Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

New ideas and proposals are discussed here. Before submitting:

• Check to see whether your proposal is already described at Perennial proposals.
• Consider developing your proposal on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab).
• Proposed software changes that have gained consensus should be filed at Bugzilla.
• Proposed policy changes belong at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).
• Proposed WikiProjects or task forces may be submitted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals.
• Proposed new wikis belong at meta:Proposals for new projects.

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

Page mover

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There may be a rough consensus for Sven's counter-proposal, but realistically speaking more editors need to provide their opinions before any action is taken. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Template:Rfcid Template:Rfcid (moved to village pump to generate more consensus, please continue the discussion there.) This is a proposal for a new user right called the pagemover. Propose that this new user right would be able to move pages that have been move protected (move) and the ability to suppress redirects (suppressredirect). Those are pretty much the main idea I have but it was suggested that the movefile user right be include which is something i am not totally for. I would also like for move-subpages to be included which would give users with the pagemover user right to move pages with their associated subpages. As with any user right, there must be baseline requirements. What I propose is that the requirements for the pagemover right is that:

• You must have some formal experience with moving pages.
• You must have at least 500 edits.
• At least 1 month experience

Let me just brief you of the benefits of having a pagemover. It would make the job of administrators a little easier by having someone else to userfy pages. It would also give users other than administrators the exclusive right of moving pages with their subpages. I myself am in opposition to the idea of pagemovers having the ability to move files as there are already two groups that can do that and their is no need for three. This could be done in a trial (Of Lord, the evil Trial word comes back) to see if it is a good idea or not. And with that I leave it to the community.mauchoeagle _(c) 03:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

While I'm generally supportive, let me ask you the question that I foresee will ultimately shoot this proposal down. If someone can be trusted enough to be given this user right, why can't they be trusted to be an administrator?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Alot of respected users of the community were completely shot out of the water (eg My76Strat, Ancient Apparition and Chzz) and this sort of user right would touch the things that admins do without you actually becoming an admin. mauchoeagle _(c) 16:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Why is this needed? The number of move-protected pages that need to be moved on any given day is vanishingly small; there's not a huge backlog of such pages waiting around to be moved. Why does a special user right need to be granted where "ask an admin to do it" would work just as well? --Jayron32 04:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, another user right to performs such tasks could take a load off of administrators. And the proposal above is not only moving protected pages it also can move pages with there associated subpages and help with userfies. It always helps to have someone else to do a task, such as userfying, when you come accross pages that need to be userfied almost every day. In my experience with new page patrol, I see them alot. mauchoeagle _(c) 15:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There isn't much of a load to take off though. Most pagemoves that require an admin aren't moves of protected pages, they're moves over an existing page; completing these moves requires the ability to delete pages. Pages with subpages are typically established pages (subpages are most frequently used for discussion archives) and are rarely moved. Userfication is really the only one done on a regular basis, but is it that difficult to just move it yourself and put a speedy tag on the redirect? Mr.Z-man 16:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Support - Although I think that there is very little need for this I can see it could be useful. As one user who has basically lost interest in attempting a run through the gauntlet to become an administrator and who considers the process of choosing one completely and utterly broken (although good folks do become admins so no disrespect intended to them) I think this is a good step towards decoupling the various roles an admin does. In my experience most admins deal in specific things anyway and few use the whole suoite of tools so this would allow those interested in moving pages to do so. --Kumioko (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Counter-proposal: Do not allow the right to move move-protected pages, only allow (suppressredirect), and up the requirements

This version would only allow suppressredirect, as moving protected pages seems like a bad idea. The requirements would be:

• You must have a demonstrate history of constructive moves.
• You must have at least 3 months of experience.
• You cannot have a history of using moves to vandalize or content war pages.
• You should have a communicable reason for wanting the right.

As one of the more prolific filemovers (currently knee deep in a list of 3000 files that all have to be renamed) this user right would allow me to do my job better, and would save the admins that I work with a great deal of time. If it's never been used in an article, there's no need to keep as a redirect a page named File:DSC01234.jpg or File:IMG02468.jpg when the image itself has been moved to something that's more descriptive. There are plenty of other people that work in plenty of other areas that could all benefit from this.

I do not, however, see any reason why allowing non-admins to move a move protected page around is a good idea. For the very tiny number of instances where it would be constructive, an admin is just a template posting or IRC chat away.

Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 20:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on the move-subpages right? mauchoeagle _(c) 20:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I see all three components as having the potential for chaos should a vandal get a hold of the right, however from personal experience (someone moved my userpage to the mainspace once) I can tell you that an admin can fix straight up move vandalism in less than 30 seconds. I see no reason why it would take any longer to fix move vandalism if the subpages are also taken for a ride. The only component I specificly object to giving out as a right is the ability to move the move-protected pages. Especially when we get into template dependencies and trasnclusions, this could cause serious, widespread damage with a minimal amount of vandalism actions, and is much harder to clean up.

To some degree, the other issue is that I fully expect admins to grant rights to people that in no way deserve those rights, either in willful disregard for the guidelines, or because they don't care enough to even check the guidelines. I saw it with filemover. I'm not going to pretend that this isn't going to be given out like candy to both trustworthy people that will never use the right and untrustworthy people that just keep asking until they get lucky. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. "suppress-redirect" is a mere convenience for admins, to save having to create a redirect page as part of a move and then delete it after when it's not needed. Particularly for admins doing a lot of a certain type of work, it saves quite a bit of time, and is a bit neater. I'm sceptical about the proliferation of user rights generally (given the misuse issues Sven mentions above), and this one just doesn't seem worth the hassle of managing, and the associated risks. Risks being, most notably, that abuses of suppress-redirect can make inappropriate page moves (or even page move vandalism) harder to catch. Users can just CSD the redirect. Moving subpages is needed less often, and probably carries less risk, but again it doesn't seem worth the trouble to separate it out, especially if it doesn't come with suppress-redirect. Rd232 ^talk 10:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

  Moving subpages carries less risk? That's a good one. Some rather nasty pagemove vandals have been known to use that option on things such as userpages with lots of subpages, and are thus able to vandalize upwards of twenty pages within a minute. Moving subpages is a right which is hardly used anyways, and has a massive potential for abuse. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I did say probably... I was thinking it's no harder to undo than ordinary pagemove vandalism, and the subpages (especially of non-move-protected pages) aren't normally of particular prominence. Rd232 ^talk 15:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

  Much harder to revert, considering that most people don't recognize it as that type of vandalism, and revert each one separately - then users without the noratelimit right get stuck by a rate limit after two reverts. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

One possibility which might be useful is to allow editors to suppress the creation of a redirect when moving a (userspace draft) page out of their own userspace into mainspace. That's probably harmless, is a common task, and prevents useless cross-namespace redirects. This would require a software change of some sort, but once done it wouldn't require any management. Rd232 ^talk 15:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• If this was going to be devolved from admins then it sounds like one of the least controversial accesses. move without creating a redirect, and move subpages, override title black list, and no rate limit on moves sounds like a reasonable package to grant as a right. However there must be some limit to the number of different rights before it just gets too confusing for people to understand. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support this would make files work so much better. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support I'm not normally one to support new userrights, but for those of you who don't do NPP you'd be shocked at the absolutely horrific page titles we come across sometimes. I've got hundreds of page moves in my log, and a good number of them are 1. names like BANURI VILLAGE (HIMACHAL PRADESH) from non-native speakers whose often horrendously mangled English isn't confined to the article body and/or 2. titles with missing or extra spaces. This would make it far more efficient; it wouldn't entirely do away with R3, as it seems many NPPers are not very experienced, and sometimes people create redirects that don't quite meet G3 but are clearly implausible anyways (Media shitstorm being created as a redirect to Media circus or Aught-six being redirected to 1906, for instance), but it would definitely help streamline NPP for those of us who know what they're doing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Although I might also suggest simply adding this to the filemover user right, as file redirects should be deleted anyway. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Alpha Quadrant. @Alpha Quadrant: not all redirects are invalid though, common misnomers and so forth are worth retaining. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:00pm • 06:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Another counter-proposal

We allow suppress-redirect, and move-subpages. We also merge it with filemover.

• At least 2000 edits;
• Knows all applicable policies;
• Good reason for wanting the right;
• No vandalism or edit-war from past 2 months history.

Thoughts? ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 18:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know; suppress-redirect and move-subpages don't entail quite the same things. I'd certainly qualify for the first two, but I do essentially no image work so I wouldn't be good for the third. On NPP, I could definitely use the ability to move without a redirect, for reasons I detailed above; I don't need the ability to move files. But perhaps I'm the exception; if that proves to be true, it would make more sense to combine them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• OK, I am lost; why, would move-subpages be needed with File mover? Kind lost in space there. —Croisés Majestic ^{(sur nous mars)} 01:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha haha haa, I press the stop button in my browser and edit conflicted my-self. —Croisés Majestic ^{(sur nous mars)} 01:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I can't really think of a reason a non-bureaucrat would need move-subpages. The move-subpages flag is mainly used in user renames and renaming Templates or WikiProjects. There isn't really a backlog in this area either, as normal users can still move sub-pages one by one. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 04:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  It would be to save lots of time. Did you see my move log? There is a reason that screams out loud! ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 20:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. Support either proposal. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 06:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose all We do not need more new userflags. Either we add userrights to existing flags, or we leave them to the admins like it is currently. Otherwise, we create more fodder for the rights-hungry annoyances that haven't be blocked yet. This is a particularly trivial userright (suppressredirect) that should either go to all, say, rollbackers (as I think I proposed last year), or stay with the sysops. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Question Are these rights, or any others, ones that appropriate admins could just give on a case-by-case basis? If it's just a matter of a few people working on particular tasks that would be facilitated by these kinds of rights, maybe an admin or some other appropriate person could simply bestow them. this may require some sort of software change, though-- I don't know how rights and abilities are handled software-side, so I don't know if it's possible to make someone and editor with extra powers. Wabbott9 (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No, we can't give out suppressredirect or anything like that unless we create a new flag for it, which is essentially what this proposal is for. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand. Oh, well. worth asking, to see if this sort of thing could be done less formally, but it looks like it would be just about the same. Wabbott9 (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support While I don't agree with the limits, file-redirect cleanup is really annoying, this would speed things up. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 3:06pm • 05:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Link to Facebook

I've noticed that an increasing number of sites have facebook twitter icons which when clicked on put on link on you relevant profile or create a tweet. Would is be useful for every WikiPedia page to have such a button? As an example have a look at Liverpool Echo when a user writes a comment the sytem can be set up to past that comment to Facebook and create a tweet with a link back to the article. Seems good PR as well as usefull.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought about the same thing as well. Also, maybe let users log in using their Facebook account. Wikipedia has a shortage of female editors and women rule social networking so might be a great way to attract some new editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This has been suggested quite frequently recently, see e.g. this or this discussion and the links there. As a logged-in user, you can install User:TheDJ/Sharebox for yourself, but it appears that many users would find such icon blocks too intrusive to to be turned on by default. For Signpost stories, we added unobtrusive "Share this" dropdown menus a while ago (example - see top right).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What would the purpose of echoing your edits onto Twitter and Facebook be, other than for canvassing purposes? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You would not be echoing your edits, just articles you chose though might interest you friends.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sharebox is a script that reorders your toolbox. It adds new buttons that make it easier to mail, print or share an article on Facebook or another linksharing service. You must have an account to add Sharebox to the sidebar. See User:TheDJ/Sharebox for more information. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

