Wikipedia talk:Village pump

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

This page is for discussion about the village pump only. You may want one of the village pump subpages below, or one of the links on the village pump main page. Irrelevant discussions will be moved or removed.

« Archives, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_maintenance#Village_pump

Archives:

• Archive 1 (Aug 23, 2002 -to- Feb 08, 2003)
• Archive 2 (Feb 8, 2003 to Aug 8, 2003, contains history of this talk page)
• Archive 2A (Aug 8, 2003 -to- Mar 27, 2004)
• Archive 3 (Mar 15, 2004 -to- Sep 08, 2004)
• Archive 4 (Sep 08, 2004 -to- Jun 02, 2005)
• Archive 5 (Nov 08, 2004 -to- Jan 07, 2007)
• Archive 6 (Jan 12, 2007 -to- Dec 31, 2007)

we have permission to use text now what?

We made an article on Maurice Watts and now they say we violated some sort of GFDL policy becuase it contains text from his fan club site. This is because we run his fan club. We have Mr. Watts permission to use all of the text posted. How do we get the notice removed from our page? All4love312 (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The instructions you'll need are at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Copyright_owners_who_submitted_their_own_work_to_Wikipedia. Basically, you can either put a note on the fan club page that permits the content to be reused under the GFDL or you can e-mail permissions-en at wikimedia dot org from an address associated with the fan club. Tra (Talk) 17:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

OK Mr. Watts is having the fan club place the notice on thier page and his official site. The problem we have now is where's the page? Will we have to retype all of the text we spent time typing up or will Wikipedia simply un-delete the page?All4love312 (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Once you have put the put the notice up, tell me where it is (either by posting here or if I don't see it, on my talk page) and I'll see about undeleting the article. Tra (Talk) 18:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Very important question about notable people editing their own article

Okay let's say I was some celebrity or whatever and wanted to add information on my own article....Would I need to have a reliable source to back up my claims? I'm pretty sure if I was the celebrity the most reliable source would be me. Like let's say I wanted to add info on my childhood, or if I was in a rock band I'd add info on how the band came to be, etc. what would I need to include to prove that I'm telling the truth? Radiohumor (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's best for people to not edit articles about themselves. A person could edit the talk page for the article, and post links to sources there. I believe that anyone can cut stuff for BLP reasons at anytime, including the subject of the article. Dan Beale-Cocks 00:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay but let's say I was like Robert Plant in Led Zeppelin and wanted to edit my article, something about my childhood, stuff that happened like 50 years ago, how would I get a source for that? Radiohumor (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You would make sure your official biographer included it (and good biographers would cross-check with relatives or other sources who were around at the time), then once the book is published, you have a reference. Otherwise, the material has to be left out of Wikipedia. Remember, it is very difficult to prove that an editor claiming to be a particular person in the real world actually is that person. dramatic (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you ******* serious? So to make a small little edit I have to make a bigass autobiography about me? We need to change this rule. Radiohumor (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The source doesn't necessarily have to be a biography; it could be a quick mention in a news article, for example. There just needs to be some way to reliably verify that the material being added is true and is not being made up. Tra (Talk) 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs everything to be from verifiable reliable sources. Bob might know what he did in 1986, but Bob can't add that information to the article about Bob unless it's in a source. It's probably a good idea if Bob doesn't make any edits to the article about Bob, but makes mentions on the talk page. The exception would be 'BLP' vio stuff, which anyone can remove at anytime. Dan Beale-Cocks 23:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing the Jack Morton page =

{{help me}} by having independent review of the Jack Morton Worldwide page, which I'm barred from editing, but has received edits from others. I believe this qualifies for review of both of the page's flags which regard conflict of interest and "this page is written like an advertisement." JMorton (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I will look into it.--Kerotan^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 14:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You could use the article talk page unless specific editing restrictions prevent the use of the article talk page too. If you can, it would be useful as it'll help keep track of all comments, requests and such, in one location. Nick (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright query

What is the copyright status of images taken by the RAF? I'd like to use image #2 from here in an article about the ship. Please copy any answer to my talk page. Mjroots (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

---

I do belive there are some pages here that could clear that up. Take some time and search around for it Darkmaster2004 (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

First articles

What was the very first article on Wikipedia as well as

• 1,000,000th
• 2,000,000th?

