Whatlinkshere, I think only shortcuts with very few links should be changed, in order not to disrupt any talk page archives etc. Therefore, the shortcuts you mentioned of WP:L, WP:S and WP:W are all suitable for renaming, as well as WP:E, WP:F, WP:H, WP:K and WP:Q from the alphabetical list. WP:V and all of the other shortcuts are probably unsuitable for changing, as the have so many backlinks. Tra (Talk) 23:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea to give popular pages short shortcuts, but I don't think we need to go at it from the other end - it's okay for some letters to not map to pages. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 07:49Z

Proposal: add "Contents" to Wikipedia's main menu

This proposal is to add "Contents" to the navigation menu on the sidebar, directly below "Main page", so that Wikipedia's table of contents is avaiable with one click regardless of where you are in the encyclopedia.

Users, and especially new users, should not have to search around for Wikipedia's table of contents. It should be the easiest page to find and access on Wikipedia...

Here's what the main menu would look like:

navigation

• Main page
• Contents
• Community portal
• Featured content
• Current events
• Recent changes
• Random article
• Help
• About Wikipedia
• Contact Wikipedia
• Donations

I look forward to reading your thoughts on this matter.

The Transhumanist   20:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you guys ever considered getting rid of stuff on that menu? Or spliting it up (ala n:MediaWiki:Sidebar). As it stands its way to long, and I find it annoying to read it all when i'm looking for a specific link, so I just don't. Bawolff 00:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. bibliomaniac15 00:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree, and request that this wait until:

1. The List of reference tables page needs to have its merge completed. (only 3 sections to go!)
2. As I suggested at Wikipedia talk:Contents#Merge Proposal, I'd also like to see those 2 list pages merged. (struck per Transhumanist's reply below) --Quiddity 08:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

3. The various wikiprojects/portals/groups need to be informed that there exists a "basic topic list" and "topic list" concerning their subject. Many of the lists, whilst of good quality, were written by a single editor (you), and I'm not comfortable promoting that on the sidebar as something representative of Wikipedia.

I understand that you're tired of waiting for the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign to find developer time, but I can't agree with promoting these pages any more, until they are of a higher total quality. --Quiddity 05:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contents is extremely useful regardless of the configuration of the little header line at the top of the page. As Wikipedia's table of contents, it should be as easy to find as possible.

Concerning the recruiting of assistance to develop and maintain the topic lists, notifying each WikiProject of the lists which correspond to them would be a logistics nightmare, and would have to be done by hand. A much more effective solution would be to simply have Contents on the main menu, because that would make the topic lists easily accessible for everyone to work on, as they are displayed at the very top of the Contents page.

On the side issue Quiddity mentioned, merging the two topic list pages would ruin the basic topic set, making it much harder to browse the basic topic lists. You'd be forcing beginners to scour a more extensive general list to find them. On the current Lists of basic topics, it's easy to find the basic lists, because they are all basic. The page Lists of topics is far more extensive, with vastly more entries, and if links to the basic lists were added to it, they'd be obscurred in a sea of non-basic list links.

The more people who use Wikipedia:Contents, the more people there will be to potentially work on the pages listed there. All the more reason to make it more accessible.

Keep in mind that every page on Wikipedia is already representative of Wikipedia, including the pages listed at Wikipedia:Contents, -- which has a link on the Main Page. So they're very "representative" already. They are very useful browsing pages, and they would be even more useful if the table of contents was given a link in Wikipedia's main menu. The Transhumanist   07:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Notifying the relevant wikiprojects would not be "a logistics nightmare". All it requires is a summarised 'form-letter' style of note, posted to each talk page. "Hello, I've created a "List of basic philosophy topics" linked to from Lists of basic topics, that could benefit from your project's input and oversight."

The pages written just by you are not representative of Wikipedia in the same way that the Community portal or Features articles are. That should be obvious; perhaps you are blinded by your pride in this work?

Overall the set of pages is at maybe a "B" quality level. I'd like to see them all at an "A" or even "Featured" quality level, before adding the Contents link to the sidebar. --Quiddity 19:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Quiddity, there is no reason to get personal by doubting my good intentions. You should assume good faith. I am approaching this matter with the utmost of objectivity...

The two users most critical of the topic lists, you and I, both agree that they need lots of work, and so did the Community portal, before someone stirred the community to action. My main desire here is that more people help develop these pages, and I frequently urge people to do so. But the element you may be missing is that the reason the Wikipedia:Community Portal has reached its current well-developed and well-maintained state is because of its visibility and centralized accessibility. I don't know about others, but for me, that was the key reason I got involved with it - it was on the main menu, yet it was in comparatively sad shape -- the same thing applied to the Main Page and Help:Contents, both of which have been on the main menu for a very long time and have been improved while so positioned.

I think the pages you are worried about could reach "A-level" or "Featured" quality a lot faster if they were linked-to based on their function. Yet, in their present incompleted form, they are still extremely useful -- they are the table of contents system, after all - so hiding these pages is counter-productive to their function and limits their usefulness.

Your "representative" concern is counter to the way consensus works on Wikipedia. The pages have consensus, being fairly well-used with almost no complaints. Quoting Wikipedias' concensus policy:

Over time, every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community (or at least everyone who has looked at the page). "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it.

The unwritten corollary to the above principle is that traffic drives change. The more people who visit a page, the more likely the page will be edited and improved.