User:TheDJ/Sharebox sounds great but I cannot get it to work?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 10:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

What browser are you using? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Firefox.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Facebook integration already exists in MediaWiki, and is used on Wikia. Someone brought it up on Jimbo's talk page recently and he supports Facebook for Wikipedia. Just pointing it out. I don't think we should be a social site, I hate social sites, but linking to social sites will increase readership and editing. People wonder why we aren't getting new editors, maybe it's that Web 2.0 is old-school for most people now, and Wikipedia is hovering around Web .7 ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

What sort of editing Wikipedia will get from integrating Facebook needs to be considered before any action is taken. My guess is that since Facebook is for socialization and similar activities, and not for "scholarly" activities such as writing an encyclopedia, the majority of edits will be of no benefit at best. The worst case (and likely) scenario is that such links will attract Facebook trolls, fans, and POV pushers to Wikipedia. That's something the editors dealing with vandalism don't need. Rilak (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Er... and using Wikipedia in schools... we'll get school-children editing their schools pages ... and abusing their friends and teachers... Oh no! It already happened! … It's not like Wikipedeans now are such a "neutral" bunch (see ANI, ARBCOm, block log, AIV etc), and it's not like there aren't many many links form FB to WP already. While I have great qualms about putting Fb and Twitter links on WP (and got soundly trouted for putting Google links on pages needing refs myself, although consensus later moved) I don't think that thinking of FBers as "the great unwashed" is either helpful, accurate or true to the spirit of the project. Rich Farmbrough, 19:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC).

Except that school kids are currently studying research techniques and materials relevant to different articles, so there's a potential gain (for us and them). The abuse is a problem for allowing anyone to edit (not suggesting we get rid of that), so there's not really a net loss there. FB does not teach anyone how to research stuff (as many pyramid schemes and trojans I have to point out to my friends, quite the opposite), so there is no potential gain. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that Facebook mirrors Wikipedia. Rich Farmbrough, 19:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC).

As you say Facebook feeds Wikipedia as in Rose Heilbron what I and the people I'm connected with seems to do on face book is post links to articles, videos etc, lots of external content.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reasons as I opposed it the last two times. Also, Facebook is the antithesis of credibility, and in my opinion, the antithesis of intelligent discourse. Having the icons there would be damaging, I think, and the only reason I can think of people wanting it is that it saves them about a seventh of a second and that 'everyone else is doing it'. Seriously, if you want to link to a Wikipedia article, copy the URL, it's not at all hard. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Something like this might look nice. Killiondude (talk) 08:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that most people use their real names on Facebook, I sincerely doubt that this would increase vandalism. If anything, using your real name is more likely to discourage it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Only if they used their real names when editing on Wikipedia. But since Facebook and Wikipedia aren't linked, we'd only identify them with their IP address. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, one of the suggestions is to let users log in using their Facebook accounts. A lot of web sites are starting to do that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

How exactly would that work? I mean, in YouTube for example, I can log in with my Google-Mail account. In that case, both accounts are probably hosted on the same service (ie a Google server) (that's just my guess, it might be wrong). How exactly would that work in the case of Wikipedia and Facebook? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

How that would work essentially is that you log in to Facebook, they tell Wikipedia that you are logged in to your account and your name is "John Smith"; of course, they'd provide a unique ID so that you don't conflict with other "John Smith"s. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Undecided This might be a good for attracting new editors. However, I would like to see a better developed and more detailed proposal before deciding. I think this could also have a lot of negative issues. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Opposed to any sort of non-optional, formal integration of the 'Like this!' box variety, for the following reasons (which I've kept quite abstract for the time being):

a) Credibility - connecting to facebook etc. in any overt way detracts credbility from us, especially in academic or professional circles - per Sven

b) Editor ingress - as has been observed, FB already mirrors wikipedia and links to our articles. That means that people are already able to jump from FB to our site, introducing a feature which allowed them to jump back doesnt seem paticularly beneficial in terms of keeping editors.

c) Expert retention - If I'm an expert on an obscure subject and create an article on something which is likely not of much interest to non-experts and come back a month later to see that it still has "0 likes" whilst another article on Will Mellor has thousands of likes, I probably won't bother making another.

d) Commercial reasons don't apply - Most sites, such as newspapers, blogs etc. have commercial motivations behind the FB links and 'tweet this' buttons - they want to draw in more views to earn more money - these reasons don't really apply to us.

e) Lack of techical knowledge needed - Come on, anybody who can edit wikipedia can also copy and paste a URL anyway, we don't need to build a toolbar into the interface to help them do that.

f) Independance - personally, I quite like the idea of having a major site which isn't linked into the 'evil empire' of the day.

They're my (possibly half-baked) thoughts anyway - I may try to expand if this becomes a serious proposal rather than a brainstorm. (Note that I'm completely unopposed to allowing people to choose to include something like this in an alternate skin/JS function/whatever). Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Bob House. Also, in the manner of what I'm refering to: day b nuf spelin n shit 4 work weddout folk @fb writ dis we dot needat Ian.thomson (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Nasa's web site[1] integrates with Facebook, Twitter, Digg and many other social networking sites. Can someone show me some evidence that this has caused NASA to lose credibility in academic or professional circles? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Bob: I don't think anyone's proposing that we add "Like this" buttons to Wikipedia. Instead, I see two proposals: 1) Let readers share articles they find interesting by sharing them on Facebook, Twitter, etc. 2) Let people log in using their Facebook accounts. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Nasa, that's a completely different situation. Nasa doesn't have to fight for credibility like we do (they have it and would have to work to lose it, we're gaining it and have to work to not lose what ground we're acquiring), nor do they allow anyone to edit their site. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain exactly how letting readers share articles they find interesting with their friends will cause Wikipedia to lose credibility? I don't get it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - First, it is disheartening to see the elitist attitude of some of the comments here. It is unfair to assume that we are smarter than others, simply because they involve their friends in their lives, and we anonymously bicker about hyphen usage. Like I said above, I do hate social sites, but that doesn't mean I hate their users. I wanted to point out http://help.wikia.com/wiki/Help:Facebook_Connect as an example of how a MediaWiki site uses the Facebook API. Also, if anything were to happen with "like" buttons, or social bookmarking links, this could be handled through an integrated gadget, so only logged-in users who choose to have to see it. This should help us keep our "street cred". ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• I have to say I'm not a fan. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose How to manage it? Also, people would not go here just because they can use it because of a sn (social networking) account. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 20:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose we don't want Facebook tracking people on Wikipedia, so we need to keep it separate. However I am not opposed to linking to official or fan facebook pages in external links. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I would oppose linking Wikipedia to Facebook for the following reason. Although there are probably many people (myself included) who like both Wikipedia and Facebook, and have both a userpage on Wikipedia and a profile on Facebook, we should remember that if one goes to WP: What Wikipedia is not and reads what is under Sub-heading 2.5, we have the clarification that Wikipedia is NOT a social networking website. We should not really confuse social networking websites with an online encyclopaedia - Facebook and Wikipedia both have their uses, but for different reasons. As or the suggestion above that this would be unlikely to attract vandals because people use their real names on Wikipedia, please remember that people use their real names on Citizendium but that this online encyclopaedia is still vastly inferior to Wikipedia. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• oppose Along with many other reasons listed above (and perhaps this is too) I would be worried that some of the ... ummm ... problems (Virus, phishing, scams, etc) could end up compromising something here. And accounts/names/passwords being compromised at WP almost always leads to some very undesirable results. Second, I'd wonder if it would increase the amount of "WP:OUTING" that happens, as many users here edit under pseudonyms. I might like having a "like" button at times, but it's really not that hard to just copy and paste a link either. — Ched :  ?  02:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - no for facebook ads - but it may be added as gadget Bulwersator (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Social Media

It's becoming increasingly clear to me that all Wikipedia articles and photos need a social media share functionality, probably just FB and Twitter, but maybe a "Share This" dropdown if we have to be fair. Thanks for reading and cheers. ~J — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengod (talk • contribs) 19:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree. Seems like an easier way to attract vandalism. If people truly want to read something, they will search for it and Wikipedia is normally a top search result. The visits should be organic. Encyclopedic information is generally not something that you share in a social manner. Gary King (talk · scripts) 20:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I am somewhat on the fence with this one myself. I admit that allowing this type of functionality might draw some attention to the articles I also believe that there would be some significant drawbacks, vandalism being one of them. I do think that it might be interesting to do a test of some to see (maybe pick a couple hundred). I think we need to ask ourselves though what the return on the investment is. What would be gained and lost by doing this and is it worth the investment of time and energy? The foundation has been beating the bushes looking for ways to attract more editors and this could be a way to do that. --Kumioko (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Since most people use their real names on Facebook, I doubt very many would be vandalizing articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If "most" people use their real names, does this not mean that there are no mechanisms to ensure that people use their real names? Rilak (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Using real names on Facebook and vandalizing articles here are two different things. You can discover a Wikipedia article through a friend on Facebook, then visit the article, then vandalize it. We would never know the user's Facebook name. On a somewhat related note, for about a year now, Facebook has been using Wikipedia's data to create information pages on every single subject. So for instance, in a person's profile if they listed "Cooking" as an interest, and you clicked on Cooking, you'd go to something like facebook.com/topics/cooking which would show the Wikipedia article for Cooking. I don't know how we could use that to draw editors here, but it's a thought. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with the original poster. That's why I made Wikipedia:Sharebox in the first place. But to implement it everywhere, we need an open and free sharing system that supports multiple social share tools. We can't promote just one or two services, and above that, social sharing services are still very dependent on your country of origin/language in terms of popularity. That's quite a development effort. Not impossible, but will take considerable time none the less. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

@AQFK: Especially not BLP articles, if you catch my meaning. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, the Wiki software already supports this feature. For example, scroll to the bottom of a WikiNews article.[2] There are links for Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Digg, and several others. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That's just a template, found here. We can't use the same exact method to implement them here because we'd have to edit every single article and add the template to each one. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

mw:Extension:PageNotice might obviate that, if it were installed. Rd232 ^talk 10:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Please see the post five posts up from this one, which deals with the exact same thing, for my reasoning. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I've seen both of these, and many others. They never seem to get real consensus. Perhaps we have another Persistant proposal to add to the list? Wabbott9 (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose One of the best things about Wikipedia is that it doesn't have a load of Facebook 'social media' bullshit and doesn't, like every other website on the planet, demand I "Like this" or "share this" or whatever. If I want to post something I see on Wikipedia to a social media site, I move my mouse to the URL bar, copy the URL and paste it into Facebook or Twitter or whatever the hot new thing of the week is. That is all the social media integration anyone needs: publish it on the web at a persistent URL and allow other people to link to it. Beyond that lies marketing douchebag territory. Let's not go there, okay? —Tom Morris (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Everyone here is talking about what they want, or like. We should be considering what our users want; and what will encourage greater use of and participation in the 'pedia. And while that means doing research, anecdotally we can see that people do like, and use, such features. (For the record, my personal view is that such things belong in the browser, as bookmarklets or add-ons, rather than on the page. But I accept that that probably puts me in the minority). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