LOTRrules (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

See Category:Milestone Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. LOTRrules (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"Coenwulf of Mercia" , a registered one , is now translated into french

Hark , hark!! the translation is now available in modern french , and even intelligible to lay people . If somebody knows the father , the uncle should like to present him the baby . Please rise & shine ! --Arapaima (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive search link made

Please see the suggestion at Template talk:Villagepump#Village pump section search links, for adding an (already created) quick-link for searching the archives, to the main header template. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

not sure where to post this

Panrimo. This article needs to be deleted. It was made by a user also named Panrimo. Obvious self promotion. gotta go. vandalism high. JOIN THE WP:CVU!!!--AtTheAbyss (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Physics Editor or New Policy needed on Wave Power

I am disclosed as conflicted on Wave Power for www.gewp.org . Wave Power needs a serious re-write; it has become a link farm. I work hard on WP. Could someone take a serious look at http://www.gewp.org, my one outside, pro bono, non-profit, public domain, charitable work, and then summarize the GEWP proposal, post it on Wave Power, and stay around to defend it from being removed and called "a hoax or worse"? I'm on this Village pump page because I orginally suggest a policy change for WP, where someone (like me) who has fully disclosed his identity and conflict should not be at the mercy of an anonymous editor who might have a vested interest in an opposing view, such as continuing to burn oil and coal for eternity (for profit). Wave Power is very important as a reference under Alternative Energy. As it stands now, given the link farm, and given the esoteric programs highlighted in the article, and given WP's authority amongest students, teachers, researchers, lay public, etc., one is lead to believe that the large scale harvesting of ocean waves is is "a hoax or worse". You will need to roll back the Talk Page on the article, because I reverted to a time before GEWP was being discussed. Doug Youvan , doug@youvan.com , info@gewp.org aka 100TWdoug (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Don't revert talk pages, that's probably very bad. Is GEWP mentioned in any reliable source? If so they should be mentioned here. A user on the talk page mentions the need for clearing up the external links; did that ever happen? Dan Beale-Cocks 09:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone heard of a tool that measures.....

Mainspace articles edited by a particular user ranked by number of edits:

For instance, [1] gives me my top 15 mainspace articles edited by editcount. Is there a tool to get the top 100 or whatever? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Try this - maybe it helps : http://tools.wikimedia.de/~tim/cgi-bin/contribution-counter?page=vidarbha&namespace=Articles&dbname=enwiki_p

--gppande «talk» 11:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have that already - sorry if I didn't clarify properly. My edits to all articles ranked by number of edits on each article. Thanks for helping out. I might see if that directory has anything else there. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, I didn't understand the thing earlier. If you get anything like that do let me know too. It would be really nice to have such a tool. gppande «talk» 14:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

William J. Wallace: New Article

The article William J. Wallace is in the process of being created by a user now. It has no references whatsoever, and I cannot find anything on the Internet to suggest it is legitimate. The only other hit is here on Wikipedia at St. Michael's Basilica, with many contributions by the same editor as the newly created article above. One other hit which will eventually show up in Google is ALS, which is where I first became aware of this new article.

I'm a bit of a skeptic by nature, but that doesn't mean the article is not legitimate. What's an editor to do? Isaacsf (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's obviously an essay, not permitted here on the 'pedia. It lacks verifiable references. You can put the {{notability}} and {{references}} templates at the top. Or you could nominate it for deletion. Other editors may have other suggestions. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Shortcut for VP:ALL?