The main contents pages are much better along than the Community portal, the Main Page, and the main Help page were before their respective overhauls. Yet those three examples were on the main menu the whole time! Here's what they looked like:

• the old Community portal which started out like this
• the previous version of the Main page, which started out like this, and before that looked like this
• the help page prior to its overhaul

Form follows function. The Community portal is placed where it is most useful, and so should the table of contents. Everything else on Wikipedia is positioned based on its function: articles, help pages, etc., and the vast majority of pages on Wikipedia are works-in-progress. The essense of Wikipedia is that it is a work-in-progress. So your position baffles me.

For a book, it makes no sense to have the table of contents buried somewhere in the middle of the book. The same principle applies here.

Contents is a well-polished and emminently useful page. We should place it on the main menu where it will do the most good.

Sincerely, The Transhumanist   21:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You asked for feedback, I gave it: 2 requests for things that need to be fixed/done first. --Quiddity 00:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that's not as bad 3.  :-) I've been picking away at the List of reference tables, so it's down to about 2 and a half sections (I knocked off half of Natural Science a few days ago). AWB should be able to handle a standard notice to Wikiprojects pretty easily. So don't worry about it. We'll get there. The Transhumanist   08:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Improving the sidebar immensely with just a single link

This proposal is to add "Contents" to the main menu, directly under "Main page".

The only thing this proposal has to do with is the utility of the current sidebar and how we could greatly improve it by adding a single link. It's such an easy upgrade. And users would benefit immediately from having a link to the table of contents on Wikipedia's main menu. Meanwhile, adding it would not conflict in any way with the pending redesigned sidebar, because it's included in that design.

Contents is the perfect companion to the search box. By including Contents on the main menu, both major methods of finding things on Wikipedia would then be covered. It just seems like an obvious improvement to add a link to Wikipedia's table of contents to the main menu.

The Transhumanist   07:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think its perfect Rostik17 13:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I second that. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 23:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been a (very) active user for a year and didn't even know it existed. Add it! --Dweller 23:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea. Thank you for proposing it. Durova^Charge! 05:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Good evening all; I've always said Wikipedia should go a little bit further to meet that medium between HTML-sites (for example answers.com) and an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. The contents page would perfectly meet that medium - a link to the main subject areas, as well as more specific options - for example, the indexes. An excellent addition that meets our goal to ever strive to improve our encyclopedia.

Regards,
anthonycfc ^[talk] 20:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A 'normal' wiki usually doesn't have a core structure, and so people don't expect it, but Wikipedia has quite a lot of material, and various ways of organizing it. Having a link in the sidebar to the contents page will help people to discover what organization there is. (whether perfect or not a separate topic). And, actually, pointing people to the contents page and getting their resulting comments will improve the page. Don't wait for the improvements first... Shenme 04:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I support the proposal to add the Wikipedia:Contents link. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 07:42Z

There's a contents page? I didn't even know there was one till I spotted this article. I think it would be a good idea to make it a little more obvious for the idiots like me. --**CatoftheNight** 17:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Me neither! I think this would be a great addition! --Spixels 23:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

See also the proposal below, #Sidebar redesign. Could use feedback. --Quiddity 02:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I put this link in based on the discussion here. However, that hasn't been extensive enough to indicate a true community-wide consensus so we'll have to see how people react. Note that you may not see this change right away as it takes a while for the sidebar to update.
• Currently I added this as just a simple link (the same as 'Featured content'), but there are options for showing the link in the language set in the user's preferences which we can implement if this change is accepted. I also put in a 'tooltip' for the entry. Let me know if we should use some other text for that. --CBD 10:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Including web links on {{SharedIPEDU}}

I suggest that when we place {{SharedIPEDU}} on talk pages, that we include the link to the school or school district's website. Ideally, the link would go to their computer use policy, if they have one online. A list would have to be compiled for User:SelketBot to include links when automatically adding this template. The place where such effort would be coordinated I think is WP:CVU, so I posted messages there about this to discuss whether this is a good idea, worth the effort, or other ideas. - WP:CVU#School admin contacts and web links --Aude (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Perhaps a template per school so they can be updated easily? —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 07:46Z

Article on Jesse L. Lasky

With respect to your article on my father, Jesse L. Lasky: there are several errors and insufficient data. I would be pleased to submit corrections if you are receptaive. Betty Lasky —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaleideon (talk • contribs).

You can make those corrections as anybody can edit the articles. But if you don't know how to do that or don't want to edit, send me your suggestions, and I'll see what I can do for you. Thank you for your appreciation. NCurse _work 07:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to edit the article by yourself, keep in mind to only add verifiable information. Also please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 08:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary quicklinks

I'm not really sure what exactly to call them, but the Polish Wikipedia has some very handy links under the edit summary box for automatic edit summaries. As I don't speak Polish and I was just there to add an interlanguage link, I don't know what most of them do, but some are:Interwiki, stub, redir, infobox, and image. These could prove helpful here. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The green boxes below the edit box (eg. [1])? If so, they seem to be added via javascript, in pl:MediaWiki:Onlyifediting.js, via przyciskiOpis(). Yeah, if there was agreement to add it, it could be copied over. --Interiot 22:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd really like to have this. Or maybe some kind of keyboard shortcut. For example, typing 'ce' in the edit summary would expand to copy-edit. Gflores^Talk 14:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes please, and yes please. Great ideas :) --Quiddity 18:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. These ideas would make our chores here easier/faster. The Transhumanist   23:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation Namespace:

Would it be possible to create a disambiguation namespace for all the disambiguation "Articles"? That would make the article coint more accurate. It would just have the now title redirect to the diambiguation namespace, which then links you to hte right article like diasambiguation pages do right now. The Placebo Effect 12:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably not really needed. The disambiguation pages are a proper part of the encyclopedia and contain explanatory text. Standardised text to be sure, but still stuff written out by hand. Dabs pages and redirects are like the blind entries you find in paper encyclopedias. The number of disambiguation pages can be tracked with the template and associated categories. So this would seem more hassle than it is worth, in my opinion. The current system works well. Carcharoth 12:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Only if we create a Redirect: namespace (since those are non-articles in mainspace too), and a List: namespace (since most lists contain no introduction and are otherwise generally prose-free), and an AFD: namespace (since AfD's are the largest ever-growing group of articles that threaten to swamp out the Wikipedia: namespace), and along those same lines a MFD: and RFA: namespace. No... not needed. Disambiguation pages are already clearly marked by Template:Disambig and Category:Disambiguation... if you need a more accurate count, then just count up how many pages are in that category, and subtract from the total. --Interiot 02:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Execpt redirect aren't included in the article count and lists can still be encylopedic. The Placebo Effect 12:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Impractical idea. >Radiant< 12:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My idea or what Interiot said? The Placebo Effect 12:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a MediaWiki:Disambiguationspage so that the software can tell a dab page from a non-dab page, but it isn't factored in to Special:Statistics at the moment. --ais523 12:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Would that be hard to do or not? The Placebo Effect 13:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hard until bugzilla:6754 is fixed. --ais523 13:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Viewing old revisions

Every now and again, someone passes around a link to a vandalised version of an article and passes it off as truth, and people get very alarmed; or people somehow stumble across history and get thoroughly confused by all the old revisions.

Thing is, when you look at it, it really isn't very clear that these revisions are actually old - we know well that they may be vandalised, or incorrect, or simply bad and not representative of our beatiful, beautiful prose... but the casual external reader doesn't, as all we do is list a small bit of text at the top, and if you're not familiar with the MediaWiki UI then it looks exactly like a live article.

19:57, 15 March 2007, last edited by Shimgray (Talk | contribs | block)

(diff) ← Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

..it doesn't actually say "this is an old version", does it, or explain anywhere what kept revisions are? This is, on the whole, unhelpful to our readers. Useful for our editors, but we need to remember we're not the sole audience.

I've made a somewhat more verbose explanation - see MediaWiki:Revision-info - and comments would be appreciated. What I'd like to do is get the UI to display this obviously - say, visually something as striking and apparent as the new-messages bar. Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 20:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, and urge something be done about this. The old versions of pages should be better identified as such. The Transhumanist   21:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A great idea. Anything that improves transparency is a good idea. OK. Not "anything". You get my drift. --Dweller 21:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. A banner similar to the one you see when you edit and old version would be great. Koweja 21:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Verbosity is bad. The more words there are, the less likely it is that anyone will read them. --Carnildo 17:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've trimmed it a bit for redundancy, tell me what you think. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There is some kind of coding problem presently. If you go to the History tab and click on the most current version, it gives you that same banner message. It already is the current version. Qxz wisely brought this up on the relevant talk page. Until this can get tweaked proper, I think I'm against it. Mahalo. --198.185.18.207 12:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

and on a side note, I take offence, bruddah, with the way you treat anons, too. Aren't all edits da same? Mahaloo. --198.185.18.207 13:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

With no offense to Flcelloguy's boldness, it looks horrible. Merely an aesthetic judgement, but I do not want to look at text that is basically as annoying as this when looking through consecutive versions of a page and trying to concentrate on changes. Or even with current versions. I realized the latter and brought up on #wikipedia, but the discussion sort of fizzled out after a while.

Really, there is no way to make this fail-safe. I believe that if there should be no disclaimer templates on present versions of a page, they shouldn't be there on past versions, since there is no guarantee that only the past version will have a problem, and only the present one won't. (And when using "permanent link", look, there's a disclaimer template built into the interface! This is against the spirit of the guidelines, and redundant with the link below.) Gracenotes^T § 15:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Then it should say "old" not "archived" and "problems" not "vandalism, cowbell, and much ado about nothing." I think it is entirely appropriate, and recommend that everyone see Carnildo's recommendations at MediaWiki talk:Revision-info. --Iamunknown 17:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed policy: Template prod

From a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion I have created a draft policy for situations in which templates may be proposed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion/Template prod and discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion/Template prod. Thank you. —dgies^t_c 17:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Should we publish a compilation of featured articles?

I've heard a lot about the Wikipedia:Release Version, and I thought, why not release a CD containing all the featured articles? Or maybe a DVD with all the featured content? It could be released as a stand-alone version, or in a double-disk with the currently proposed release version?