+1 to both your meta point about needing to engage the users on this and you preference as to implementation via a plugin. Although I could also see having it as part of a skin, so user selectable as a reasonable option. Gonzo (talk) 10:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

First, I'm noting that I made this a subsection of the above Facebook thread, as they are both pretty-much about the same thing. Second, how about this: Why doesn't somebody whip-up a WP gadget with social bookmarking functionality, and we can use that as a gauge. We can easily track how many people use it. If it gets an overwhelming amount of support, we can look further into implementing actual MediaWiki extensions like mw:Extension:Facebook. If it is not popular, or causes problems, then we have our answer. I would recommend this gadget only function in mainspace and File: space. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 11:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• comment Someone asked me to comment here from n:Wikinews:Water_cooler/technical#Facebook. I just wanted to mention there may be significant privacy considerations with integrating facebook. A click here to share on facebook button is ok (Since its passive, the user has to click in order to send info to facebook), but facebook like buttons, or logging in using facebook account, and pretty much all of mw:extension:Facebook allows facebook to gather information about our users essentially without their permission. (And is probably in violation of the privacy policy, although I don't think I've read the privacy policy so wouldn't be able to say for certain). Previous times this has been brought up on the mailing list its been shot down over privacy concerns recent example that's not quite the same because its about chapters. Bawolff (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • These issues are well known throughout the technical community and within the Foundation. Of course that doesn't mean that we can't do more than we do now, just that there are some specifics that we cannot do. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Teenage Editors

I feel that we need to have a Wikipedia page/essay which explains the policys to teenage editors. I know we already have Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors but this is writen in a childish way wich could put teenage editors off. I would quite happly re-word that page if there was enough support. Oddbodz (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what sort of person would be old enough to be insulted by the simple tone of the guidance for younger editors yet unable to understand the 'adult' tone of the policies themselves...? ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 21:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Some teenagers may feel that their maturity is being questioned. They may, however, not want to read the full adult version. It's just a sugestion. Oddbodz (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Or they may not want to read them at all :P But I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect them to do so. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 21:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an "adult" place; I'm all for contributions from a diverse range of ages and demographics, but if you need to be spoonfed policies because you can't/don't want to take the time to decipher our professional-style guidelines... that's not a good thing. Juliancolton (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The policies imo are generally readable enough by any 13+ year old. AD 21:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Bah, don't listen to TT or Juliancolton. They're just trying to scare you off for some reason. You're just talking about an essay, so just click on: Wikipedia:Guidance for teenage editors and start writing. I'm sure that there are some people who will find your advice useful.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm—I think you've inspired me to write an essay called, Wikipedia:Assume bad faith. Oh no, there's one already. Good. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 08:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no need to assume anything. You provided the ammunition all on your own.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. I know when I first joined I wasn't keen on reading through all the policies. Having a page where they are written in a more approachable manner would be helpful. Muskeato 22:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds fine, but aiming it at teenagers is a bit silly really, and would be very difficult not to sound patronising. The "nutshell" box at the top of policy pages usually sums them up quite well. AD 13:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This page looks like it sums up every policy briefly. AD 13:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, most of our policies and guidelines could do with re-writing to improve the prose. Collaborative editing has many strengths, but clear prose is not one of them. I tend not to bother reading any of them unless absolutely necessary. If I had read them before starting to edit, I wouldn't have started editing. DuncanHill (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If our current policies are written at such a level that someone with a (partial) high school education has trouble reading them, that's a problem that needs to be fixed. If the issue is that people just can't be bothered to read them, making a separate page probably won't help much. Mr.Z-man 15:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Undergraduate level education actually. I'm someone who loves to read. The problem with the policies is that the prose is just so dull and flat. DuncanHill (talk) 10:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

But they're not supposed to be interesting, merely informative and comprehensible. They're not targetted at people who would read them for leisure purposes; rather, they're aimed at people who need to read them in order to edit Wikipedia effectively. To take a comparison, instructions for flat-pack furniture are usually pretty dry. These sorts of writings are designed for people who need to read them, not who want to read them. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 12:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If something is not interesting, people tend to forget the details and sometimes just skim. If you make things interesting, even funny, people are likely to remember what is said and want to read them. Comparing to a furniture construction illustration is not very useful here as that is something simple and straightforward that doesn't require much thought. The many wikipedia guidelines that people are expected to adhere to are another thing as people are expected to follow many of them, and you can't have people follow guidelines that they have never read. Granted some are common sense, but others aren't. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I've got to agree. Most of the policies are pretty clear, clearer than many of our articles. Individual cases ought to be handled through discussion on their talk pages leading to consensus for clearer expressions in the policy pages themselves. If there's a problem, it's because often something isn't notable under our criteria, but seems notable to a new editor. Even that's not really a problem with our policies, more that the new editor just went with "notable" in a common use, rather than in the way we use it in policies. Wabbott9 (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

We're working on improving stuff! Only just begun - but please see the headway we're making at WP:V. I think possibly that saying that it's aimed at teenage editors may not be a good way to go - anyone who isn't a teenager (or even those teenagers who don't want to be perceived as teenagers) is quite likely just to "not go there". (Perceive it as irritatingly condescending.) What we need is a Wittgenstein's ladder approach, in all likelihood. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 04:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What we need to remember is that the Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. There is no software than can identify an editor's age, and the Wikipedia:Advice for younger editors was deliberately aimed at a target language level to be cogent for the 10 - 14 age group. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy should be pretty clear:

1. Teenagers are human beings.
2. Human beings that have not been banned are welcome to edit Wikipedia.
3. Therefore teenagers who have not been banned are welcome to edit Wikipedia.

That is all. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

...and that is relevant how? ╟─TreasuryTag►Odelsting─╢ 10:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The point is that I'm not totally sure if we need to spend time reworking Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. I guess I just don't see the point, unless we can find good reasons, preferably from said younger users, why specific outreach is needed, and those younger users can work to ensure it isn't condescending. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The only reworking the Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors needs is to drop it into a more appealing HTML skin, such as those being developed at the WikiMedia outreach project. Stuff for youngsters is stuff for youngsters and won't be perceived by them as patronising, as any teacher knows. Anyone much over 14/15 should be able to grasp the essentials from our other instruction pages or understand how to ask for help, and to take advice when they are given it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I do appreciate the intention behind Oddbodz' original suggestion, and I wouldn't go so far as supporting a blanket statement that "stuff for youngsters won't (ever) be perceived by them as patronising". However, because this essay is extremely important - that there are significant numbers of 9 and 10 year olds, and large numbers of 11 and 12 year olds, editing Wikipedia, should make that instantly clear - I've already been seeking feedback on the essay and how it is perceived by its target age group. Some of the feedback is on the essay's talk page, some elsewhere and some still to be added. The feedback is from a wide spectrum of ages (the youngest person to offer feedback was 10, the oldest was 15) and from a wide spectrum of types of editor (ranging between those who have spent many months contributing productively and have never had any difficulties, to those who are currently indefinitely blocked and likely to remain so for some time).

What came out of the feedback, as regards the subject of this thread, is that none of it suggested that the essay as currently written is condescending. The closest was that the oldest child editor who gave feedback regarded a lot of it as being "common sense" - which I take to mean that someone aged 15 would already have been taught extensively about internet safety in other venues - but that editor also said the essay had been very useful to them in giving information that they'd not found elsewhere, and even quoted part of it that they'd found useful in practice. One thing I also noted, which again will be familiar to educators, is that even the older teenagers who gave feedback, saw the essay as having authority just because it was there and it looked official; for example they were judging their own past behaviour on Wikipedia in terms of how well it met the "rules" that the essay laid down.

So there is no issue with the essay being regarded as condescending by its target audience. I also agree with some of the comments already made, that young editors who have moved beyond (or feel they have moved beyond) the type of advice offered in the essay, can read Wikipedia's other documentation instead; and that if our documentation is difficult to use for an intelligent teenager, then we should be improving our documentation, rather than creating multiple miniature versions of it for multiple different age groups. (Though it would amuse me to write a "Guidance for elderly editors" essay aimed at the parts of that age group that have WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and similar problems.) That said, there's no reason to forbid the creation of a "Wikipedia for teenagers" guide, if someone wants to write that; but it shouldn't be the focus of our efforts. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue of whether it is condescending apart —or should include undergraduates —, I struggle to understand how on Earth would a guide for teenagers be of any use: new editors start slowly —and not meticulously study the policy book as if for an exam— and would not end up there too easily, when I was welcomed years back I received a welcoming post with two-dozen links to pages each with more text on them than an PhD thesis: I read none of them and learnt facts as I went along. If this guide is instead to be used to beat up teenagers with edits on the lines of "I deleted all your interesting and helpful work according to WP:SELFQUOTE, which has been paraphrased for kids in Wikipedia:Advice for younger editors" I think it would be a bad idea. --Squidonius (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well yes you're exactly right, I think I got welcomed by one of the more detailed menus of links, and never ever read any of them from that that menu. Even some of the simplified graphical ones have a couple of dozen links on them, in fact I might start using W-screen just because it is less link-heavy but still has some links to help. I usually leave a welcome template and then leave a separate, very brief, personalised message asking them to look at the Guidance essay.

How to encourage people to actually read it? Well, the separate brief message will attract them more than the big menu of links. Plus if you ask for feedback, this is about empowering; it introduces them to the idea that it's not just a big homework resource that sometimes they can edit if they can put up with angry people reverting them all the time, but it's a collaborative community where their opinions are being asked for as well. Does that draw them in? Well yes, sometimes it does.

How to get more people (including teenagers) to take the time to learn this sort of material at an early stage? Make it more immersive.