Can we have a shortcut for the "all" village pump, like WP:VPALL? — Omegatron 16:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

AddPortletLink()

Hello! Today I got four to five javascript messages "AddPortletLink()" everytime I wanted to load a new WP page. I then removed all of my monobook codes, which solved the problem. Is there a possibility to avoid this message AND using some monobook codes?
Kind regards, Tirkfl (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I am having the same problem, all of a sudden this started happening. Solution anyone? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about Wikipedia "API"?

How are websites like www.musicwn.com and www.mog.com getting Wikipedia content to show up?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.90.107 (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

They could have downloaded a copy of the wikipedia database dump or are sending queries to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php (wikipedia's api) and are downlading pages as they are needed (which is really not allowed) or they could just have copy/pasted articles over, which would require prober attribution. For more info on the api try searching mediawiki.org or going to the api.php page above. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 13:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of pages

Recently my watch page list has been clogged up with several edits, notably deletions of pages which redirect to real articles, such as "In Soviet Russia, Wikipedia finds you" is redirected to Soviet Union, gets deleted and then shown as one of many ugly red links in the watch list. So these vandals creating these nonesense pages are clogging up people's watchlists with the subsequent deletions. Can something be done to stop this? Its annoying, or rapidly block the vandals. Tourskin (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but the obvious suggestion is not to watch pages you don't want to see changes to. I personally love seeing the deletion log notice for articles in my watchlist - I only watch a few hundred articles and it's nice to see when one's deleted so I can stop worrying about it (if I requested it) or investigate why it was deleted (if I missed the AfD/speedy notice). --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 07:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Red dotted border in diffs

The red dotted border that has begun showing up in diffs today is distracting and confusing; please remove it. Badagnani (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am robotman here to help. Assign a task on the Wikipedia and I will promptly complete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.103.45 (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Plot summaries

Why do plot summaries in several video game articles seem to have been cut down to a synopsis? The detailed descriptions of plots were ridiculously useful when trying to find out about a film, TV show or video game. Particularly for when there was something in the story that was missed or misunderstood.

As if the removal of trivia sections wasn't bad enough. Wikipedia is now officially useless for the media as pages basically just consist of information from IMDB and review scores from rotten tomatoes or metacritic or something now. Brilliant. 86.29.39.199 (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Need help with editing my userpage-userboxes

I need help editing my userpage. I currently added a whole lot of userboxes to the first two sections of my userpage. Now, it looks all disorganized. Please help clean it up a bit, yet keep everything still on the page plz. Maybe even add some text, to go along with it too. I don't spend a whole lot of time on Wikipedia, and currently my job is requiring me to work a lot more hours.User:Byankno1 Chris Batchelor(Byankno1) 01:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

GA vs. A

I never really undestood a thing: looking at all the projects, the A rating is considered superior to the GA rating. However, the GA rating has been offered a lot more "style" (logo, nominations page, etc), and usually that would make people, especially those that are not very familiar with the system, think the GA is better than A (at least I did). Is there any (good) reason why A is superior to GA? diego_pmc (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia cited

I just watched a programme on the telly which featured the presenter searching Wikipedia for an article. Can anyone let me know if there's a template to add to that particular article's talk page (or if it should be added elsewhere). Thanks Craigy (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My grandson has just been diagnosed with Stereotypy. I have tried to get my hands on anything that could help me understand this malady.

I am not finding his symptoms that I have read about this conditions.

He is extremely bright. Quick intellegent responces that belie his just turning 7. He has been doing the same thimng since he was an infant. Now it is much worse. His whole body stiffens up and he begins to make a moaning sound that is now getting louder.

He is aware that it is happening, but is unable to stop until it is over. It is almost like a mini seasure.

He would like to stop. He is questioned about it at school and has resigned to telling his friend that he will "out grow it".

The fact that this has been going on since he was 2 to 3 months old, tells me that it is involentary.

Does thi ssound to anyone like Stereotypy? Can anyone think os anything other conditions that exhibit these same symptoms?