Please respond at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles#Should we publish a compilation of featured articles? — Jack · talk · 18:47, Friday, 16 March 2007

Detailed user statistics

Hi, on the Special:Statistics page, would it be possible to get more detailed statistics available? Perhaps stating as a percentage how many of the 4 million-odd users are actually active - i.e. have made edits in the last 6 months? And the number of distinctive IP addresses have been used to edit would be brilliant too. Thanks in advance for your responses — Jack · talk · 19:08, Friday, 16 March 2007

Number of active user accounts would be useful. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 08:15Z

These data are available at Wikipedia Statistics, gathered regularly by User:Erik Zachte. JoJan 08:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, forgot about that. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 09:31Z

Why not include it in Special:Statistics? — Jack · talk · 07:52, Sunday, 18 March 2007

The statistics on Wikipedia:Statistics are mostly generated from queries on the database dumps made roughly every month or so. If they were placed on the Special:Statistics page, I would anticipate a major strain on the servers, either by a) calculating percentages on every load of the statistics page, or b) requiring a major change in the software. Harryboyles 10:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Login across languages

As it currently stands you have to have a separate login to edit an article in a different language. As it has been explained to me this is because different languages have different administrations/rules. However, what would stop one login name from having access to all languages. The different rules and administrations would still apply to a specific language, but users who are able to edit multiple languages could do so with one login. Wikipediatoperfection 07:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea. It's been implemented but roll-out is stalled. See m:Help:Unified login. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 07:43Z

"Policy" in names of policies

(I previously posted this elsewhere, but it was too low-traffic.)

When we write new policies, can we avoid using the word "policy" in the name of the policy? Wikipedia:Attribution isn't any less of a policy even though it's not called "Wikipedia:Attribution Policy". For example, an alternative to "Wikipedia:Protection policy" might be "Wikipedia:Protection" or "Wikipedia:Article protection". —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 08:12Z

Possibly the difference is that "Wikipedia:Protection policy" is our policy regarding protection. "Wikipedia:Attribution" is the policy (ie that information must be, er, attributable) rather than our policy regarding attribution. --Cherry blossom tree 11:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, though I don't see significant difference between the two things you said. I think the reason currently some have "policy" in the name and some don't is simply because people named them arbitrarily. Anyway I'm more concerned about going forward. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 11:48Z

I'm scratching my head to see the difference as well. Consistency in titling is desirable, but I'm thinking it might be better to have "Policy" at the end of the name, when it is a policy, so that people recognise its importance (as opposed to an essay, for example). Tyrenius 02:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• In fact most of those pages with "policy" in the name predate the {{policy}} tag and indeed the entire classification. Hence the names were used for emphasis. >Radiant< 13:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that explains how we got where we are. Any objection to making titles consistent (one way or another)? —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-21 05:44Z

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of total stars

I have just started a article with the title mentioned above. Perhaps it would be interesting contributing\starting with me to this list; it might be fun if their is some kind of a competition between several users, to be on top of that list! Maybe some people would go and work harder, do more, contribute more, and vandalise less! So, what do you say?

the Old and respectable Kashwialariski 15:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This would only work if there were some sort of qualifying standard for the award of stars; as it is, they are given at random by editors at random to people whom they feel deserve them. At random. I like the concept in principle, but to make it work would entail the total formalisation of star awards, which I suspect many people would be unhappy with.--Anthony.bradbury 16:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would prefer a list of wikipedians per promoted featured or good articles (which do exist hidden somewhere). -- ReyBrujo 17:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No, barnstars are not a competition, and we should not make them into a popularity contest. This is a bad idea and should not continue. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Night Gyr.↔NMajdan•talk 21:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Night Gyr — Omegatron 00:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of total stars

Myspace on Wikipedia

I have seen a number of articles that list Myspace as either a reference or, more often, an external link. I can't help but think that that looks really unencyclopedic, linking to a site with more media-enhanced problems than Wikipedia and has basically zero credibility. Why is there nothing that says Don't link to Myspace? This would definitely increase our credibility (or at least our image of credibility.) Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS (Part of Wikipedia:Attribution now) does that job. It doesn't look well followed, seeing this(long load). I also noticed that you have to manually modify the URL in Special:Linksearch to change the number of links showed and search by namespace. Someone should fix that. Prodego ^talk 02:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Also WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided no. 10 specifically mentions myspace. Tyrenius 02:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

But as of the time I checked, there are 16,435 links to myspace form Wikipedia, so this obviously isn't enforced. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

But does that include userpages? Prodego ^talk 02:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It won't be enfored, it is a guideline, guidelines aren't enforced. Cbrown1023 talk 03:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "enforced" was too srong a word. It obviously isn't very implemented. As the template for the MoS pages states "Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines." I'm not seeing much heeding. And no, that count should only be article namespace, total, there are 22,610 links. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 03:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

ACtually, Iron Man (film)'s director has an official mySpace so that way fans will know what is really happening with the movie. So mySpace can by reliable. The Placebo Effect 02:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it's okay to link to the myspace page of the subject of an article, just as it's okay to link to a personal webpage. So a lot of the links are fine. What percentage, of course, is a different question. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a word for that - fancruft. Catering to the fan, and not to the general encyclopedia reader. Actually, the link to "Iron Man Movie Group on Myspace" in Iron Man (film) is rather inappropriate, because it doesn't really add anything to the encyclopedic value of the article. If someone else concurs with me, they should probably remove it, or we could talk about it. Gracenotes^T § 05:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the wording on WP:EL is a little unclear "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article" does this mean "a page about the subject" or only "the page is the subject." The more I read it, the more it seems like the latter. If it is, then links to myspace should really only be on articles where myspace is the "official website" or on Myspace. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 19:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Is only a guideline, and it should be followed as much as it can be. So if there's an official site that it updated relatively frequently, my rule of thumb is to remove any MySpace links (since it adds the social networking aspect, that an official site wouldn't have -- auxiliary forums don't count, since they are not irrevocably entangled with useful content. If the only official site is a MySpace, I either let it be, or carefully consider deletion according to guidelines. Gracenotes^T § 21:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, most articles that can only list myspace as a source or external link probably fail WP:ATT and WP:N anyway. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution is policy, which is why I mentioned it. However, there are legitimate uses (such as John Broughton's example). Using as a reference, and not just a link, is a problem if the page is not official. Prodego ^talk 03:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sidebar redesign