Your point about the risk of it becoming a quick way to criticise younger editors is a good one. WP:COMPETENCE is used in this way far too often, and should not be. However, I have never yet seen WP:YOUNG used in that way. In fact, some of the feedback (from one of the rather older young editors) is that they had WP:COMPETENCE thrust in their face inappropriately, and that therefore reading WP:YOUNG helped them a lot because it told them that their contributions are actually valued. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Install extension Pchart4mw - for charts drawing

Since we only have the <timeline> extension for simple (bar only) chart drawing, I propose to install the Pchart4mw extension to have the ability to create various types of real charts/graphs. Thank you for your support!--Kozuch (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support I would have it tested on one of the test wikis first, but this extension does seem to be a net positive for visuals in articles. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 07:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Sounds like a very useful feature, so long as it goes through a series of tests before widespread use (support, efficiency, output...). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea how correct "extension installation" works here on EN Wikipedia, but I suppose community consensus is the very important part of the proccess. So yes, after we hopefully have consensus the technical part will begin (probably extensin code review, making sure it performs ok etc.?). If someone can supply info about correct steps in the process this would be welcome. I was also thinking of enabling it first on a smaller wiki (for instance Czech Wikipedia), but I did not ask for consensus there yet.--Kozuch (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Support This makes data editable as opposed to user externally-created charts. This will also bring some visual consistency. And finally this will make new chart making easy as pie. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• How does this compare with the (many) options listed at WP:Graphs? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not know "Template:Visualizer" or "Template:Pie chart" - one of the differences I see - these run on Toolserver (whose stability and availability is a big "?" sometimes). This would be a local extension which will perform much better I guess. --Kozuch (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Pchart4mw has more chart types, it seems. They also look better (in my opinion) and are more customizable. InverseHypercube 00:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support Makes sense. We probably should have a comprehensive guide explaining the use of the extension, though. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 3:11pm • 05:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support It would be extremely useful and would reduce the number of charts uploaded to Commons. As well, the chats could easily be edited and provide a consistent look. InverseHypercube 00:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Really short Wikipedia URLs

I think that Wikipedia should get their own article URL shortening service. There are 20 million articles in its >250 versions. So 6 alphanumeric characters should be enough to list them all (52^6 = 20 billion, or 70 million articles per language). How about an automatic system that changes en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_universe into wkpshrt.org/5egF4w and pops up in each article page you visit to share easily? That can go for other Wikimedia projects as well. How do we make it? --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Is there a good reason that Wikimedia/the MediaWiki software should implement this when there are good third party tools available to do it easily, though (TinyURL.com, bit.ly, etc...)?
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• • It is worth noting that some projects already have slightly shortened urls (http://enwp.org, there's one of the English Wikinews and probably others too). - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 14:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Yep, enwp.org works for any WP page ( http://enwp.org/Barack_Obama for example). And the Wikinews one is enwn.net, which works differently (more like a bit.ly service). But I agree with the above. There are way too many third-party services out there. And we want to make Wikipedia less socialized. Anyone who wants to share a short link should already know how to. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

      ...why do we "want to make Wikipedia less socialized."? Maybe that's what you'd like, which is fine, but I certainly don't want us to be more anti-social than we already are. :(
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we don't want to have to ask Big brother to do everything for us. Bus stop (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

... no one is, so I don't get your point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think bit.ly's approach makes more sense - links are only given when someone wants to link something. By contrast, your approach covers all articles, linked to or not, and only articles. So for example, as a test, bit.ly/lNbS69 now links to editing this particular section of this page. I wasn't asked to register. I don't know how long it will last, but it seems like a versatile solution. But I'm not sure making and archiving new custom links in this fashion would be within the mission of Wikipedia. True, Big Brother is probably listening in, but alas, the same is probably true of Wikipedia or any other site. Look at how many traceroutes run through Reston, Virginia, put it that way. Wnt (talk) 05:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Silly National Wildlife Federation spying on us Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't know enwp.org. It's a cool feature. However, as you mention, it's run unofficially. An official shortening service would be much safer. Also, enwp.org doesn't truly shorten addresses. You wouldn't be abled to share List of submissions to the 83rd Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film on Twitter, for example. Fetchcomms, Wnt, this official service would help to spread the project easier. An unexperienced user could copy the shortened link from the article page and share it with others. Not everyone knows bit.ly, and lots of people wouldn't bother follow those steps whereas this option would be much more accessible. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

In February, the Wikimedia Foundation welcomed the offer of the owner of enwp.org to give them the domain [3]. In May, it was said that the matter had been referred to Rob Halsell from the Foundation's tech department [4]. It was pointed out that some tech people might be a bit skeptical about it [5].

URL shorteners can present privacy issues as they can track who clicks on a shortened link. They often publish part of this tracking data. For example, bit.ly lists the number of clicks per country, and per referrer (add "+" to a bit.ly link). This could quite easily be exploited to find out a Wikipedia user's country. A shortener owned by the WMF would offer the benefit that such data would be governed by the WMF privacy policy.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Forgiveness day, 7 August

I was just thinking about a "forgiveness day", and it turns out there is one - 7 August [6]. So I propose that we adopt this on Wikipedia, to help spread peace and good will among editors and encourage them to try and put aside past conflicts. The idea is that we'd knock up a user template along the general lines of "I'm sorry for my contribution to our past conflicts, in honour of International Forgiveness Day I hope we can put these behind us and achieve better collaboration in future." (off the top of my head; much improvement possible; not forgetting to encourage the user to add a personalised addendum). {{Cookie}}s and the like would be options for those as wants. Users would be encouraged to leave these templates on or around the day for users they've had some disagreements with. This would be most effective advertised annually via a watchlist notice, but that might be a bit ambitious at this point (maybe in future years). That's all. Rd232 public ^talk 23:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That'd be great fun, if only human minds allowed someone to get rid of grudges on a whim. Since they don't, the result would be either (a) something completely meaningless or (b) something easier to game than a multiple-choice test. Ironholds (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"if only human minds allowed someone to get rid of grudges on a whim..." - I think you need to reconsider what forgiveness means. In addition, a public commitment helps people sustain behaviours, so the public declaration is not meaningless, even if it doesn't work out in every case. I don't see where gaming comes into it. Rd232 public ^talk 02:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ironholds to an extent. I no longer bear ill will to a number of people that I've had fights with, but there are some things that cannot be forgiven. I think that we could adapt it to a day of talking out differences and making commitments to settling disputes more amicably, but it won't, say, stop the NFCC war or anything of that caliber of conflict. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

"I think that we could adapt it to a day of talking out differences and making commitments to settling disputes more amicably..." - well that's the general idea. Forgiveness seems a good starting point for that, since it's often necessary, but if someone wants to suggest an alternative approach, I'm open to suggestions. At root, I just think an annual "let's put this shit behind us and try again to be really collaborative" day would be good. Rd232 public ^talk 11:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I just followed that link in the OP's post. It's amusing that the "Worldwide Forgiveness Alliance is a non-profit 501(c)3 tax-deductible organization." (My bolding.) Should I forgive them for not arranging deductions for 95% of the world's population? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I forgive you for being a hater and for undermining a good idea only for the sake of hearing your own voice. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

A hater? Oh dear. I will forgive you for your paranoia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It is neither amusing nor relevant, since the organization isn't involved in the proposal in any way. I came across the organization in searching for a "forgiveness day", an idea I had, and this came up and it makes sense to use an existing date that someone is already promoting (not least to avoid the need to pick a date from scratch). If there are any alternatives to 7 August already being promoted, let's hear them. Rd232 public ^talk 11:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It has the advantage of falling on my birthday. (Forgive me for pointing that out!) :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Curses! People will assume it's a conspiracy! :) Rd232 public ^talk 02:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't all days be foregiveness days? To forgive is one of the great Christian virtues, and it would be a shame if we confined this ideal to a mere one of the three hundred and sixty-five days in the year. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

We pagans, on the other hand.... --Nuujinn (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If after trying to get through the behaviour of a person is still not satisfactory I think a measured amount of retribution is called for, it helps the world go round, without it you get jerks and freeloaders. After that one should check and see if things are now satisfactory. So what exactly is the point of having a particular date for forgiveness? Is it for people who don't know when to stop retribution or somehow otherwise to let them get on with their lives? Dmcq (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favor of forgiveness; gimmicks, not so much. I'm afraid this will come across as a gimmick, however much that might not be the intent.

I'm not necessarily opposed. Who knows; it might do some good. But it will definitely also make some people roll their eyes. --Trovatore (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to seperate template warnings for edit warring and breaking 3RR

A couple of weeks ago I made this suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive 12#Edit warring and breaking 3RR: not always the same thing!, and though it has not been rejected there has not been much response. So, thinking it would be a shame to let what I feel would be a very useful change go, I have decided to bring it here. Please see the link for the details of why I feel this would be beneficial. U-Mos (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there's a need for a separate template, as the wording of Template:uw-3rr implies accusation of edit warring. Which, as you pointed out, is not always the case and should not be automatically assumed in all cases of multiple reverts within a 24-hr. time frame.--JayJasper (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Boycott

I propose creating a list, possibly at WP:BOYCOTT, of those companies that purposefully and repeatedly attempt to damage Wikipedia's credibility and usefulness by turning it into a marketing resource. Wikipedia readers would be advised to refuse to do business with any business on the list. Currently advertisements and spam just get reverted, deleted, blacklisted, and the editors blocked, but that just leaves the spammers exactly where they were before if they get caught and a big payoff if they don't. Instead, there should be serious, real-life consequences for these actions, and there might be enough Wikipedia readers who would boycott these companies for making damaging Wikipedia a part of their corporate policy to make getting caught spamming start to sting a little. Proposed criteria for inclusion would be any company that: writes an article about themselves that gets WP:G11ed, engages in linkspam, replaces neutral encyclopedic content with a press release, or hires anyone to do so on their behalf. 99.164.32.24 (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Any such list would probably result in companies spamming on behalf of their competitors. --Yair rand (talk) 09:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite right. That's the true spirit of a proper security consultant. Dmcq (talk) 11:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this sort of thing would be better implemented "off-wiki", so to speak. You could put together a list of companies that spam, share it with any interested partied, and do it unconnected with Wikipedia (say on a blog or some such thing where you have control over who posts). Just make sure you let the companies know why you're boycotting them. Wabbott9 Tell me about it.... 02:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

As Yair rand explained this would be exploited. It really would be, it isn't a joke. And it wouldn't even have been an unforseen consequence. I would not want to be associated with this sort of damage to innocent companies. We're better off just dealing with the problem straightforwardly as at present by blocking spammers.

Wouldn't this give legal problems? Even if we recognize, revert and block them, companies can easily deny relation with spammers, and then accuse wikipedia of plotting against them. It may be better to accept spammers as a "fact of life", that must be kept at bay but which can not be completely erased Cambalachero (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Template for Regiowikis

Hi all. Regiowikis are wikis focused on a geographical area. I propose to create a new template {{Regiowiki}} to link to these encyclopedias in the articles about cities. Example on the right for Tomsk. Just a link in "External links" section would be nice but this is a way to promote free knowledge creation.