I will be most grateful for any input. Diana S. Lane diana@frontierlending.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.203.77 (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

wiki help

why doesn't wikimedia put all it's prodgeton a downloadable version avialable to download online so you can use wikimedeia offline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.6.58 (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

dance education

IDisasterpooh (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Đs there really dance schools that promote dance educations?

I like wikipedia Ironman88988 (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Messed up jumble of HTML?

Hello, I am a contributor to the Wikipedia article Katara, and recently I have been having trouble wih some HTML on the page. Right below where the references are cited, there is a section entitled, Appearence in other media. I have tried multiple times to sort out this HTML so that it will work, but to no avail, eventually I gave up on the idea and tried removing the entire section as it contained a very minute amount of information that could be replaced shortly after. However, once I deleted the section, the entire reference list was deleted as well, even though they are in different sections. If someone could un-tangle the HTML or figure out how to get rid of it without deleting the references I would be most thankful.([[User talk:Kurowoofwoof111|talk]]) (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

==Assistance required== I have noted the actions of one editor who appears to be on a campaign to remove images. Despite the many challenges to his actions, he is relentless in identifying images for deletion. Please check the edit history of User:Fasach Nua who does not seem to make any substantive editing other than challenges and deletions. Bzuk (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC).

I thought this page was for discussion of the village pump itself. My first impression is that the editor in question relies too much on the WP:BRD style of editing, but VP talk is not the place for Dispute Resolution. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have redirected this request to the Administrators' Noticeboard. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC).

Editing Conflicts between edits

I have found a technical problem with Wikipedia. Often, I am editing articles and talk pages. I go to save the page, but somebody had already edited the page before me, and I loose all the information I was going to add. I think there should be a way to have Wikipedia keep your edit in the raw form, so you know what you did, and if the two edits do not conflict, you could copy and paste your edit without having any conflict. I hope that maybe something can a be resolved. Thank You! --Ŵïllî§ï$2 (^Talk!/_Cont.) 13:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation needed in conflict!

Hello! I hope this is the proper place to post this. I have came across a conflict with an participant in the talk-page of List of Swedish queens. The conflict is about which peopple should be included. Simple enough, as it may seem, there is an issue about this. In the 15th century, the Swedish regents did not have the title of king, nor did their wifes have the formal title of queen. The regents did, however, have the independent position of a king, as did their wifes have the position of queens, and for this reason, the regents are given a place in the list of kings in history. This is the policy chosen in the list of kings in both Swedish and English wikipedia, and until resently, the regent consorts have, accordningly, been given the same place in the list of queens, both in Swedish and English Wikipedia.

Now, this have been questioned by a user in both wikipedias. I have suggested that the matter should be treated with a majority vote, but the user refuses to respect this. Instead, he simply changes the revision-history of the article. This is a discussion which is also going on at the same article on Swedish Wikipedia at the moment. There, the majority are so far in favor of including, in policy with the fact that the regents are included in the list of kings, with the condition that the regent consorts are marked in some way, just as the regents, are, indeed, in the list of kings. Oddly, he does not seem to wish to exclude the regents from the list of kings. I have tried to ask him why he will not accept my suggestion of a majority vote. On Swedish wikipedia, he has told me that he is not interested to discuss with a non registered user. I would respect a majority descision no matter what the outcome. I hope that someone is villing to help. All I ask, is that he could respect the need for a majority vote. Please, could some one take part in the discussion, no matter what opinion, and ask him to at least respect a majority descision. Regards--85.226.235.208 (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please ban User:Bg007

User:Bg007 is offensive and xenophobic, his edit log I believe claims that edits by me have been "anti-Serbian" and on my talk page he has said that "If someone is rasist that is Croats.If you don't know facts don't write." I am not a Croat or of any Balkan heritage but I see him as promoting intolerance. His openly discriminatory and predjudiced views towards Croats declaring them all racists is unacceptable. I request that he be banned immediately.--R-41 (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Parson's Function Question

I would like to discuss with someone who is an EXPERT on PARSON FUNCTIONS how to get them "activated" on a site other than Wikipedia. - Ixthis888 (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Translating infrastructure (e.g. image EXIF metadata boxes)