What ever happened to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign? It was so active in Spetember 2006, and then just sort of fizzed out without any explanation. Below is the final draft, if anyone fancies restarting the discussion. — Jack · talk · 07:06, Sunday, 18 March 2007

Original navigation Main page Contents Community portal Featured content Current events Recent changes Random article About Wikipedia Contact us Make a donation Help search   toolbox What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Printable version Permanent link Cite this article

Redesign navigate Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article search   interact Help Community portal Questions About Wikipedia Contact us Make a donation toolbox Cite this article Permanent link Printable version Related changes What links here Recent changes Special pages Upload file

Re-Redesign? navigate Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article interact Help Community portal Questions About Wikipedia Contact us Recent changes Make a donation search   toolbox What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Printable version Permanent link Cite this article

It was implemented in early December 2006, but was later reverted to do something or another. Gracenotes^T § 14:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

More correctly, someone tried to implement the parts of this that didn't require developer involvement, but doing so pushed down the search box to the point of causing display problems on small screens, and so was reverted. As I pointed out during the course of the Sidebar redesign discussion, changing the toolbox or creating a second box below the search box require developer effort. Since the developers aren't interested in this, nothing has changed. (And frankly the toolbox changes create so many cross-platform issues, that they might never be implemented even is a developer was interested.) Dragons flight 14:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Or you could say that the developers are interested in it if the community is... [Gracenotes mourns over the contrapositive] Gracenotes^T § 15:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. IMO, the proposed version is superior to the current version in many ways. Should we contact the developers again? Exactly what cross-platform issues will the implementation create? — Jack · talk · 22:28, Sunday, 18 March 2007

• Support. Oh hell, I'm ready to throw up my arms and let the simple draft be discussed/implemented.
  Since 3 of the links were merged into the single Wikipedia:Contents link, it's not as bad size-wise anyway. I've added a Re-Redesign draft above, which would be very easy to implement.
  The only thing that would require moving/discussion is where to put "Recent changes" link; I somewhat randomly selected above "Make a donation". Does that look good?
  (And thank, Jack, for updating the proposal page, and bringing this up again :) --Quiddity 06:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to say, I think I'd rather stick with the original redesign. The rationale behind the three boxes is "viewing encyclopedia" -> "running encyclopedia" -> "editing encyclopedia". Search should probably stay with viewing(navigation), and recent changes should stay with editing(toolbox), in amongst the none-contextual links(below the line). How can I inspire this idea in people? Should I make an announcement somewhere? — Jack · talk · 14:01, Wednesday, 21 March 2007

Eep! Just realised the current sidebar has grown by one link...look how bloated the navigation box is! It seriously needed to be cut into bitesize amounts; especially since there are the two key "featured" and "donate" buttons in there. We need people to push those ones! — Jack · talk · 14:18, Wednesday, 21 March 2007

I'd rather have the original redesign too, but the devs don't appear to have the time/workforce to implement it, so I was suggesting we go with the half-implementation for now. Many other Wikipedias have 2 nav boxes above the search, e.g. all 6 of the 250,000+ {{Wikipedialang}}uages do.

As for the new 'Contents' link, yeah, The Transhumanist pushed through his proposal above and then asked an admin to implement it this morning. I still stand by my disagreements listed at the proposal, and am annoyed by his tactics such as making a subheader purely to detour past my criticisms. I'd suggest pushing "Featured content" to the 2nd link placement, ahead of 'Contents'. --Quiddity 19:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

proposal: treatment database of case studies

why not set up a Wiki project whereby people enter in how they were treated / cured of various ailments or injuries. This will then end up being a huge repository of case studies, enabling people to see which treatments are effective.

This isn't really a proposal for Wikipedia. This is more a proposal for an entire new wiki. For that, see m:Proposals for new projects. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 17:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedias do not do their own studies, though this may be a good idea for a new wiki. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Although, like Wikipedia, it may be inaccurate—and we're dealing with medical advice, not just general knowledge, so I foresee some problems there. Gracenotes^T § 21:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Use WebCite for web references

WebCite is like the Internet Archive, but caches pages on demand, allowing you to cite the exact version that you viewed regardless of whether the page changes or goes offline. Should we be using this whenever we cite a webpage? — Omegatron 22:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

couldn't we integrate this into the {{cite web}} template, so that editors don't need to worry about it, and links better off without it (like exlinks and links to the New York Times for an article, for example) don't get it? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

well, now that I look, apparently they require you to attach yourself to each link you create, so they wouldn't quite work with something on the scale of wikipedia. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we should be careful about the use of outside products. WebCite may be a non-profit organization and free to individuals using it this way, but it is supported by publisher fees. Its copyright policy is that "Except for archived content, this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License." I see no reason why an editor may not choose to use this, but it should not be WP policy to incorporate requirements or expectations to use an outside service. I am not sure it has general acceptance. DGG 22:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it. The Internet Archive has been around for years, is pretty trustworthy, and in any case, is used as a last resource. Asking people to use it sounds like an advertisement for the site. -- ReyBrujo 22:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

couldn't we integrate this into the {{cite web}} template, so that editors don't need to worry about it

Exactly. It already has an archiveurl= parameter.

apparently they require you to attach yourself to each link you create

Meaning what?