By the way, I'm working on a list/map for all regiowikis in the world (User:Emijrp/Regiowikis), so if you know about any missing regiowiki, please, add it! Regards. emijrp (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hold your horses! I have several objections:

• Templates like you made are currently only used for other wikimedia projects like wiktionary or wikicommons. Readers will think that "regiowiki" are a part of wikipedia, when it is not and we absolutely no control over its contents.
• The regiowiki is written in a foreign language, but we are the English wikipedia. External links to websites in non-english languages are strongly discouraged (WP:NONENGEL)
• We don't link to open wikis normally, unless they have "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". wp:ELNO#12
• We don't add external links to "promote free knowledge creation", we do it because they external links improve the article. Yoenit (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. 1) OK, a new design is desired. 2) OK, only links to English writtens wikis. 3) I'm OK with this. 4) Come on! That is a side effect ; ) Regards. emijrp (talk) 10:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not think this to be a good idea. A special template for a external link gives undue weight to the link over the others, and certainly the official web site of a region (if exists) should be more important than a wiki. Cambalachero (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Since those links would almost never meet WP:EL, and thus would almost never appear in articles, why would we want/need a special template? Qwyrxian (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You could use {{Facebook}} as a model for the correct style of such a link, but Qwyrxian is right: Why bother creating a template that has almost no legitimate uses? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Limit the Wikilove feature to specific user groups

I'm sure that this should be disallowed for non-autoconfirmed users, and only in an opt-in basis for non-admins, since Wikipedia isn't a social networking site.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, lighten up... Next thing you know we can't even say 'hello' anymore. — Edokter (talk) — 22:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think Jasper's right, and it's only a matter of time before you see why. Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

We may not a be social network, but we are a community. I don't believe in blocking features for beginning editors, especially those that promote collaboration. — Edokter (talk) — 22:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not what you'll be blocking Edoktor; have you looked at the "make your own" option? Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect we'll come to rue that one.--SPhilbrickT 01:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That was a seriously Californian off-the-wall crazy idea. I quite like it though, better than all the gooey "love" stuff. Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously jealous of California MF? The 7th largest economy in the world. Almost all development and manufacturing of anything important in medical devices, telecommunications, social networking (though I might consider it a negative), Wikipedia (OK, another negative), automobile design, venture capital, computer devices, and gorgeous, intelligent women. In other words, without California, the US would be a backwards, Republican-run, anti-science, fascist religious state, pretty much laughed at by Californians. And we wouldn't let you have our excellent pot. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Why would anyone be jealous of California? A state that appears to have more lawyers per square mile than any other place on Earth? Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's 12th on the list of US states for active attorneys per square mile, being preceded (in order) by New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island, Maryland, Delaware, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Florida. Additionally, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico both have far more attorneys per square mile than California. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason I opened this thread was because of some recent trolling incidents with things related to Wikilove (like this IP). Besides, many non-autoconfirmed users don't know the meanings of barnstars, etc. Therefore, I think it's reasonable if non-autoconfirmed users can opt in to Wikilove by applying for Confirmed status. It's too risky to allow IPs to opt in.

"...can we all get along?" Bus stop (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Orangemarlin is wrong about, well just about everything to do with California. Not only is Wikipedia NOT from California, worse- it's from Florida; the state of NY has developed more medical devices (in particular the Glens Falls, New York area) than California, the largest private sector construction project in the US is in Malta, New York eg-the newest most advanced chip fab in the US being developed by AMD; Sematech the international consortium of computer chip companies is in Albany, New York; and of course Wall Street, Madison Ave, and the news headquarters of all major networks is in the City of New York (which is twice the population of California's largest city, while being in a smaller geographic boundary). Tech Valley in Upstate NY is in a better healthier economic condition than Silicon Valley. Oh, yea and California has a bigger budget problem than just about any other state. Let California go its own way.Camelbinky (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Opt out?

How about a way to opt out of receiving these unwanted advances? Apparently there's a way to opt out of the button to give these silly notices, but recipients has no such option. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

IMO the opt-out checkbox should block both sending and receiving -- it's highly unlikely that someone would opt out from sending but want to receive. For users who've disabled it, we could visibly disable the heart symbol to other users to make it clear what's going on.

I think it's inevitable that a small but vocal faction of users will dislike this feature, and this is a simple way to mitigate conflict about it.--Eloquence* 02:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if Wikipedia is anything like Facebook, then they will opt us in automatically, and make it impossible to figure out how to opt out!  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is impossible to truly opt out. It is possible to make the button not appear to a user that has opted out; I can think of one fairly simple way that would work. But since anyone could manually type out any message they want I don't see a point in opting out of receiving the messages. Removing the button to send, on the other hand, could be useful and indeed I have done that for myself. Prodego ^talk 03:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I think removing the button for opted-out users is good enough, since most of the Wikilove materials are hard to find for users who aren't familiar with what they are.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like people also want an automated reply. I guess appropriate ones might be to

• A rabbit icon 'I freeze like a rabbit when given wikilove'
• A boiled rabbit icon 'I get obsessed when given wikilove, look out'
• A rabbit pie 'We can share a meal and be friends'

I'm sure the Wikipedia software could look for a list of automated responses associated with a user and pick out the appropriate one for edits about to make to a users page so these could be shown in the preview. Hmm if they change their edit correspondingly then a different message might come out - one could almost work in a whole Eliza type conversation here ;-) Dmcq (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hide red talk page links for deletion discussions

I'm proposing that we add something to the common JS or CSS file that hides redlinked talk page tabs for deletion discussions. I've only ever seen one editor confused by this, but surely this tab is rarely if ever used. There should not be any meta-discussion about the discussions, all that needs to be said should be said on the page. If, by some wacky circumstance, a talk page must be created, then the tab will show as blue. Any editor that knows enough to know that the talk page must be created should also know how to type "talk" into the URL. To go to a discussion and find there is an empty discussion tab is a little counter-intuitive. This way there is no chance for even momentary confusion. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

They're usually not used, but sometimes they are. It's sometimes helpful to move extended analysis of sources there, or lengthy tangential discussions. I've participated in a handful of AfDs where this happened. It's sort of analogous to the admin noticeboards: you "talk" on WP:AN or WP:ANI, but "meta-talk" goes on WT:AN or WT:ANI. 28bytes (talk) 08:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this sometimes does happen, but the difference is that WP:AN never has a red talk page tab, whereas AfDs almost always do, by their nature. Once you create a Village Pump talk page, that tab is blue forever. Also, new users often need to go to AfD, as they are the ones most often creating pages that need to be deleted. And again, if the the tab is blue it should not be hidden. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that we want to require people to hand-code URLs. We shouldn't assume that every person with an interest in that page is a regular at the English Wikipedia, or that everyone finds it just as easy to type as to click (especially on a mobile device). Also, the redlink definitively indicates to the regulars that there isn't anything of interest on the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not assuming that they are a regular, quite the opposite. I'm assuming that most people that go to an AfD don't know where to post. People who know enough about AfD to know that a separate discussion about the discussion is required, these people I'm assuming are regulars. There is no situation where someone who doesn't know how en works would also need to post on the talk page instead of the discussion. And yes, seeing a redlink is how people know it is a redlink, just as seeing any noun lets you know it is that noun. If only redlinks were hidden (again, not blue links), then seeing any talk page tab would be an indicator that there was a conversation there. It is unlikely this would cause a problem for anyone. Not seeing a talkpage tab will be just as reliable as seeing a red one, as it will be the same wiki software hiding it. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the total numbers, but here is a list of all AfD talk pages. I said that I personally had only seen one editor confused by the talk page tab during a discussion; well, that list contains hundreds. I ask anyone interested in this proposal to take a random selection of these pages and see how many comments had to be made on the talk page, vs how many could or should have been on the AfD. The vast majority of comments on those talk pages are from people that think they will be part of the discussion. The vast majority of "meta" comments should be made in the discussion: SPA notices, relisting, deletion sorting, etc. People would not expect a meta comment on the talk page and it would likely go unnoticed. Comments taken out of the discussion are now simply hidden with a collapsible template, so (again) people can always easily see all parts of the conversation. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I have used the talk page a few times, such as WT:Articles for deletion/Thou Shalt Not.... I have also seen a few comments accidentally placed there. Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Jump List support

Hi, as you know, Microsoft added in Internet Explorer 9 the support for website pinning on the taskbar ; I believe that Wikipedia should adopt this feature to increase its share and be easier to use and reach.

It's possible to use Jump List also in Chrome thanks to an extension (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/foekkphhdncclpelbmngokikjnkikpad) and Mozilla is actively work to implement them in future releases of Firefox (http://areweprettyyet.com/5/desktopApps/).

More info at: http://buildmypinnedsite.com/

The Dark Melon (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can make out, at the basic level, "pinning" means "put the URL in the taskbar", i.e., a feature that was implemented in Mac OS X years ago.

It appears that the advanced level adds all sorts of intrusive features, like reminding users that they ought to come visit your site. I can't imagine why we would want to spend our limited dev resources on a feature that sounds so irritatingly spammy and will only benefit that fraction of readers who have the misfortune to be using a poorly rated web browser on one of the most heavily attacked and expensive desktop operating systems in the world. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

well if you love Mac it's not our problem, try to have an unbiased opinion. Nothing of what you wrote is actually true but maybe a mac fanboy considers all the rest just like shit..The Dark Melon (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Two points:

1. I would be correctly described as a fangirl, not a fanboy.
2. My favorite OS is the one that runs the Frankfurt stock exchange. (Hint: Neither Microsoft nor Apple make it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sorry..anyway even if you use Linux you should understand that many people use other OS and you can't preclude them to enjoy feature that your so beloved os doesn't have..Jump list is a very cool addition to the standard user experience and they are really useful and not spammy. Maybe you should try other products before judging them.. The Dark Melon (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Rename Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to Wikipedia:Community forum

After the failure of yet another way to try and get discussions which don't need admin attention away from WP:ANI (namely the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard), it's about time that we stop BSing about the function of ANI, which is basically a "community forum" in every sense. It has become clear that ANI is basically a forum in which the community goes to bring any and all issues for discussion, as it is easy to use. Calling it as its current name is overly confusing for many people and doesn't make any sense. Hence, I (more formally) propose that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents be renamed to Wikipedia:Community forum. –MuZemike 20:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I think its a relatively good idea but for on, I don't see the point of moving it at all. To me, ANI does look like a community forum but the reason that editors come there is to request action that only administrators could do. Not even to mention what a pain in the ass it would be for administrators to move all those archives (seeing that move-subpages doesn't apply). ceradon 21:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment I think the dispute resolution noticeboard is working quite well. Disputes seem to be getting resolved there. I think you do actually need ANI to handle matters involving admins misbehaving, but given in my experience ANI fails to do that so maybe getting rid of it is OK. I'd still like to keep the dispute resolution noticeboard though. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment Part of the problem to why stuff is still going to ANI that doesn't belong there is a) There's no notice at the top of the page to indicate there's an alternative place to take the issues and b) Issues which don't belong at ANI are being discussed there anyway, because no one is doing anything about these threads. It would take some admin enforcement, namely, closing threads that don't belong at ANI and pointing them to other forums, such as DRN. Otherwise, nothing is going to change. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say that rather than just closing the threads, that the admins should move the conversation to the appropriate forum, and notify the poster that they have done so. But otherwise, I agree with you. The only way the problem is going to be fixed is to a) provide an alternative and b) make sure that people use it. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose because the Village Pumps are the actual community forums. 'WP:Community forum' should redirect to WP:VP. ANI is supposed to be for incidents (not chat, questions, or discussion) that require attention specifically from admins (not everyone). Renaming is only going to make it harder for people to figure out the purpose of that page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose pretty much for the same reason as WhatamIdoing - we need more streamlining and organising of boards, and clarifying and delineating what their function. This goes in the opposite direction. Sorry. I'd support of merging some boards though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose also as per WhatamIdoing. We need to stress more clearly across the site that ANI is specifically for issues that require admin comment and intervention. The current name of the noticeboard is the most apt. We should be more bold about redirecting the plaintifs to a more appropriate noticeboard. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Restrict use of the Special:EmailUser feature to autoconfirmed accounts