Hi - I'm new to translating... I noticed that the translation of the Wikipedia infrastructure (tab headings, exif data field descriptors, etc.) are incomplete for the Afrikaans language. I would like to improve this aspect, but can't find out where one can change or improve the translation of actual Wikipedia infrastructure. Just to reiterate -- I'm not talking about translating the content of articles, but rather translating the wikipedia navigation and infrastructure text -- Can someone point me in the right direction? FMalan (talk) 07:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I am being harassed by User:Bg007

User:Bg007 is accusing me of being "anti-Serbian" and that I am somehow "denying" war crimes committed by the fascist regime in Croatia against Serbs in World War II. This is completely false and irritating. I have NEVER done such a thing, and I have personally known and have been friends with a number of Serbs, including a high school teacher I had. I have told him this and advised him to stop attacking me some time ago, but he has refused to listen. His accusations against me are the result of me mentioning with a reference to the UN war crimes tribunal that claims that the Serbian government sources exaggerated losses in the 1990s Balkans wars to rally their people to the government's side during the wars. I ask that he be given a warning not to continue this uncivil behaviour.--R-41 (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Category

{{editprotected}} The main village pump page currently is a member of Category:Wikipedia community forums; however, that category has been moved to Category:Wikipedia noticeboards. Please update the category link accordingly. --Russ (talk) 10:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 03:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Headings and subheadings

I have seen two forms of headings in articles. Instead of using = signs, I'll express them with +.

++Example++ ++ Example ++

There is a space between the 'equal' signs, is there any difference? Tentimesone (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Tentimesone

There's no difference between them. Use whichever you prefer. Tra (Talk) 17:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested Move

See proposal in subsection below.

From Village Pump (proposals)

Why is this place [the Village pump] named what it is? People have to read the image caption on the main page to understand it. How about something more straightforward, like "Community Message Board" or at least "Village pump (Community message board)" (or maybe "Village pump: Community message board")? --WikiWes77 (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one, we have 5 village pumps, "Wikipedia:Village pump: Community message board/proposals" (WP:VPCMB/PR) is too long a name. Otherwise, its pretty much just tradition. Its been called the Village Pump for a long time. Mr.Z-man 21:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What about just "Community message board" or just "Message board"? That would be more friendly to new users. Old users are used to "Village pump", but I think that with a re-direct, another name should be fine.

And I noticed this is categorized as a "Notice board". --WikiWes77 (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, I believe that the term "village pump" is clearer than "community x" (noticeboard, orwhatever). For one thing, community x doesn't clarify if it's for the community, by the community, of the community, etc.

That and I think there's something to be said about "uniqueness" in naming, sometimes. - jc37 00:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