The Internet Archive has been around for years, is pretty trustworthy, and in any case, is used as a last resource.

The Internet Archive only archives things that the Alexa toolbar finds, though, which leaves a lot of gaps. And it's usually only linked to after a site has gone offline, not when a site changes. WebCite creates an archive at the moment the page is cited. If we cite a page that later changes, our citation is no longer valid.

Asking people to use it sounds like an advertisement for the site.

WP:AGF? — Omegatron 18:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't archive automatically when you pass it a URL. It archives when you give it the command at a form, and that form requires you to enter an email address, where they email you when your archive is ready. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah. It would be great if we could just archive things automatically by linking to http://www.somearchivesite.org/thecurrenttimeinUTC/http://www.thesitetobecited.com/page.html

Also, I read through http://www.webcitation.org/faq (which also explains why Internet Archive isn't good enough), and the service is currently an academic project at the University of Toronto, with a Collective Commons-licensed site, so the advertisement accusation is unfounded. — Omegatron 19:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

alternative treatments to autoimmune diseases

    In Santa Fe our former ambassador to 

Canada, who had studied for 2 years in Japan with an Ho-shin master, has acheived some amazing results with a form of bee sting therapy that is a little bit like acupuncture, for several patients suffering from M.S. and arthritis. A lot of research has been done using bee therapy in Russia. Isn't it time to seriously examine this alternative form of therapy! Dr. Andrew Weil recently started working with an integrated program of medicine at UNM in Albuquerque that hopefully will be financially inclusive for practioners of alternative forms of medicine. Any thoughts or comments? How about posting ideas on the you tube with pet photos to increase the amount of access that the public has! Let's make science more available to the public and not have scientific journals be the only source of new information. KOKO the gorilla xxxooo

• • Recommend that we move the above to WP:BJAODN. Any objections? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think I've heard of bee sting therapy somewhere, but I just can't remember... bibliomaniac15 05:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposals: 1) Dynamic Searchable 'Intelligent' Keyword FAQ & 2) Watch Feature Renamed & 3) Mail & 4) 'Did You Mean' suggestion

1) Wikipedia should have an FAQ which allows a user to literally ask a question, and the site will direct the user to possible FAQ's that may answer their inquiry, based upon keywords in their question. Friendster.com has such an FAQ (when contacting customer service, any inquiry will be filtered through such a system).

2) The 'watch' feature is a great one, but its function is not entirely obvious. I recommend it either be renamed to, 'Watch This Article' or 'Add to Favorites' (or something to that effect).

3) I had new mail and didn't realize it until stumbling upon a small message informing me of this fact. Perhaps there should be a more localized place for new messages, such as "Check Messages", or "Inbox"

4) Before rejecting this suggestion, hear me out. I was told that there would not be enough processor power & servers available to achieve the following suggestion. Please read my suggestions on how to possibly achieve this at the end of this recommendation:

Wikipedia should have a "did you mean" feature when users search for a misspelled term, such as the one dictionary.com offers. If one looks up a word in dictionary.com and it is misspelled, the site offers several suggestions of words that the user may have meant to write. This will not only help people find the articles they are seeking, in an age where spelling is worsening due to computer spell checks, but will also help people find articles they seek that may be worded just a little differently than how they wrote their search term.

For example, 'Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis' is a word in the English language. But if one replaces the last vowel with an 'o' to yield: 'Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosos', then Wikipedia falls short of suggesting any similar terms.

I recommend using 'google' or dictionary.com some how (perhaps an agreement between wikipedia and the aforementioned) to achieve this. If Wikipedia doesn't have the processor power and servers, could it not take advantage of google's vast amount of servers? Could Wikipedia not run the search through a 3rd party? And how much power would it really take to run a search through a dictionary even, to at least check for probably spelling errors?

Sincerely, Danfogel 05:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Robots.txt keeps google out of AfD and a number of other places on wikipedia. We need an internal search for those. Search Suggestions are a perennial propose and just too taxing on the servers to implement. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Content Disclaimers

A new perennial proposal has come up at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(perennial_proposals)#Content_disclaimers. mrholybrain's talk 10:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• "new perennial" is an oxymoron. The same reasons as always apply against this. >Radiant< 13:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:UW redirects reminder

Hi,

Just a reminder for the strawpoll on WP:UW about redirecting the old user warnings templates to the new system which closes tomorrow. If you have any interest in this issue please leave your comments here. Original message. Cheers ^Khukri 10:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Academics on Wikipedia

I feel that academics should be allowed individual pages of their own on Wikipedia. This is because a lot of the research that they do is publicly funded and so they should be accountable for it. Wikipedia could help a lot in this, as it already exists. Academics working on particular fields could be searched for and their work examined by interested folk. I have noticed that a lot of less well known academicsa get deleted from the site based on their lack of fame. However, these academics tend to be famous in their own field and less well known outside of it. As such it seems strange to allow people to delete these articles just because they are not celebrity characters.
Could anybody explain this to me? If so what is the deletion policy.
Many Thanks. Synthesis for all 14:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Curious Gregor

As far as I'm concerned, I will not nominate anyone for deletion if they have a published research document under their belt. That, to me, is their notability. 99% of the world may not have heard of him or her, but that 1% of experts in that field may be more than familiar with the work or could be attempting to track down that very info. I agree with you: academics should be permitted to have their respective articles on Wikipedia per WP:PAPER. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 17:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed "spring cleaning" day