While I was on IRC, I had an idea, what if a disgruntled user created an account, started to act disruptively and was blocked. Then, he created another account as to harass that administrator, and was later blocked. The user then started sending emails to that user containing personal attacks. While I can neither confirm nor deny that this has happened (but I'm pretty sure it has), I propose that access to the Special:EmailUser feature be restricted to accounts who have the autoconfirmed flag. ceradon 00:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose unless there is evidence this is a widespread problem and victims want it stopped. Otherwise it looks like a solution looking for a problem. Email has lots of valid uses for new editors. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. We have better means of stopping this type of behavior. Unless you can confirm that this is a major problem, your proposal does more harm than good. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. If users are being harassed by unsolicited mail they will, and do, let us know soon enough. Mail use will then be withdrawn. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. This will do more harm than good. Killing the ability for new users to reach out in a private manner to individuals is too high a price to pay for a theoretical harassment attack.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 06:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

  Note: - this comment is actually my opinion as an employee of the Foundation given that this policy would overlap my work with editor retention. Such an action (restricting EmailUser) could adversely affect editor retention.

• Oppose - this seems like a solution looking for a problem. I wouldn't worry about this until we're confronted by it. In my capacity as an administrator and volunteer, not as an employee action. - Philippe 21:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, in my experience abusive emails are more likely to be sent by admins than anyone else. DuncanHill (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, because if the feature is used wrongly, the user can be blocked, including blocking the use of emails (blockemail). If it has to do with users from a certain IP, the IP can be blocked by a CheckUser who has verified it, of if from a similar IP range, a rangeblock.  Hazard-SJ  ±  19:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Old English Wikipedia

Per the new Meta:Closing projects policy, I have proposed Ang Wikipedia, the Old English Wikipedia, for deletion. My reasons are numerous, but the main issue is that information on a dead language makes sense, information in a dead language does not. Please voice any opinion at Meta:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Old English Wikipedia. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

why are you posting this here? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps because both this project and that project's languages include the word "English" in them. Just a shot in the dark. Killiondude (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

So would you then wish to close down the Wikipedias in Latin, Sanskrit or Old Church Slavonic? I respect your view, but I disagree - I think it is of interest to keep these Wikipedias. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a junkyard", but to get to a different language you actually have to look for that language (i.e. it is not in the way), so there is no harm in keeping it and, contrary to what is said above, one it is actually useful in learning the language. Just because Mitsubishi, Toyota and other car companies have no qualms in butchering Latin (viz. plural of Prius), it does not mean dead languages are useless waste of a dozen megabytes out of terabytes. --Squidonius (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you not say "Anglo-Saxon Wikipedia" which is the name given to this Wikipedia at List of Wikipedias?ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

For discussion about this proposal, follow the link above. Writing here will just ensure that nobody sees your comments. Jafeluv (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for a new adminbot - Deleting Unpopulated categories

Hi guys. I'm considering filing a WP:BRFA for an adminbot that will delete unpopulated categories per WP:CSD#C1. But firstly I would just like to establish if there is indeed consensus for such a bot. Essentially the bot will periodically (mostly likely once a day or week), go through Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion and delete categories that meet the follow criteria:

• Have been tagged for 4 days
• Are not in any of the following categories:
  • Category:Disambiguation categories
  • Category:Wikipedia category redirects
  • Category:Wikipedia featured topics categories
• Is not listed on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion
• Does not have {{Empty category}} on the page

Any objections, complaints, ideas? Have I missed anything obvious? --Chris 12:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You should definitely confirm that the category actually is empty. Additionally, in addition to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, you should also check Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. And you shouldalso exclude WikiProject categories (see Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories for how MZMcBride's bot, BernsteinBot, defines those) and for maintanence categories which haven't been populated yet (these are somt times created a few days in advance, and may already be valid for several hours before they get populated). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you throttle down the bot so that it doesn't immediately start deleting categories as soon as they're empty? We frequently get vandals who remove the cat from every member of the cat, if the bot were to go in and delete the cat because of the vandal's actions, reverting the vandalism would leave us with a red link to the category. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

If I understand the proposal correctly, it only deletes under C1. C1 already has a 96 hour hold time from when an empty category is tagged. Courcelles 06:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Revisiting the proposal to give bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin bit

Retitled from "Revisiting Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking"

Following the successful RFC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins, some editors (including myself) are wondering whether we should revisit the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking proposal to give bureaucrats the technical ability to perform the removal of the tools for inactive admins as required by the aforementioned RFC. As such I wanted to ask here for input whether to start a new RFC on this proposal. Regards SoWhy 21:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I for one would support this. Every other user right granting is reversible by the person who did it. In fact, everything admins/bureaucrats do is reversible and this is the only exception. It is only an accident that bureaucrats do not have this ability. AD 21:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I have supported this proposal in the past and would support it again. Acalamari 21:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course crats should have this ability. → ROUX ₪ 21:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I supported this before, and still do. Since desysoppings are now going to start happening more frequently with the inactive admin removal process, it makes even more sense to have trusted local users do it instead of going to the stewards every time. We can assume bureaucrats to have knowledge about the policy and standard procedures, something of which many stewards may be unaware. Many Wikimedia projects have already added this right to the bureaucrat package: meta, simple.wikipedia, en.wikinews, hi.wikipedia, fi.wikipedia, etc. While bureaucrats weren't exactly selected for this task, I have no problem trusting them with an additional responsibility which is closely related with their current job. Jafeluv (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Lest we get ahead of ourselves, rather than expressing support for the idea itself, perhaps we should discuss how an RfC would proceed. Past discussions have shown considerable support for the idea, but have foundered on claims that consensus was insufficiently strong, the question posed wasn't clear enough, and/or participation wasn't broad enough. Therefore, I would recommend the following specific steps: 1) Start a clear RfC on a distinct question. For example, "Should bureaucrats be given the technical ability to remove the admin bit?" No additional options (such as ability to remove the bureaucrat bit) or mention of other topics that have confounded past discussions (such as community de-adminship). 2) Advertise the RfC widely. Notices on the relevant Village Pump pages, T:CENT, WT:RFA, WP:BN, WP:AN, WT:ADMIN and other pages as appropriate. Ask for a mention in the Signpost. If possible, get a watchlist notice for it. 3) Hope for as clear a consensus as possible. --RL0919 (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I would support this if it is limited to, and only, to procedural desysopping as per the new '12-month' resolution, To succeed, The RfC proposal should be as short and concise as possible, and should not only state what it is for, but also state clearly what it is not for - otherwise there will be a pile on of 'views from User:X' and alternative suggestions, and requests for additional tool-removal circumstances. The RfC should be widely advertised. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

What about self-requests and Arbitration Committee remedies, both of which go to m:SRP at present? –xeno^talk 01:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I think that's exactly the problem RL0919 mentioned. Imho, the RFC should only be about the technical ability to do so. We can discuss specific cases, such as procedural desysopping or the cases xeno mentions once there is a consensus that crats should have the ability. Like with any other userright, the question whether a group should have it (like the delete-flag for admins) is separate from the question in which circumstances they may use it (e.g. WP:DEL for the delete-flag). Regards SoWhy 07:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Set up TWO RFCs. Seriously, it's the only way to stop the issue of policy polluting the discussion on the technical ability. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat technical ability to remove sysop bit and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/policy on bureaucrat removal of adminship. For the latter, self-requests, temporary suspension under the new "inactive admin" approach, and arbcom remedies ought to be non-controversial - but regardless, the discussion has to be kept separate. Rd232 public ^talk 09:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

True but I'm unsure as to how to have them open at the same time, since the second RFC requires the first to be successful to make any sense. And if we cannot have them open at the same time, how can we stop people from polluting the first RFC with discussions that should be held in the second one? One idea would be to ask one or more respected neutral editor(s), possibly from ArbCom, to moderate the RFC and remove all discussion that's outside the RFC's scope but I'm unsure whether all editors will accept such moderation... Regards SoWhy 10:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

We can perfectly well have the second open at the same time as the first, it's by far the simplest solution. All the second RFC needs to do is say at the top something like This RFC is about the policy which will be required if Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat technical ability to remove sysop bit succeeds. And the first will say This RFC is purely about giving bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the sysop bit. Use of this ability would be governed by whatever policy the community determines. A potential policy is under discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/policy on bureaucrat removal of adminship. The technical ability, if activated, may not be used unless or until a specific policy has been approved by the community. That way, moderation by any editor should be acceptable, since there's a good place to move any misplaced comments to (but the existence of that place should anyway minimise the problem). Rd232 public ^talk 12:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, recently parallel discussions were running simultaneously on adding the technical ability for CU/OS to function without administrative rights concurrent with the more general policy discussion on whether adminship should be a prerequisite for those roles. –xeno^talk 12:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Good points, I'm convinced. As such, I started two RFCs at:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy

As I am not experienced in creating RFCs, I would invite everyone here to help expanding those pages with proposals and structure, so we can start those RFCs soon. Regards SoWhy 13:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I added some background and structural tweaking to the technical one. I think that will be the easier of the two since it is a pretty simple yes/no situation. The policy one may be a bit more complicated, since potentially people might have different opinions on bureaucrats acting in different cases (self-requests vs. ArbCom rulings vs. inactives). We may want different sections to discuss each to make consensus easier to determine in case it differs from one situation to another. --RL0919 (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I created a separate section for each situation where a removal might be required, so that people can support one situation while opposing others. Then, when the RFC is closed, all situations with consensus in their favor can be added to the policy. Regards SoWhy 21:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent Changes- tags for patrolled and reverted edits.

I've been doing a lot of RC patrol, and thought of this:

Observations

• The number of patrollers varies from time to time. This leads to multiple editors 'racing' to revert vandalism/ duplicated effort for looking at changes OR long periods where none of the IP/ newbie contribs are reviewed.
• when an editor does not revert a change, it may be because a) its good b)it needs closer looking into by someone else
• vandalism comes in bursts: an editor who made one bad edit is likely to strike again.