How about just "general discussion" or "discussions"? I'm rather attached to the tradition too, but that doesn't mean it isn't a bad and unclear name. Dcoetzee 01:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Village pump? What's that? Where Wikipedians go to order water? "General discussion" would be OK with me. However, we could keep the "Village" part. "Village discussions"? "Village noticeboard"? --WikiWes77 (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A village pump is a water well powered by a pump. Villagers in the past used to congregate and discuss matters at the village pump as there was often a long queue for the water, it usually being one of the few places for water in that village. The name is fairly apt, not that I'd be opposed to renaming. x42bn6 Talk Mess 02:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone understands that context. I didn't when I was a new user. Like I said, people may have to read the image caption on the main page to understand it. When people look at a link, they ought to have an idea what the page is about. In addition to my last couple suggestions, we could consider "Village talk", since it's basically a general talk page. --WikiWes77 (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this page, strangely enough, goes against Wikipedia:Naming conventions, if it can be applied to this namespace. However, if we can't agree on a new name for it, we can always create re-direct pages with better descriptions. --WikiWes77 (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really a message board, it's a forum. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 20:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support changing the name to "Message board". Village pump may be confusing for non-native English language speakers, and they may think that "Village pump" is a water pump. doña macy [talk] 16:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support I'm not really against the current name, but it is a bit misleading. I'd be interested to know how many users see a link to this page, but believe it is about something completely different to what it actually is. I know I did. Someone had to point me in this direction. I know what Village Pump means in that sense, but it's not clear as to how it's applied here on Wikipedia. I don't care how it's done, just something to make things more clear. What's the point in tradition, when people are being confused by it? --.:Alex:. 16:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, a link to it is included in user welcome templates, so it's common. --WikiWes77 (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose We already have a Community portal so renaming the pump to something similar would be confusing. Renaming it something like Discussion board may invite to much discussion of the debate/bulletin board sort that we don't allow. Rmhermen (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - it isn't that hard to figure out. We don't have to reduce everything to the lowest possible level. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The name fits fairly well, in my opinion. The main WP:VP page explains why it's called what it is, and it also, when you think about it, is a place where the Wikipedia "village" pumps out new ideas to improve things. Changing the name would be a bit too much work, considering all the different ones we have and all their archives (No, it probably won't kill the servers (although it may slow them down), but that's not the point), and further keeping in mind that you're going to confuse the hell out of people who expect the village pumps to be where they are. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 04:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A move automatically generates a re-direct from the old name, so it shouldn't be a problem. Please see the discussion above the "support" and "oppose" notes. --WikiWes77 (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• I would prefer keeping it as it is; a new user looking for centralised discussion will most likely hit the "Community portal" option in the "interaction" menu first of all, and Wikipedia:Community Portal has a link and description of it right at the top. I suppose there are bots that could manage mass-moving of archives if desired, though. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 08:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Not necessary per tiny plastic Grey Knight. Kusma (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Village message board sound good. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Village does not make the rename much clearer. If you wanted to make it clear it should be Community message forum 70.51.8.222 (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with 70.51.8.222 - where's the logic in removing "pump" but leaving "village". I don't see any reason to change the name. JPG-GR (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read the discussion above, you would see better. I kept the "Village" in my proposal because of the tradition associated with the pages. It also implies, similar to "Community", that it is a place for the Wikipedia community. "Pump" does little or nothing to let new users know what it really is. --WikiWes77 (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I read the discussion. But, as my userpage is not a hut, "village" doesn't seem to work. JPG-GR (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. I don't want a Wikipedia where everything has become genericized. It is a slightly obtuse name and is made intriguing by being so. I find it hard to believe that anyone is really confused by it and I see no evidence for the same. On the confusion front, changing it will leave thousands, maybe tens of thousands of named links to the Village Pump confused by redirecting to a different name.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You may be right about people not being confused, but there is always a need for explanation text accompanying the Village pump link for new users. --WikiWes77 (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - JPG-GR is right about how leaving village is slightly illogical; if we're going to keep tradition, keep the whole name. Just make it more clear in the templates that this is the place to come for a certain of advice - that is far more useful to readers of all competence in English. Compare "for help regarding policy and technical matters, go to WP:QZTVVD" with "we have a cool Village Community Messageboard!" for usefulness in finding help regarding policy and technical matters. Knepflerle (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Withdrawn -It looks like the proposal has failed. That's okay. However, I want to see what people think about a merge proposal with Wikipedia:Help desk. See the Help desk talk page. --WikiWes77 (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

New listed proposal: Village message board

The above is my proposal (Village pump would re-direct to Village message board). --WikiWes77 (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Even bolder proposal: dump the pump

Just a thought - our community has long outgrown village size, and many villages now have running water anyway - let's replace our own village pump pages with something that works better. I doubt that they genuinely serve as a central forum, simply because editors are likely to be loathe to include them on their watchlists, given the amount of diverse traffic they generate. We already have centralized lists of discussions - {{cent}}, the community bulletin board (in fact just one of these would be quite enough) - we don't need to have a centralized place for discussions. Discussions should take place on the relevant talk page (or a specially created page), then they could be watched by the people most interested in them, without watchlists getting clogged up with irrelevancies. Matters which really are of community-wide interest could then be simply advertised (with just one edit per topic) on the centralized list, which I guess many more editors would be willing to watch, or at least visit regularly.--Kotniski (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There is redundancy in the Wikipedia help pages. It's probably a good idea to merge some of them. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Integration. I've proposed a merger of the Village pump and Wikipedia:Help desk. See the Help desk talk page. --WikiWes77 (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandals

We now have a Wikiproject started and operated by sock puppets – Wikipedia:WikiProject Brahmoism. There is an invitation to join this project which reads as follows:

==Project Brahmo==

Perhaps all the Brahmo vandals and other species of puppets should sit and discuss these things. To help out, start from here: WP:Brahmo, Make Love not War. Project brahmo (talk) 11:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This ad is on Talk:Keshub Chunder Sen page. User:Ronosen was blocked indefinitely – Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ronosen. The blocked user is a heretic propagandist without the support of even a single Wikipedian till date. His own organisation Brahmo Samaj or any branch of it does not allow him a free hand to express his views (that are deemed original research in Wikipedia). As a result he has been vandalising Wikipedia pages pushing his POVs and throwing out those of others.

All persons involved are possible new sock puppets.

For more information on Ronosen, please see Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Rono Sen

An open project by sock puppets ia making Wikipedia ludicrous On the Brahmoism projeect page he is seeking discussions amongst sock puppets of his own on such subjects as follows:

Current Brahmoism controversies:

• Who founded the Brahmo Samaj?
• Who founded the Brahmo religion ?
• Are Keshab'ites Brahmos ?

My questions are: 1. Is Wikipedia a right platform for such debates? 2. Can one blocked vandal, carry on his propaganda war in such a manner? 3. Is Wikipedia powerless against such high technology on slaught by a blocked vandal? - Brahmachari (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Is Brahmoism a real and notable thing (regardless of whether you consider them heretics or not)? If so, then a Wikiproject to improve related articles — not to promote the religion itself, which is never the goal — seems appropriate. As to whether these particular users should be in the Wikiproject, or working on the encyclopaedia itself, I do not know. What are your opinions on the separate issues? Your comment is a little blurred on the distinction above, as I read it. As to your question #3, Wikipedia is not powerless against any vandal; nor is any wiki, providing it has enough people willing to undo a piece of vandalism. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 14:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I see a claim that Brahmoism is one of 9 legally recognised religions in India; if so, that would seem sufficient to make them notable enough for a WikiProject to exist. If, for example, a user has previously been blocked for edit-warring over Brahmoism-related articles and now wishes to engage in discussion with people regarding what should go in, that will probably look well for him on an unblock request. He shouldn't try to dodge around his block in order to do so, obviously. Finally, WikiProjects are for anyone interested in improving the relevant articles; this does not mean that you have to agree or be aligned with the topic itself. For instance, members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia do not need to be living in Australia, or have ever done so, they just need to be willing and able to make contributions to Australia-related articles. If you have useful material to contribute to Brahmoism-related articles, maybe you could join a Brahmoism WikiProject yourself? --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 14:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The 3 controversies on WP:Brahmo which trouble User:Brahmachari also trouble many other Brahmo editors. Is it not better that they are discussed in a WikiProject rather than on the talk pages of vandalised articles. As we have seen at Keshub Chaunder Sen all the Brahmo factions (there are at least 5) are sufficiently armed with RS citations in favour of their own POV. Also, whoever did the RFCU and blocked User:Ronosen as a SPA with "his" 15 accounts was sloppy, only 12 of them were SPAs (or a mix of SPA and multiple accounts) (with 3 innocent bystanders also blocked) which were maintained by 2 Brahmo factions in the ratio of 10:2. They were probably blocked for using zombie IPs associated with Ronosen rather than for Sockpuppetry. Finally, "I" was never "Ronosen" but with the other faction. If User:Brahmachari is so concerned that the WP:Brahmo collaborators are SPAs, let him file a formal request.Reformedbrahmovandal (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I moved this discussion to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Wikipedia:WikiProject Brahmoism to get more commenters. Please direct further discussion there. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 07:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda & Partiality

I would like to express my dissapointment concerning the system on which the english wikipedia's function seems to be based on. Countless political points with no or irrelevant references are kept, as well as articles that based on the conventionts the wikipedia community has made itself should not exist.