See User:Naconkantari/cleanup. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 15:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

New bot

Resolved

I'm no programmer, so perhaps a bot that removes links to no-longer-existant images? AdamBiswanger1 16:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:CommonsDelinker and User:OrphanBot (for images on Commons and Wikipedia, respectively) manage most of that work between them. --ais523 16:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's good to know. Thanks AdamBiswanger1 19:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Grammar editing

I think what we could really use, in addition to a Peer Review section, is a Grammar Review page. If an article is of solid quality, but the writing is somewhat less than adequate, it would be a handy place where wikipedians with strong grammar skills could give a PR'd page a good polish (prior to moving forward for FAC). Any thoughts on this? — RJH (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

{{copyedit}} ? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Free Images

As all images under a free license are being pushed over to commons, shouldn't we remove the free license templates and simply prohibit people from uploading anything but WP:FAIR images on enwiki, or is there something I'm missing here? mrholybrain's talk 02:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely you mean "shouldn't we remove the free use templates"? -Amarkov moo! 02:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct. mrholybrain's talk 12:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ideally yes mrholybrain. There is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Moving_free_images_to_Wikimedia_Commons, but there is a current problem with the "Upload file" link in the sidebar going to the upload form, so people tend to ignore the pointer to Commons and upload free media here anyway. I think the "Upload file" link should point to page (eg Wikipedia:Upload, which is currently a redirect) that directs people to the Commons upload form (for free material) or the Wikipedia upload form (for fair use material).--Commander Keane 08:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to add a bit to WP:NOT

I'm proposing to add a small subsection to Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. My proposed subsection merely states that Wikipedia articles should be summaries of their topics, not an exhaustive collection of every bit of data which exists on that topic, and that facts which are neither notable nor even interesting should not be included in a wikipedia article. While this may sound like a statement of something utterly obvious, it appears to exist nowhere within wikipedia policies or guidelines, and many new or inexperienced editors do indeed believe that adding every bit of info they can think of to an article is reasonable.

I am getting very little in the way of comments or feedback on this, so please drop by to WT:NOT#Proposal_to_add_to_Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information and support, oppose, or help amend what I'm trying to add. --Xyzzyplugh 07:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AVTRIVIA? Also, it's basically in there under WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Be careful what you wish for because triviality is often subjective. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

How about we add "Wikipedia does not need to present the same rule in different words"? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia in the classroom

Here's an idea I've had on the back burner for a while: given that an increasing number of university professors are assigning their students to edit Wikipedia article, are we ready to have a WikiProject where they can share strategies?[2] So far all that Wikipedia has done is document those examples. It looks like it could be very beneficial to this site (and to the educators) if there we created a place where they could get together and see what works best for their classrooms and for the encyclopedia. Durova^Charge! 17:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I though of such a project, however I was thinking that a separate dedicated wiki would be a better place for such a thing as it may wish to have a broader scope than Wikipedia. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a fantastic idea. Wikipedia:Students' notice board, anyone? Keeping it on Wikipedia will make coordination easier than on an outside wiki.--Pharos 17:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I think WikiProject format is more suitable than noticeboard format, unless you're thinking of something different. My primary idea was to make this a forum where professors and teachers can share strategies for incorporating Wikipedia assignments into their classrooms. Within that project the students might have their own section to coordinate their end of the work. Durova^Charge! 17:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I only suggested a noticeboard as noticeboards tend to be defined by their members (such as the noticeboards for citizens of different countries), while wikiprojects are defined by their subject areas. But either way, I totally agree with the concept.--Pharos 18:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good point. The difference I see is that country noticeboards are useful for active Wikipedians but many of these people would be new users or infrequent contributors: educators who are intrigued by the project and need just enough information to structure a classroom assignment. So instead of ongoing developments this would address the same issues multiple times. WikiProject format fills that need although I'm receptive to any better idea that comes along. Durova^Charge! 13:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The project idea is good. It is a subject based idea, not a group based idea because regular Wikipedians will be able to give inputs on the ideas the teachers have, which lets face it are not always compatible with our goals. It will give us a forum to guide their lessons into something that is compatible and beneficial to Wikipedia. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It would be very good to have a place where seasoned Wikipedians can help the professors and teachers understand the site better so their assignments are compatible with our policies. A couple of months ago we had a ruckus when one instructor issued a classroom assignment to vandalize Wikipedia. That led to Jimbo's direct involvement and one of our administrators quit. Proactive community involvement should head off that kind of problem and facilitate more productive contributions. I'd be very happy if more students were improving Wikipedia from their university libraries, and if my recollections from my own student days haven't grown too hazy, I think my class assignments would have felt more meaningful if they'd actually been published. Durova^Charge! 18:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#WikiProject_classroom_coordination Sign up if you're interested and we'll get this off the ground. Durova^Charge! 18:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent idea. I seem to recall a similar page being set up over a year ago, but the issue was less pressing then and it kind of fizzled out. I'll see if I can locate it. >Radiant< 10:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do. I anticipate part of what this project would do is organize information about classroom Wikipedia assignments, sorting things by assignment type and educational level which would be more useful than the chronological arrangement for an instructor who's planning a syllabus. Anything relevant that's already onsite would help. Durova^Charge! 16:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD template change

I have proposed a change in an AfD template. Please comment at Template talk:REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD. —dgies^t_c 17:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (science)