Proposal

• add a feature so that when a change is viewed, an editor can tag the change as one of(for e.g.):[good|not sure|reverted]
• users get tagged if they have a tagged edits.
• When the RC list is viewed, the tags will be visible near each change. (for e.g.): <change tag>/<usertag>
  • (diff | hist) . . article1; 11:19 . . (+1) . . RepeatTroublemaker (talk) (new attack) ?/!
  • (diff | hist) . . article1; 11:18 . . (+1) . . NewWikiGnome (talk) (new useful) ?/:)
  • (diff | hist) . . article1; 11:17 . . (+1) . . RepeatTroublemaker (talk) (reverted attack) X/!
  • (diff | hist) . . article1; 11:16 . . (+1) . . NewWikiGnome (talk) (reviewed useful) :)/:)
• editors who can tag changes must be autoconfirmed/ slightly more edits(say 20-30) OR can be elevated by other RC patrolers.

Why I think it will be useful

• Will streamline RC patrol and prevent duplicated effort.
• more thorough patrols: pay special attention to older unpatrolled changes, changes tagged not sure and changes by users tagged to be problematic.
• if (i'm guessing!) WP servers maintain a list of recent changes as a database for 2 days, It wont be too much of a strain to add an extra column or two per entry.
• It won't add to any backlog of changes to review(unlike flagged revisions). The backlog already exists. This just clearly marks those changes that need patrolling and maybe will help clear it out faster.

What do you think?[good|not sure|thats crazy] :P

Staticd (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops missed the fact that similar stuff has been raised thrice in the RCP talk page but came to no conclusion than "it would be nice "[7] [8] [9] Staticd (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Align indents and lists

I propose tweaking the CSS of the English Wikipedia like so (this test sample may not work if you're not on Vector):

Elected members

Name	Party		Constituency	District
Ayepa Michael		NRM	Labwor County	Abim District
Ababiku Jesca		INDEP	Women's Representative	Adjumani District
Okot John Amos		NRM	Agago County	Agago District
Obua Denis Hamson		NRM	Ajuri County	Alebtong District
Obua Ogwal Benson		UPC	Moroto County	Alebtong District
Okello Anthony		NRM	Kioga County	Amolatar District
Lolem Micah Akasile		NRM	Upe County	Amudat District
Eriaku Peter Emmanuel		NRM	Kapelebyong County	Amuria District
Amero Susan		NRM	Women's Representative	Amuria District
Olanya Gilbert		INDEP	Kilak County	Amuru District
Ayoo Tonny		NRM	Kwania County	Apac District
Akora Maxwell Ebong Patrick		UPC	Maruzi County	Apac District
Ajok Lucy		UPC	Women's Representative	Apac District
Atiku Benard		FDC	Ayivu County	Arua District
Drito Martin Andi		NRM	Madi-Okollo County	Arua District
Wadri Kassiano Ezati		FDC	Terego County	Arua District
Okuonzi Sam Agatre		INDEP	Vurra County	Arua District
Mbogo Kezekia		INDEP	Budaka County	Budaka District
Khainza Justine		NRM	Women's Representative	Bududa District
Baka Stephen Mugabi		NRM	Bukooli County North	Bugiri District
Kakoba Onyango		NRM	Buikwe County North	Buikwe District
Ssali Baker		NRM	Buikwe County West	Buikwe District
Ekuma George Stephen		NRM	Bukedea County	Bukedea District
Akol Rose Okullu		NRM	Women's Representative	Bukedea District
Kiyingi Deogratius		DP	Bukomansimbi County	Bukomansimbi District
Sabila Nelson		NRM	Kongasis County	Bukwo District
Wamakuyu Mudimi Ignatius		NRM	Bulambuli County	Bulambuli District
Biraahwa Mukitale Stephen Adyeeri		NRM	Buliisa County	Buliisa District
Mpairwe Beatrice		NRM	Women's Representative	Buliisa District
Matte Joseph Sibalinghana Kiregheya		INDEP	Bughendera	Bundibugyo District
Ntabazi Harriet		NRM	Women's Representative	Bundibugyo District
Tayebwa Odo		FDC	Bushenyi-Ishaka Municipality	Bushenyi District
Magyezi Raphael		NRM	Igara County West	Bushenyi District
Taaka Kevinah Wanaha Wandera		FDC	Busia Municipality	Busia District
Mulimba John		NRM	Samia-Bugwe County North	Busia District
Maganda Julius		INDEP	Samia-Bugwe County South	Busia District
Dombo Emmanuel Lumala		NRM	Bunyole County East	Butaleja District
Wangolo Jacob		NRM	Bunyole County West	Butaleja District
Nebanda Florence Andiru		NRM	Women's Representative	Butaleja District
Muwanga Muhammad Kivumbi		DP	Butambala County	Butambala District
Nalubega Mariam Patience		INDEP	Women's Representative	Butambala District
Migadde Robert Ndugwa		NRM	Buvuma Islands County	Buvuma District
Egunyu Nantume Janepher		NRM	Women's Representative	Buvuma District
Balyejjusa Sulaiman Kirunda		NRM	Budiope County East	Buyende District
Mubito John Bosco		NRM	Budiope County West	Buyende District
Babirye Veronica Kadogo		NRM	Women's Representative	Buyende District
Okot Ogong Felix		NRM	Dokolo County	Dokolo District
Nakato Kyabangi Katusiime		NRM	Women's Representative	Gomba District
Okumu Ronald Reagan		FDC	Aswa County	Gulu District
Acire Christopher		FDC	Gulu Municipality	Gulu District
Kiiza Rwebembera James		NRM	Bugahya County	Hoima District
Bigirwa Julius Junjura		NRM	Buhaguzi County	Hoima District
Kyooma Xavier Akampurira		NRM	Ibanda County North	Ibanda District
Kiboijana Margaret Namara		NRM	Women's Representative	Ibanda District
Mugema Peter		NRM	Iganga Municipality	Iganga District
Baliddawa Edward		NRM	Kigulu County North	Iganga District
Muwuma Milton Kalulu		NRM	Kigulu County South	Iganga District
Kabaale Kwagala Olivia		NRM	Women's Representative	Iganga District
Kangwagye Stephen		NRM	Bukanga County	Isingiro District
Byarugaba Alex Bakunda		NRM	Isingiro County South	Isingiro District
Byarugaba Grace Isingoma		NRM	Women's Representative	Isingiro District
Mwiru Paul		FDC	Jinja Municipality East	Jinja District
Balyeku Moses Grace		NRM	Jinja Municipality West	Jinja District
Mbagadhi Frederick Nkayi		NRM	Kagoma County	Jinja District
Nabirye Agnes		NRM	Women's Representative	Jinja District
Lokeris Samson		NRM	Dodoth County East	Kaabong District
Akello Rose Lilly		INDEP	Women's Representative	Kaabong District
Niwagaba Wilfred		NRM	Ndorwa County East	Kabale District
Kasaija Stephen Kagwera		NRM	Burahya County	Kabarole District
Businge Rusoke Victoria		NRM	Women's Representative	Kabarole District
Omona Kenneth Olusegun		NRM	Kaberamaido County	Kaberamaido District
Ongalo Obote Clement Keneth		NRM	Kalaki County	Kaberamaido District
Ekwau Ibi Florence		FDC	Women's Representative	Kaberamaido District
Badda Fred		NRM	Bujumba County	Kalangala District
Lwanga Timothy Mutekanga		NRM	Kyamuswa County	Kalangala District
Nanyondo Birungi Carolyn		NRM	Women's Representative	Kalangala District
Lubogo Kenneth		INDEP	Bulamogi County	Kaliro District
Nabugere Flavia		NRM	Women's Representative	Kaliro District
Ssewungu Joseph Gonzaga		DP	Kalungu County West	Kalungu District
Kintu Florence		NRM	Women's Representative	Kalungu District
Ssebaggala Abdu Latif Sengendo		DP	Kawempe Division North	Kampala District
Sebuliba Mutumba Richard		DP	Kawempe Division South	Kampala District
Ssimbwa John		NRM	Makindye Division East	Kampala District
Kyanjo Hussein		JEEMA	Makindye Division West	Kampala District
Kasibante Moses		INDEP	Rubaga Division North	Kampala District
Naggayi Nabilah Sempala		FDC	Women's Representative	Kampala District
Nsereko Muhammad		NRM	Central Division	Kampala District
Allen Andrew		INDEP	Bugabula County North	Kamuli District
Mugabi Muzaale Martin Kisule		NRM	Buzaaya County	Kamuli District
Byamukama Nulu		NRM	Kitagwenda County	Kamwenge District
Nshaija Dorothy Kabaraitsya		NRM	Women's Representative	Kamwenge District
Karungi Elizabeth		NRM	Women's Representative	Kanungu District
Chemutai Phyllis		INDEP	Women's Representative	Kapchorwa District
Bwambale Bihande Yokasi		FDC	Bukonjo County East	Kasese District
Nzoghu M. William		FDC	Busongora County North	Kasese District
Kafuda Boaz		NRM	Busongora County South	Kasese District
Mbahimba James		NRM	Kasese Municipality	Kasese District
Amodoi Cyrus Imalingat		INDEP	Toroma County	Katakwi District
Alengot Proscovia Oromait		NRM	Usuk County	Katakwi District
Alupo Jessica Rose Epel		NRM	Women's Representative	Katakwi District
Lugoloobi Amos		NRM	Ntenjeru County North	Kayunga District
Nsanja Patrick K. Mabirizi		INDEP	Ntenjeru County South	Kayunga District
Bakeine Mabel Lillian Komugisha		NRM	Bugangaizi County East	Kibaale District
Kasirivu-Atwooki Baltazar Kyamanywa		NRM	Bugangaizi County West	Kibaale District
Besisira Ignatius		NRM	Buyaga County East	Kibaale District
Tinkasiimire Barnabas Ateenyi		NRM	Buyaga County West	Kibaale District
Nabbanja Robinah		NRM	Women's Representative	Kibaale District
Kabajo James Kyewalabye		NRM	Kiboga County East	Kiboga District
Mwebaza Sarah Wenene		NRM	Women's Representative	Kibuku District
Barumba Beatrice Rusaniya Namala		NRM	Women's Representative	Kiruhura District
Kwizera Eddie Wa Gahungu		NRM	Bufumbira County East	Kisoro District
Kamara John Nizeyimana		NRM	Bufumbira County North	Kisoro District
Nyirabashitsi Sarah Mateke		NRM	Women's Representative	Kisoro District
Awongo Ahmed		NRM	Koboko County	Koboko District
Baba Diri Margaret		NRM	Women's Representative	Koboko District
Ebil Fred		UPC	Kole County	Kole District
Acheng Joy Ruth		UPC	Women's Representative	Kole District
Lokii Peter Abrahams		NRM	Jie County	Kotido District
Amuriat Oboi Patrick		FDC	Kumi County	Kumi District
Chemaswet Abdi Fadhil Kisos		NRM	Kween County	Kween District
Chekwel Lydia		NRM	Women's Representative	Kween District
Ssemugaba Samuel		NRM	Kiboga County West	Kyankwanzi District
Nankabirwa Ann Maria		NRM	Women's Representative	Kyankwanzi District
Kwemara Ngabu William		NRM	Kyaka County	Kyegegwa District
Kabahenda Flavia Rwabuhoro		NRM	Women's Representative	Kyegegwa District
Muhumuza David		NRM	Mwenge County North	Kyenjojo District
Timbigamba Lyndah		NRM	Women's Representative	Kyenjojo District
Lanyero Sarah Ochieng		NRM	Women's Representative	Lamwo District
Omara Geoffrey		NRM	Erute County North	Lira District
Akena James Micheal Jimmy		UPC	Lira Municipality	Lira District
Atim Joy Ongom		INDEP	Women's Representative	Lira District
Bagoole John B		INDEP	Luuka County	Luuka District
Nabukenya Brenda		DP	Women's Representative	Luwero District
Sejjoba Issac		NRM	Bukoto County Mid-West	Lwengo District
Birekeraawo Nsubuga Mathius		DP	Bukoto County South	Lwengo District
Kitatta Aboud		NRM	Bukoto County West	Lwengo District
Nakabira Gertrude Lubega		NRM	Women's Representative	Lwengo District
Namara Grace		INDEP	Women's Representative	Lyantonde District
Mutonyi Rose Masaba		NRM	Bubulo County West	Manafwa District
Kayagi Sarah Netalisire		NRM	Women's Representative	Manafwa District
Lematia Ruth Molly Ondoru		NRM	Women's Representative	Maracha District
Namayanja Florence		DP	Bukoto County East	Masaka District
Mpuuga Mathias		INDEP	Masaka Municipality	Masaka District
Kase-Mubanda Freda Nanzira		NRM	Women's Representative	Masaka District
Bintu Jalia Lukumu N. Abwooli		NRM	Women's Representative	Masindi District
Waira Kyewalabye Majegere S.J.		NRM	Bunya County East	Mayuge District
Isabirye Iddi		NRM	Bunya County South	Mayuge District
Bagiire Vincent Waiswa O.		NRM	Bunya County West	Mayuge District
Gudoi Yahaya		NRM	Bungokho County North	Mbale District
Wamanga Wamai Jack		FDC	Mbale Municipality	Mbale District
Nakayenze Connie Galiwango		NRM	Women's Representative	Mbale District
Yaguma Wilberforce		NRM	Kashari County	Mbarara District
Bitekyerezo Kab Medard		NRM	Mbarara Municipality	Mbarara District
Mujuni Vicent Kyamadidi		NRM	Rwampara County	Mbarara District
Kamateeka Jovah		NRM	Women's Representative	Mitooma District
Kiwanda Godfrey Ssubi		NRM	Mityana County North	Mityana District
Kaddumukasa Ssozi Jerome		INDEP	Mityana County South	Mityana District
Ssinabulya Sylivia Namabidde		NRM	Women's Representative	Mityana District
Lokii John Baptist		NRM	Matheniko County	Moroto District
Aleper Simon Peter		NRM	Moroto Municipality	Moroto District
Iriama Margaret		NRM	Women's Representative	Moroto District
Fungaroo Kaps Hassan		FDC	Obongi County	Moyo District
Alero Tom Aza		NRM	West Moyo County	Moyo District
Auru Anne		NRM	Women's Representative	Moyo District
Kiyingi Bbosa Kenneth Joseph		INDEP	Mawokota County South	Mpigi District
Nakawunde Sarah Temulanda		NRM	Women's Representative	Mpigi District
Ssemmuli Anthony		NRM	Buwekula County	Mubende District
Mulindwa Patrick		NRM	Kasambya County	Mubende District
Lubega Godfrey		INDEP	Kassanda County North	Mubende District
Bakaluba Mukasa Peter		NRM	Mukono County South	Mukono District
Kafeero Ssekitoleko Robert		INDEP	Nakifuma County	Mukono District
Kusasira Peace Kanyesigye Mubiru		NRM	Women's Representative	Mukono District
Achia Remigio		NRM	Pian County	Nakapiripirit District
Iriama Rose		INDEP	Women's Representative	Nakapiripirit District
Sempala Mbuga Edward William		NRM	Nakaseke County South	Nakaseke District
Mayende Stephen Dede		NRM	Bukooli County South	Namayingo District
Okeyoh Peter		NRM	Bukooli Islands County	Namayingo District
Makhoha Margaret		NRM	Women's Representative	Namayingo District
Asupasa Isiko Wilson Mpongo		NRM	Busiki County	Namutumba District
Mutyabule Florence Tibafana		NRM	Women's Representative	Namutumba District
Achia Terence Naco		NRM	Bokora County	Napak District
Anywarach Joshua Carter		INDEP	Padyere County	Nebbi District
Acayo Christine Cwinya-Ai		NRM	Women's Representative	Nebbi District
Epetait Francis		FDC	Ngora County	Ngora District
Bahinduka Mugarra Martin		INDEP	Ntoroko County	Ntoroko District
Mujungu Jennifer K.		INDEP	Women's Representative	Ntoroko District
Tashobya N. Stephen		NRM	Kajara County	Ntungamo District
Musinguzi Yona		NRM	Ntugamo Municipality	Ntungamo District
Kabasharira Naome		NRM	Women's Representative	Ntungamo District
Ogwal Jacinto Deusdedit		UPC	Otuke County	Otuke District
Nyakecho Okwenye Annet		NRM	Women's Representative	Otuke District
Ayena Krispus		UPC	Oyam County North	Oyam District
Odonga Otto		FDC	Aruu County	Pader District
Lowila Cd Oketayot		NRM	Women's Representative	Pader District
Ochwa David		NRM	Agule County	Pallisa District
Mutono Patrick Lodoi		NRM	Butebo County	Pallisa District
Opolot Jacob Richards		NRM	Pallisa County	Pallisa District
Amoit Judith Mary		NRM	Women's Representative	Pallisa District
Kasamba Mathias		NRM	Kakuuto County	Rakai District
Mandera Amos		NRM	Kooki County	Rakai District
Kyeyune Harun		INDEP	Kyotera County	Rakai District
Cadet Benjamin		INDEP	Bunyaruguru County	Rubirizi District
Katoto Hatwib		NRM	Katerera County	Rubirizi District
Mbabazi Betty Ahimbisibwe		NRM	Women's Representative	Rubirizi District
Turyahikayo Kebirungi Mary Paula		NRM	Rubabo County	Rukungiri District
Mugume Roland		FDC	Rukungiri Municipality	Rukungiri District
Okupa Elijah		FDC	Kasilo County	Serere District
Ochola Stephen		FDC	Serere County	Serere District
Alaso Alice Asianut		FDC	Women's Representative	Serere District
Katwiremu Yorokamu Bategana		NRM	Sheema County South	Sheema District
Ssasaga Isaias Johny		FDC	Budadiri County East	Sironko District
Wadada Femiar		FDC	Women's Representative	Sironko District
Omolo Peter		FDC	Soroti County	Soroti District
Ekanya Geofrey		FDC	Tororo County	Tororo District
Tanna Sanjay		INDEP	Tororo Municipality	Tororo District
Lubega Medard Sseggona		DP	Busiro County East	Wakiso District
Mutebi Joseph Balikudembe		DP	Busiro County South	Wakiso District
Kawuma Mohamed		DP	Entebbe Municipality	Wakiso District
Kasule Robert Sebunya		NRM	Kyadondo County North	Wakiso District
Kikungwe Issa		DP	Kyadondo County South	Wakiso District
Nalubega Mary Tuunde		INDEP	Workers' Representative	Workers District
Arinaitwe Rwakajara K.		NRM	Workers' Representative	Workers District
Lyomoki Samuel		NRM	Workers' Representative	Workers District
Nabulya Theopista Ssentongo		NRM	Workers' Representative	Workers District
Achile Manoah Mila		INDEP	Aringa County	Yumbe District
Oleru Huda Abason		NRM	Women's Representative	Yumbe District
Asamo Hellen Grace		NRM	Representative of People with Disabilities
Katuramu Hood Kiribedda		NRM	Representative of People with Disabilities
Ndeezi Alex		NRM	Representative of People with Disabilities
Nokrach William Wilson		NRM	Representative of People with Disabilities
Karuhanga Kafureeka Gerald		INDEP	Representative of the Youth
Amoding Monicah		NRM	Representative of the Youth
Nakabale Patrick		NRM	Representative of the Youth
Ogwang Peter		NRM	Representative of the Youth
Katirima Manoni Phinehas		Representative of the Uganda People's Defence Forces
Mpabwa Sarah Patience		Representative of the Uganda People's Defence Forces
Oketta Julius Facki		Representative of the Uganda People's Defence Forces
Owoyesigire Jim		Representative of the Uganda People's Defence Forces

The benefits - mainly aesthetic - are obvious. Not sure about whether any pages would be adversely affected; I can't believe so, unless they're relying on stupidly precise measurements. Thoughts? - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 21:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The lack of alignment is particularly difficult for threaded discussions. If we can fix it (even for most users) via CSS, that would be great. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree the lack of ability to have multiple paragraphs in a bullet-point is annoying. To clarify, if I understand, is to have the text of colon-indents and both types of list-items have the same indent? If so, I 'support. DMacks (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I support as well but I want to clarify I think we still need a way to identify the comments from different editors. Even if we preced that comment by an arrow or something rather than stagger them we need to be able to tell different editors comments in a string. --Kumioko (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I support this idea, it has annoyed me for a long time. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

One problem with this proposal is that ordered lists will throw themselves out of bounds:

• Technical Writing

12345. Technical Writing

<ol> has a left margin of 3.2em, which would have to be increased to 4em, which is way too wide. A possible solution is to make both <ul> and <dd> left margins 1.6em. Here's a tiny piece of personal CSS that will achieve this effect. — Edokter (talk) — 14:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

ul, dd {
  margin-left: 1.6em;
}

I like this idea. One minor problem is that it would make bad formatting impossible to spot. Right now, when I see something incorrectly formatted (which is a problem for WP:ACCESS#Lists, it's obvious because it's ugly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. If you could give some examples, there may be a way to remake them obvious. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 18:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this sounds like a great idea to me. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is going to write an ordered list with even 1000 entries, so the proposal above seems fine and a good improvement. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree; the existing system drops out at 100,000 anyway (for those tempted to misuse ordered lists). - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 18:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You mean the original proposal or mine? — Edokter (talk) — 19:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed partial solution to NFCC enforcement

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request exemption of restrictions ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to standardize country color scheme in timelines

Part of the information for the colors came from the articles called national colours and X11 color names:

• France = Blue
• Italy = Azure blue
• Spain = Dark red
• Switzerland = Red
• Netherlands = Orange
• Germany = Gold
• Belgium = Yellow
• Denmark = Burgundy
• Luxembourg = Deep sky blue
• Kazakhstan = Light blue
• Ireland = Green
• United States = Dark blue
• Russia = Dodger blue
• United Kingdom = British racing green
• Hungary =
• Ukraine =
• Poland =
• Sweden =
• Norway =
• Finland =
• Belarus =
• Slovakia =
• Czech Republic =

• War = White