And in order to prove my point,

1) As clearly stated at MOSMAC "In articles dealing with the predominant ethnic group of the Republic of Macedonia Use "Macedonians" (only if the meaning is unquestionably clear) or "ethnic Macedonians", " In articles where there is a need to distinguish the aforementioned ethnic group from the other ethnic groups inhabiting Macedonia Use "Macedonian Slavs" or "Slavic Macedonians" to distinguish them from the other ethnic groups in the region" The latter has been frequently been violated at articles or section concerning these "Macedonian Slavs", a term which is insistently avoided and replaced with "Macedonian" contrary to the convention made. 2) At the same page, the wikipedia community made another convention stating:

"Deprecated names (province) The following name is deprecated:

The name Aegean Macedonia should be avoided for general use, except in articles describing the irredentist concept. Note that Aegean Macedonia can be considered offensive for some Greeks, but the Greek government has not raised issue." Nevertheless, an article "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegean_Macedonians Aegean Macedonians", not to mention the propagandistic statements with no references, saying horrible things about the greek nation's behaviour towards these group of people. And although the page had been nominated for deletion, it still exists. And on top of that, I am informed I donnot have the right to re-nominate this monstrosity so soon for debate.

3) I also disagree with the concept of some conventions themselves, such as the right for this nation to use the term Macedonians to identify themselves, but for the greek people to try to avoid the use of plain Macedonians to identify themselves, but need to add Greek next to Macedonia. Talking about neutrality..

4) The concept of the conventions indicates that for internal reasons, each side may use the terms it recognizes, as well the internationally accepted terms used when refferring to the UN and the organizations, in respect to their onomatology. And although at FYROM related articles, the internally accepted terms are used freely, the Greece related topics are invaded with propagandistic maps of uncertain quality, using terms as Aegean Macedonians, Rep. of Macedonia, as well as balling up Arvanites and their language with the Albanian immigrants. All these points confuse the reader, who cannot distinguish what macedonia really means. It's like a ball of confusion. Not to mention the maps indicating pieces of modern greece as slavomacedonian terriroties. And if someone dares to express his/her troubling about the, as stated by the wikipedia itself, offensive terms "Aegean" or whatever they may come up with, the response is of Points of Discussion such unutterable level: "This is the section where major points of the Article should be discussed. Please put your objections here so that they can be adressed.P m kocovski (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)-Point 1- Article name Aegean Macedonians or Ethnic Macedonians in Greece. I believe some users have expressed concern that Aegean Macedonians may be ambiguous. That is a legitimate point and should be discussed. NB: crap about being offended or about irredentism is not worth taking note of. BalkanFever 11:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)" - "Please watch your language. Are you not civilized?--Dimorsitanos (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)" - "Your comments- Please note that comments like this are not tolerated. If you do it again, you may very well be blocked. BalkanFever 02:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)"

I hope the wikipedia community can give some conviencing response to my worries and prove me wrong.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Where have we failed?

Pessimists have been predicting the collapse of wikipedia. Are they right? Take a look at this:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Money Masters

Obviously no consensus, but the article gets deleted and we loose some more editors. Will Wikipedia become a free copy of Discovery Channel? Where is our harmonious collaborative spirit? Where is our indepence from the Powers that Be ?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Why did you bring this up at a forum for discussing the Village pump? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Where would have been more appropriate?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy?--Kotniski (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:VPAll should no longer transclude Assistance

The Village Pump All still transcludes the Pump's Assistance page, which it should no longer do (as the Assistance page is deprecated... ahem... closed. 70.187.155.89 (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)