A poll is underway at Wikipedia talk:Notability (science) concerning whether or not this guideline currently enjoys general support from the community. Please feel free to join the discussion. Mangojuice^talk 20:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I will second this. I support this proposed guideline but am happy to see it genuinely ruled on by the community as a whole and not just by those of us who have worked on it. --EMS | Talk 02:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, no, that's not at all how it works. Guidelines aren't "ruled on" by anyone, nor are they created through polling. Rather, there is discussion ongoing on the page. At the moment there do not seem to be any real arguments against the page, but one or two editors object on grounds that process wasn't followed (regardless of the fact that the process they refer to doesn't actually exist). Comments are of course welcome. >Radiant< 09:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Actually, I do think the "discussion" that should have been happening was being treated as a poll, but naturally what we want is a discussion: does WP:SCIENCE have community support or not, and should it be a guideline? Mangojuice^talk 12:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Christian hymns

I note that many articles in this category contain the full lyrics to the hymn, which is source text and really should belong in wikisource. Should we do something about this? Comments please. >Radiant< 08:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: explain abbreviations on "User Contributions" page

OK, I'm a fairly new contributor, and I look at my "User Contributions" page, and I see various abbreviations apparently indicating something about my contributions. But I can't find where they are explained.

So I propose that they be explained right at the bottom of that page, every time it is displayed. I think that could be done in just a single line.

The specific abbreviations I'm referring to are:

• top -- this one is fairly obvious. And I did eventually find an explanation.
• m -- still don't know what this means.
• hist -- history of changes. Guessable, but should be explained.
• diff -- difference between revisions. Also guessable, but should be explained.

Having an explanation of these right on the page would be helpful for new contributors.

I think something like the following would be sufficient:

top=most recent edit.     m= something???.     hist= revision history.     diff=Difference between revisions.

T-bonham 13:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's main aim

Rather than providing free knowledge to everybody on the globe, shouldn't Wikipedia's main aim be to provide in-depth free information. I think Wikipedia, rather than striving to create more articles, should focus on making the articles it already has as Featured Articles. What do people think? Ahadland 13:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps true, but directing everyone's efforts to this end is a futile task if you ask me. AdamBiswanger1 14:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please state why you feel that way? Id rather have 1.6 million featured article, than 3.2 million stubs. Wouldn't you? Ahadland 15:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Easy to say, harder to do. I take credit for 1 featured article and 2 featured lists. I've probably edited several thousand other articles. If those are your priorities, by all means walk the walk. Durova^Charge! 16:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, but I don't see how we could direct the efforts of someone who likes writing articles about obscure cricket players into someone who likes sharpening language and finding sources and references. There are those who enjoy writing and editing within their interests, and then there are those who enjoy improving the encyclopedia because they are passionate about it. The latter are much less common, and they are willing to do what you ask. But making the former into the latter would be a herculean task. The way to achieve this, or at least try to achieve it is a separate question. Advertising? Incentives? Who knows, but convincing users to delve into the nitty-gritty fact-checking, organization, and reference-finding work needed for and FA seems futile. AdamBiswanger1 16:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ye but we could still direct our efforts into achieving that, try and make users passionate. One way we could do this is by leaving templates on their talk pages, such as, to use your example, if you are interested in cricket players please consider looking at and cleaning these: Article here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahadland1234 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

That wouldn't help me: I know almost nothing about cricket. Durova^Charge! 16:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you could make it a personal habit of yours to solicit the help of users toward specific articles that you think deserve more information. That would be just fine, and I have several personal practices myself that are like that. But to embark on a widespread campaign toward this end would waste time that is better served editing the encyclopedia. I'm glad to see you interested in and passionate about Wikipedia, though. AdamBiswanger1 16:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo made a comment to exactly that effect. He wished that we could have a hundred thousand featured articles by the end of 2007. Not gonna happen, but it's a good sentiment. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Journalism noticeboard?

Here's another dish that's been simmering on my back burner: a lot of mainstream journalism articles about Wikipedia either contain factual mistakes (such as failure to distinguish between editors, administrators, and arbitrators) or overlook features and developments (such as stories about vandalism that fail to mention semi-protection, anti-vandal bots, and plans to adapt the German Wikipedia's stable versions feature into the English language site). In fairness to those hardworking members of the press, they operate on tight deadlines and may not have sufficient time to learn the knowledge a devoted Wikipedian acquires over months or years.

So would it be practical to implement a journalism noticeboard where they could post factual questions and get answers from Wikipedians? I foresee a couple of pitfalls here: journalists normally ask these questions through private channels and need a contact's full name. Also there's a risk of the page getting abused by disruptive users. But if experienced editors provide verifiable diffs and links, if journalists provide their bona fides, and if some of the discussion follows up via e-mail, then this might be useful. The main advantage is that this could provide more and speedier answers than a query to a particular contact who might not receive it until after press time.

What are your thoughts? Would the benefits be worth it and could we resolve the pitfalls? Durova^Charge! 16:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

downlaod.wikiepdia.org other way of downloading

it has come to my attention that download.wikipedia.org isn't frequently updated nor gives it very specific downloads. SO what I would love to do is in fact make special downloads for every 'portal' on the site. I'm modest opinion, I think that it will save some GB's on the traffic counter.

And the structure isn't quit user-friendly when unpacked in a directory. So I would propose the make a directory structure that is very clear:

/root index.html

---

sub-portal directory exemple

/portal1 -/a-z directory --/images ---/images display html files ---/images —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Webscriptz (talk • contribs) 18:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC).