Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals): Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Rabbitfang (talk | contribs)
629 edits
Line 914: Line 914:
*'''Strong support''' The bill has the strong possibility to pass into law, considering the amount of money backing it. Yes, it is true that WP tries to avoid bias. However, if this bill were made into law, and Wikipedia did not shutdown as a result and decided to continue on, Wikipedia would be forced by law to become biased. [[User:Rabbitfang|Rabbit]][[User Talk:Rabbitfang|fang]] 16:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
*'''Strong support''' The bill has the strong possibility to pass into law, considering the amount of money backing it. Yes, it is true that WP tries to avoid bias. However, if this bill were made into law, and Wikipedia did not shutdown as a result and decided to continue on, Wikipedia would be forced by law to become biased. [[User:Rabbitfang|Rabbit]][[User Talk:Rabbitfang|fang]] 16:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
*:You got some evidence for the sentence that begins "However,"?--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 19:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
*:You got some evidence for the sentence that begins "However,"?--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 19:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
*::I was basing that sentence off of what is said that WP would be required to do (e.g. remove links/references to some sites and to remove images that provide useful information for an article). Maybe 'biased' wasn't the best word; "less neutral" would probably be better. [[User:Rabbitfang|Rabbit]][[User Talk:Rabbitfang|fang]] 22:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


=== Discussion cont===
=== Discussion cont===

Revision as of 22:22, 26 December 2011

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts

New ideas and proposals are discussed here. Before submitting:


« Archives, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212


Multilingual search results for registered Wikipedians.

RfC tag added on 23:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC).

Proposal: Enable users who have registered Wikipedia accounts to receive search results from multiple Wikipedias automatically.

Synopsis: Single language search is the wisest decision for the majority of users, but multilingual search results are incredibly useful for multilingual users, allowing them easier and more reliable access to information.

Cons against multi-language searches: Currently, there is a fairly fast and effective way to search for items in a language other than the wiki a user is visiting. By typing in the country prefix at the beginning of a search, we can navigate to a page that is not on the originating project. This is a smart balance between usability and technical performance when considering the average usage of the Wikipedias. For most users, the side language options in an article and the ability to specify a country prefix are more than enough options for effective information gathering. On top of that, it would be horribly inefficient to force the server to crawl every language whenever an anonymous user searched for something. It would also be hard on the servers to attempt to detect a language for each search call. Searching every database for a single item would be a Herculean task to perform even once, and the time it would take to do such a comprehensive search would severely detract from a usability standpoint. Although I am currently unfamiliar with Lucene, I am under the impression that a single call is made to a language's index when a search is made. The functionality of the searching and the availability of individual wikipedia language stats suggest that the articles reside on separate indexes. If this is the case, to find articles in multiple languages would require multiple searches to be made for a single request. This would also be a very large no-no from a performance standpoint if there were a large amount of languages being searched by a significant amount of active users.

Pros for multi-language searches: For articles that exist in both the language of the original search term and in the originating wikipedia's language, the user will most likely be redirected to the originating language version of the article. This is certainly a simplified explanation, as one might end up on a disambiguation page for that word. For example, if one searches for 愛 in the English Wikipedia, that user will be served with Love. Searching for Amore(Italian for love), however will redirect you to a disambiguation page for Amore. That page provides a link to the English article for love. It should be noted, however, that neither search will allow you to immediately reach the existing articles for love in the languages in which they were searched. It would be necessary to reach the article in the language of the wiki first before clicking on the language sidebar. This is acceptable, but not as user-friendly as it could be.

The above only relates to searches that involve articles that represent the concept in the searching wiki's native language. If a user creates a basic search for an article that does not exist in the language of the wiki being searched from, then the results page will display nothing. If one searches for the Japanese celebrity 温水洋一 (Yōichi Nukumizu) in the English wikipedia, it displays nothing. If you search for the romanization of his name, there is still no link to the Japanese article, but there are suggested articles that contain his name. As there is no article in English at the moment which talks about this person, there are much more limited search results on the English Wikipedia. This makes sense if the person doing the search doesn't understand Japanese, which would be understandably assumed about most users on the English Wikipedia. This isn't a valid assumption for users that explicitly specify that they would like to be unified with both the Japanese and English Wikipedias.

There will be much fewer users who unify their accounts with multiple languages. Therefore, the load would be significantly less taxing on the server to search those unified languages for a single search term.

Possible Solution: A registered Wikipedia User can specify whether or not they wish to receive search results from multiple languages. This option would be disabled by default. If this is still not a large enough limit, we could require the user account to be unified with the languages they selected.

For performance issues, I would recommend that by default when a user opts in to this functionality, all searches would be performed as they currently work. Therefore, if multiple languages have articles for the same concept, the user would be served with the page on the Wikipedia that was originally queried. Only when no result was found on that Wikipedia would there be a search for the other languages that had been opted for. If the user wishes, however, they could specify that they wish to given a choice of articles in the languages for which they opted. This would require some new functionality. The new manner of search could be done in multiple ways. If an Article exists on the language of the Wikipedia being searched, it could check for a corresponding interlanguage link and display all relevant choices from that information. This would save resources as there would be no need to search for a second time. Another option would be to run a separate search on the wikipedias opted, so that if an article exists in language, but has yet to receive an interlanguage link, the information won't be lost. Either way, I'll leave that up to people who are in charge of the technical matters and who have much more experience than myself. I'd think that it would be best to combine the two. If an interlanguage link exists, give those choices, if it doesn't exist for one of the languages opted for, make sure to search that language explicitely. This would also be a good way to find and report articles which should related via interlanguage links!


Example process flow for the various ways a search could be handled depending on the type of user:

anonymous Wikipedia user or registered user who has not opted for multilingual support:

(no change from current method)

registered Wikipedia user who has opted in for both ja.wikipedia and en.wikipedia support without specifically wishing for a choice of articles in both languages:

searches from en.wikipedia.org for “愛” -> en.wikipedia.org runs search in the current manner -> redirects user to Love. (no change from current method)

searches from ja.wikipedia.org for “愛” -> ja.wikipedia.org runs search in the current manner -> redirects user to 愛. (no change from current method)

searches from en.wikipedia.org for “温水洋一” -> en.wikipedia.org runs search in the current manner -> no results found -> runs a search for “ja: 温水洋一” -> redirects user to 温水洋一

registered Wikipedia user who has opted in for both ja.wikipedia and en.wikipedia support and specifically wishes for a choice of articles in both languages:

searches from en.wikipedia.org for “愛” -> en.wikipedia.org runs search in a new manner -> gives choice of both 愛 and love

searches from ja.wikipedia.org for “愛” -> ja.wikipedia.org runs search in a new manner -> gives choice of both 愛 and love

searches from en.wikipedia.org for “温水洋一” -> en.wikipedia.org runs search in the new manner -> no results found. runs a search for “ja: 温水洋一” -> redirects user to 温水洋一

Thanks for reading! I hope you think this is a worthwhile idea and look forward to your ideas. Also, I apologize for the informal nature of this proposal. It's my first wikipedia page and I'm just a dumb art student. Subcogitate

  • Oppose: We've considered it before, but most people don't know all the 20+ languages Wikipedia uses. One word in one language can mean something else in another, so users could get misinformed. I don't think it's worth the increased server latency. By the way, this is not a unique page - see Wikipedia:Your first article.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ---Thanks for the feedback! If you notice, however... My proposal doesn't say anything about searching all the languages. Just ones that the users select. You might want to reread the entire article and gain a better understanding of what I am suggesting. Also, you are right about this not being a unique page, so thanks! :) Subcogitate
  • Nice idea. Well considered and presented. I'll think about it a bit before deciding one way or another though. First impression is that it could be a boon for those who speak multiple language to more quickly find matches across all Wikipedias. fg 01:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • -- It's nice to see people hoping for the same thing. The title of that bug is "search all languages" which is a bit different from what I'm suggesting... If that's not what the bugfix is supposed to do, then maybe it needs to be re-written to be more specific :) Thanks for the tip! I'll look into bugzilla from this point forward! Subcogitate


Personally, I think this could be quite a good idea. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to use http://www.qwika.com/, but I am not sure how relevant or how useful it is.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Can't think of any down sides. I don't speak or read any other languages but English (except programming and scripting languages but that's different) so would not get the benefit but, I can see how useful it would be to a user who is multilingual. I can well imagine it being a boon for Wikipedia too since it would encourage cross language Wikiknomery etc. I also imagine it would be quite simple to implement. A quick extension to some php and a couple of tweaks to related UI and Bob's your uncle (as we say in blighty). fredgandt 23:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd love to be able to search the French and German Wikipedias at the same time as I search the English one. We'd need to think about how the results were displayed, because with many things -- biographies, geographical locations, the sort of thing you'd actually want to use a foreign-language Wikipedia for -- the articles will have the same titles. I suggest using the standard Wikipedian prefixes, if this is technically possible, so if I used the search term "Goethe" the results would be listed as en:Goethe, de:Goethe and fr:Goethe.—S Marshall T/C 12:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As I'm regularly using the English, the French, the German and the Slovene Wikipedia, I find it a great idea to have the results for all of them listed in one place. This makes finding the relevant information easier, simplifies the comparison between the different versions and cross-checking and also allows for easier building of articles using information and references from different language versions. I'm really looking forward to have this enabled. --Eleassar my talk 12:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm doing some translation right now, and this would certainly be helpful, especially as a little option on the search page. What would be cool would be having the interwiki result(s) pop up next to each search result so people can also see which languages have an equivalent article to what they're looking for. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Don't forget Google "goethe site:wikipedia.org" - not great but better than nothing. Rich Farmbrough, 17:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC).
  • Support Sounds like a good idea. Dusty777 (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could this somehow be linked to the Babel userboxes on user pages? So, when enabling the feature, you won't need to select languages you're interested in. Bazonka (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a checkbox option, disabled by default. It will clutter results (the same sequence of chars can bear different meanings in different languages), so using it by default is not a good idea. P.S.: the Babel comment right above mine makes some sense: it would be nice if language skills would influence sorting. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restored for further discussion before it is closed by an uninvolved admin. Cunard (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be able to own Wikipedia.

I have a suggestion that might make some money for Wikipedia and serve its goals at the same time.

I would like to be able to BUY a copy of a certain year of the entire site. I cannot say if this would be a set of DVD's or a large stand alone hard drive, but I would LOVE to have my own copy of the whole site. There are times that one's internet is not working and to have your own copy of the closest thing to an Encyclopedia Galactica would be delightful.

A second reason I think this is a good idea is that it would allow a researcher to document changes over time. For example, the word "soandso" only has a placeholder in Wikipedia 2011, but by 2012 it is a huge document. The phrase "soandso" appears to have entered the popular lexicon between 2011 and 2012.

We can learn a great deal about the past by looking at a popular encyclopedia at that time. What were the prevailing attitudes on certain subjects and what subjects might have been taboo. It would be a shame for Wikipedia to be moving forward in time and to leave nothing historical in its wake. The evolution of Wiki's or Wikipedia itself is a subject worthy of study, but unless there exists a static snapshot of a moment in time, that historical context is lost.

In the final analysis there is the fact that when civilization collapses, I'd like to know a few backups are out there somewhere.

See Wikipedia:Database download. You can download the whole site to your hard drive, for free. However, if civilization collapses, I think that the internet would be among the bottom of social priorities. Cambalachero (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know about page history? You can see all versions of every page, ever. For example, So and so began as a rather odd redirect in 2005 [1], and gradually expanded [2] [3]. (Not a great example; it's far more interesting to look at the historic versions of more substantial articles). Also, you might find nost:HomePage interesting, which is a frozen snapshot of Wikipedia from 2001 - e.g. nost:Earth.
There's various plans in place to provide a 'snapshot' of Wikipedia in various formats. I just hope they remember to write Don't Panic in large, friendly letters.  Chzz  ►  09:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has never been for sale - Wikipedia always has been, and probably always will be, a free internet site, which is able to be accessed by any one who has access to the world wide web. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and by the way: you can also buy printed editions of Wikipedia! mabdul 11:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's a good idea, but the encyclopedia is too large to try to document the entire thing. At this point, how would we easily make a distinction between actual articles and "Wiki" pages, such as the projects and special pages? What articles should be included/excluded from a printed addition. At this stage, with American culture moving away from print media and embracing the digital age, it would be like taking a step backward, rather than a step forward. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 16:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are various (free) versions that you can own, but they do suffer form some limitations. Cambalachero's idea is a good one in principle. Rich Farmbrough, 21:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Provided you don't care about the images, this provides a dedicated offline copy of Wikipedia in a handheld package. Dragons flight (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Proposal is out of place. There is no policy or guideline of the English Wikipedia that has much to do with this. If you want to buy a physical copy from the Wikimedia Foundation, contact them directly and see if you can come to a mutually agreeable price. Alternatively, it doesn't have to be the Foundation; nothing stops anyone, really, from downloading the whole site and selling you a physical copy, but if you want to place an ad for such a person, this is probably not the right place to do it. --Trovatore (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My studies show that the English Wikipedia would fit on a large external hard drive, along with all media it uses (although they may have to be at reduced size). I think this could be sold for $100 USD, possibly less. I think it's an excellent idea for someone to do this. I might do it. WMF isn't going to do it, as they generally leave commercialization of content to others. Dcoetzee 10:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, go for it. Anyone can; it's (almost entirely*) free. Anyone can do anything they want with it, as long as they give credit.* Many people have copied various parts of Wikipedia to various formats; that's all great. No problem. And if they make $$$ from it, good luck to 'em.  Chzz  ►  10:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to buy and carry a copy of Wikipedia, consider the WikiReader which retails for less than 100USD. You can download updates yourself or subscribe to their service and receive new copies of Wikipedia via the post. I have one on my coffee table and I love it. LeeColleton (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be able to watch talk and main pages separately

This has been brought up before, but has not got much attention. See #Watch_talk_pages (2005) and #Watchlist_without_talk_pages (2008)

It would be nice on occasions to watch a talk page without watching its main page or vice versa. The default behaviour should stay as it is insofar that any watched page automatically has its associated page also watched, but if we chose, we should be able to watch un-watch just one or the other. fredgandt 02:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been brought up before at least a couple times, but I agree, I'd love this. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bug "There is no user preference to automatically watch talk pages edited" seem pretty close the proposal. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 18:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not quite related. Anyway, watchlist entries are bound to the article's titles in the database, which encompas both the atricle and it's talk page. They are unseperable in that respect, so this would require rewrite in the software (and possibly restructering of the database). — Edokter (talk) — 18:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine (I know a bit about PHP and MySql) it would be quite simple to split them up at one level or another. I would look at the last script to handle the providence of Special:Watchlist and flag those tagged. The tagging could also be easily appended to the database. Bitfileds come in handy for this sort of thing. Just create two new values and carry on camping! fredgandt 21:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Wikipedia:Hide Pages in Watchlist shows that it should be possible to write a user script to do this. Rd232 talk 19:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User scripts can change the display in almost unlimited ways. So yes it could be done that way. the question would be whether enough people would like it to make it more practical and/or desirable to add it to the software. fredgandt 21:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I can't see the value in this. Why would you want to watch one and not the other? Major changes to an article are discussed on the talk page and if I had forgotten to add the talk page to my watchlist, by the time I saw those changes, it might be too late to do anything about them. I would support a 'Hide Talk Page' option such as the 'Hide bots' option we currently have but the default should be to watch both pages.--Ykraps (talk) 08:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could not forget to watch one or the other as the default behaviour would not change. This is a proposal to allow the un-watching of the pages separately as a special option. As for when or how it might be useful, it might be (personally has been). I just like options!  fredgandt 09:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't sound so bad but it still seems a lot of work for very little benefit that I can see.--Ykraps (talk) 08:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. - Dank (push to talk) 18:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Increases user interface complexity without any clear benefit. (If this "feature" is thoroughly hidden then okay, but I'd rather see the MediaWiki developers spend their time on developing more useful features.) —Ruud 21:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I'd rather be certain that I always have both the page and the talk page watched. I absolutely do not want to see the behaviour of unwatching be changed (by default), nor would support adding any additional user interface elements (confirmation dialogs, tab or menu items) be added (without enabling this feature in your preferences.) Some additional checkboxes etc. on the watchlist would be fine. —Ruud 12:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - What's the point? Why can't you just ignore the extra watchlist entry? What if you're watching the talk page of a low-traffic article without watching the article itself, and it gets vandalised? →Στc. 23:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And since when is it anyone's obligation to revert vandalism? And if you're going to say "why not ignore that page" than it wouldn't get reverted ANYWAY now would it? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to watch WT:AIV but not WP:AIV.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What's stopping you from simply ignoring the edits made to WP:AIV? →Στc. 00:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • AIV gets many edits each day that I don't want to watch. It's the talk page I want to watch.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was actually AIV that inspired this proposal. I wanted to keep an eye on discussions there but didn't want to be pointlessly flooded with the constant stream of edits to the main page. If I were an admin, it would be important for me to watch the page. I'm not though. And watching the bot tidy up the reports 1000 times a day was more than I could stand. fredgandt 22:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, no good reason not to do this. There are plenty of circumstances where a user might want to follow changes to an article and not its talk page, or vice versa, and why shouldn't they be able to do so? Robofish (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose only a small benefit, at the risk of considerably more complexity and potential for things to go wrong - such as you think you're watching an article, but you aren't. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It might lead to a user not seeing a question raised on a talk page about an article that is pertinent to them. If someone doesn't want to look at the talk pages (or vice versa) in their watchlist then they can just filter the Namespace themselves. Zangar (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I just wanted to not watch one particular talk page, how could i do that by use of the current filters? That could only be done with a user script. This proposal is to add functionality for all users, not just those who manage to think of the idea, then find or write the script to allow it, fredgandt 22:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: would be too complex. Try to envision how "EditWatchlist" would look, and then think about Special:EditWatchlist/raw: do you want to have 3 separate textboxes: watching_main / watching_ talk / watching_both ? — AlexSm 19:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There are numerous pages where I want to be aware of changes to the text, but not participate in the voluminous discussions (much of the MOS, for example). DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in principle. This will almost certainly result in even less discussion and collaboration. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but it needs to go farther. We don't just need the ability to watch just the talk page or just the main page, but to watch just one section. Many times I have tried to watch one particular low-activity noticeboard case only to end up drinking out of a firehose as some unrelated case gets a large number of comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)\[reply]
  • Oppose Increases user interface complexity for no apparent reason and proposer gives no rationale for this change other than "It would be nice on occasions". Switched to Neutral below. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why must I give a rationale? If you can see any value in the idea, support it. If you think it is harmful, oppose it. If you don't care one way or the other, don't comment. Why must people have to work so hard to impose thoughts on to other editors here? I propose an idea. How it sits in your head is your business. fredgandt 22:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't have to give a rationale. I don't think it is harmful, but I also think it is not useful, since I can think of no situation where I would ever want to watch only one of the two pages. Thus my 'Oppose'. If you have an example of such a situation, however, by all means feel free to present it and convince me otherwise. I just say that my oppose is rather weak. Some proposals might have a negative effect on the encyclopedia but I don't think that's the case here. I just wanted to make transparent why I oppose this proposal. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Plenty of examples have already been given, but I'll repeat a very obvious one I mentioned above -- Wikiprojects. I know I'm hardly the only one who never pays attention to what's on the 'project' page but is quite involved in the discussions in them. The other case, as I said above, is FA of the day; perhaps a better example, even, as on the day they are featured they get tons of edits, and I for one an often only interested in the talk page. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Personally not liking something does not strike me as fair grounds to oppose something. I am not Christian, but do not oppose others being Christian. If that's what they want to do, good luck to them! If however, I thought Christianity was dangerous or harmful (wow, that's a contentious subject right there), I would oppose it on the grounds that it would do that harm to others and future others. Analogy aside, if you see no harm in this, please don't oppose it. Just state your neutrality if you have to state anything at all. fredgandt 07:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Proposal says default will be watching both pages (which I wouldn't like to see changed) and one of the pages will not be watched only if the editor chooses to do, thus neutral, as some people seem to find it useful. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely. I wouldn't want the default to change either; that would get terribly confusing. This is just an available option to un-watch a page without un-watching its partner. I envisage a drop-down (open to ideas) like the "move" drop-down, that shows when hovering over the "this page is watched" icon (not when hovering over the "watch this page" icon) that gives the choice to un-watch the page without un-watching the other. If we were to click on the star as normal, the normal behaviour is carried out (both are un-watched). On a personal note Toshio, thanks for being such a good sport. fredgandt 10:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (Sort of) Wasn't there some talk of making it possible for a user to have a hotlist of pages that are really important to them? I for one would like to have pages I created appear bolded in my watchlist, rather like pages in my watchlist appear bolded in Recent changes. Perhaps a system could be developed along those lines? Speciate (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although bolding preferred pages would conflict with other highlighting (proposed and presently implemented), I'd support a weakening (by fading to grey or reducing font size) of those pages we chose to un-watch as a compromise. I think though if the scripting was in place to allow that kind of marking (application of a class probably), it would make more sense to go the whole hog and not show those pages marked. fredgandt 07:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I don't see any purpose in this, but, if other people want it, and it can be done, then fine. It doesn't matter that much.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 13:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose again - [4] →Στc. 02:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to be clear: you're opposing this because a more complex way of accomplishing effectively the same thing already exists? How about instead, support this way of making it easier for people? fredgandt 02:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enable "Show changes since last visit" on watchlist

I propose that the option $wgShowUpdatedMarker be enable on the English language Wikipedia, as seems to be the default on many other projects. This will enable users to see which pages on their watchlist have been updated in a single glance. The default styling is to bold the page title, but we could style it any way we want, e.g. with a subtle background color instead. — Edokter (talk) — 14:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • When we visit our watchlist we see either the last changes to the pages we watch or (if chosen) all changes in chronological order that have been applied to those pages. With this functionality applied, what we see are all the same entries, but with some page title links highlighted (the style of highlight can be changed by CSS). Those that are highlighted are those pages we have not visited since the change indicated/reported. So, we view our watchlist changes at 1pm and see that we were the last person to edit Example. We then do some other stuff and come back at 2pm and see that someone has edited the page. Because we haven't yet revisited Example, it is shown highlighted. We then visit Example to see what has changed, and do some other stuff. We revisit our watchlist at 3pm and see that no one has edited Example since we visited it and there is no highlighting. So the highlighting is to let us more easily see those entries on our watchlist, that we have not visited since the last changes were made. A way therefore to keep track of which changes we have patrolled and which we have yet to.
This functionality is being used on Mediawiki for example (and many others including commercial Wikis such as The Second Life Wiki).
With this change to the watchlist there is also a new button. It is featured in the watchlist controls section above the entries. It (when clicked) allows that we can "Mark all entries as visited".
We have yet to discuss what the style of hghlighting would be, but we should first discuss whether or not we want it. The class is already in use here, and can be seen highlighting (in bold) pages that we are watching, when we see those entries in Special:RecentChanges fredgandt 23:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, and thanks Edokter for the pointer to Commons. I have tried it out now. I think if this were used here it would fundamentally change the way I am using my watchlist. At the moment, I load it once and then go throught it chronologically. With the new feature, I would probably go through my watchlist thematically and reload it all the time in order to see the markup change. If it's the same for others, this could increase server load. Maybe that's why it's currently turned off. Hans Adler 00:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I use JavaScript to update my Wacthlist every 60 seconds while I'm on that page. It also checks my Watchlist every 60 seconds while I'm not viewing it and shows me if it has changed by making a little box turn green (then it stops checking until I've looked at my Watchlist). I was unsure if this would be considered inappropriate use of the servers and asked Wikimedias top programmer guy what he thought. He said "Be bold! If there are any problems someone will let you [me] know.". fredgandt 00:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already checked, and the <strong>...</strong> tag carrying the "mw-watched" class can have its strength (boldness) overriden. The body of the "Special" pages each has their own class, so a change to how "mw-watched" is treated on Special:Watchlist does not have to apply to other uses of "mw-watched". I'm sure you (Edokter) already knew this but others reading this may not have. fredgandt 23:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Do visited and unvisited links not show in different colors for you? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the links are visited, because all pages on my watchlist are already in my history (because I've viewed them before). Dcoetzee 04:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • support, would be useful. sonia♫ 09:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question One thing I was curious of -- is this a real 'last visited' type of tracking, where it actually resets if you aren't on WP for a couple hours, or does it only track what you actually visit (or use the 'mark as visited' button)? The later I can get behind much more, ESPECIALLY if it simply tracks if you've visited WP or not. I utterly HATE when the 'visited' flag is raised anytime you even step onto a website, but as my WP Watchlist is my home page, it often gets refreshed when I have to reset the browser because of an error, or have been streaming lots of videos, etc. Of course as I said above, it NEEDS to be a tolerable option rather than forcing it on everyone. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes please --Guerillero | My Talk 21:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that I support this proposal, although I find the explanation rather unclear and I'm not sure that I really understand it. At present, I keep track of what I've looked at on my watchlist by seeing the blue links turn that purplish color they turn when the browser (Firefox, in my case) has put the URL into history. If I understand correctly, this proposal would make that functionality more robust, which I would like, and there would be ways to opt out of it if I turn out not to like it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are only two ways you could have page title links change colour that way in your watchlist: 1) If you regularly clear your browsing history 2) If you add pages to your watchlist without ever actually visiting the page (possible by adding the titles to Special:EditWatchlist/Raw). This proposal is not to highlight what pages you have visted, but what pages have changed since you last visited them. Please see my explanation above. fredgandt 20:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Support - I want to oppose just to make a WP:POINTy edit to show that consensus doesn't have to be unanimous (as it almost is here), but I actually like this idea. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support A useful function, especially for those of us with longer watchlists. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this would save me a lot of time, I am often unsure of what I have already checked on active pages. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I love it in Commons and can't understand why it's not allowed here. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems that the majority of people want this enabled so I'd feel like a bit of a dick if I opposed. But if it is implemented, can it please be made opt-in? (Or, at the very least, make an easy way to opt-out – and by easy I mean something that doesn't require me to learn CSS). Jenks24 (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've found it extremely useful at Commons, and I've wished for a long time that we had it here. I'm not sure if it can be made optional, but I'd support making it so if it can be (why force something on Jenks24 that he doesn't want?), although the best situation in my mind would be to make it default with opt-out being a simple option in the Gadgets part of Preferences. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I find it very handy on Commons. —Bruce1eetalk 06:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but only if there is an easy option to toggle this either within Preferences, or on the Watchlist page itself, so users don't need an understanding of CSS to opt-in/out. But I've always wanted something like this. Zangar (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • For those who don't like or want this, the css required to override the effect is minimal and will be made easily available by myself and others (should we have this feature enabled). For those who do not want to mess about with css, there will be a clearly labelled button on Special:Watchlist to "Marked all pages visited". One click of this and the stylistic change is immediately undone. So in effect there is a toggle to switch the effect off. If the feature is enabled, I would imagine the conversation would move to MediaWiki talk:Common.css‎, where the preferred default styling can be discussed along with other options. For example: If enabled, I will choose to set the style in my common.css. Some may prefer not to bother and use the default. Others may like neither the default or my style and want a particular style or have it overridden completely. I (and I imagine others) would be pleased to provide code for specific styles including full overriding. So all in all, if it is enabled, no one will have to put up with it if they don't want to. fredgandt 10:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - very useful for people with long watchlists, like myself. And can we make it optional? Sure. I suppose. And I think it'd be most useful for the savvy wikipedians, so I wouldn't be opposed to an opt-in.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 19:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a preference option - I think its more useful to more serious members. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support: I'm sure editors have better things to do than repeatedly check their watchlist timestamps and remember the last timestamp so as not to miss anything on their next login. Hope this highlighting won't require the watchlist to remain open and rather still show the highlightings that were supposed to be bold when signed in from a different terminal. I was wondering why wikipedia didn't have this feature! --lTopGunl (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Log in on computer A and check watchlist. See highlight that Example has changed since you last visited it. Visit it. Close page. Login on Computer B. Check watchlist. See no highlight since Example hasn't changed since you last visited it. fredgandt 20:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely what I meant since current scripts would require the watchlist to stay open. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments have slowed. With almost unanimous support, could we do the next step now? Who says what to whom about switching it on? fredgandt 18:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. No need to wait the full 30 days. I'll post a request at Bugzilla. — Edokter (talk) — 18:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request has been filed. — Edokter (talk) — 18:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Do we sit and wait, or is it a good idea to support it at bugzilla too? fredgandt 19:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is linked from there, so no need to spam the bug report. — Edokter (talk) — 19:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good to see the gears are turning already. I would strongly support this too; it would help the watchlist do what I really use it for (all too often I look at the last diff, then click through to the history to look at changes since I was last there...). bobrayner (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How much time is expected for this to get implemented? --lTopGunl (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is already implemented, it only needs to be enabled. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And that would take? --lTopGunl (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Call talk pages "Talk"

RfC tag added on 09:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC).

Hi. A lot of Wikipedia instructions tell people to post "on the talk page". However, it isn't obvious where this means, since the page is not labelled "talk page" but is labelled "discussion". This is very confusing, especially for someone unfamiliar with all the Wikipedia rules. Wny not change the text on the tab from "Discussion" to "Talk page" to match all the instructions? (By instructions I am referring to everything you get when you click Help, as well as so many of the templates used to tell posters why their edit was not accepted and how to fix it. (184.147.120.119 (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]


Just a note: the page which will need to be changed is MediaWiki:Talk. sonia♫ 09:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At 17:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC) I changed the title of the post from 'Call talk pages "Talk Page"' to 'Call talk pages "Talk"', because there is a massive consensus among people supporting this change for using 'Talk' in specific and some opposition to 'Talk Page' in specific. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support this one per 2011 "State of the Wiki" address. Rich Farmbrough, 23:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support continuity I don't much mind which is prefered or even if another name like "chatter" or "gobledigook" (well maybe not) is chosen, but I do think we would be better off with one name for all "talk pages" across the whole site. fredgandt 00:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a 2007 discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive AN#Talk Pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about just calling it Talk. That one is even more heavily implied than discussion, although to me, discussion is so obvious that I feel this change is unneeded. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support discussion. This is primarily because of the popularly brought up rule "This is not a forum for general talk about the article's subject". Georgia guy (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support Talk because that's what most people call it anyway. @Georgia guy, talk and discussion are basically synonymous, so that rule could be changed to "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject". There's not really any difference. Bazonka (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've idly wondered about why this isn't labelled "Talk" on and off for years. Thryduulf (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for Talk page. I have also wondered about this many times myself. It may also be confusing for non native speakers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC) - or just simply 'Talk'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Talk". The name "discussion" is simply never used for talk pages, so it is simply counterproductive to use it in the most prominent place of all. 124.168.87.221 (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Improving clarity is rarely a bad thing, and I can't remember ever seeing "discussion" used except in the tab. Alzarian16 (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Talk". As pointed out previously, it's the most commonly used term for the page, so it would be the most user-friendly.--JayJasper (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor Oppose I don't want to be the lone dissenter here....and my reasons are mainly aesthetic. On places where it DOES say 'talk' it just kinda looks...off. It's probably just a matter of getting used to one over the other, but also the word 'discussion' seems to carry a better connotation, IMO, than 'talk'. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't worry Melodia, you're not alone. I've already stated my feelings but not my personal preference, since my preference goes against what I see as the best course of action (if any). I prefer "Discussion" too, but as is being mentioned time and time again here, "Talk" is a colloquialism we can't escape. If this proposal has any value (and I believe it does), it will be to set a standard, continuous use of one word across the site. If we were to choose "Discussion", we would have to change so many policies and templates etc. we would get nothing else done for years. Quite simply, "Talk" is too engrained to oust now, so supporting continuity may mean not getting the word we prefer, but we do get less confusion. fredgandt 07:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Many templates use "see the talk page" or similar for direction, and it's more common to see "talk page" in discourse than "discussion page". Do international language versions of Wikipedia use the same word? In any case, it feels more natural and intuitive to use "talk" and I fully support the motion to change it doktorb wordsdeeds 07:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for "talk". It should be labelled as what we call it to avoid completely unnecessary confusion (I'm thinking especially of non-native English speakers, as well as newbies who didn't get enough sleep last night) - and it's always called "the talk page". Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Talk- been waiting for this for a long time. New people only realizes it's the "talk page" after they click the tab and see the page is actually called the "talk page". Plus all our "informative" pages call it "Talk page" like with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines - Help:Using talk pages - Wikipedia:Talk page layout - Wikipedia:Talk page templates. So lets not confuse our editors right off the bat when there reading introductory pages. Lets make it all match. Moxy (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have listed this proposal at Template:Centralized discussion. Cunard (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Talk page" is a jargon term, which we should normally avoid in the UI. The name "discussion" is more accessible. But considering how likely it is that we'll change all the help pages, policy pages, and user comments to stop saying "talk pages" (read: will never happen), this is the more prudent alternative. Dcoetzee 09:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support "Discussion" makes a bit more sense especially to the newcomer than the (relatively vague) "talk", but "talk pages" is simpler and easier for most purposes. sonia♫ 09:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. If I remember correctly, the tabs for the talk pages were labelled "Talk" when I joined the project. I think it was changed along with the switch from Monobook to Vector, and I think this particular change was based on the findings of the usability project. Apparently, we used to have a lot of readers who had no idea that Wikipedia articles have associated discussion pages and had no desire to try out the cryptic "Talk" tab. Hans Adler 13:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was not as you describe. Some versions of Twinkle and Friendly used to include a script which changed the title of the "discussion" tab to "talk". This script was disabled a while back (around the time of the change to Vector). — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Talk for the sake of consistency with namespace: Talk:Example suggests the link to Talk page. Calling things by their names is an important aspect of usability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. PaoloNapolitano 16:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose On the contrary, we should change the help, docs, etc. to speak of "discussion pages" rather than "talk pages". "Discussion" seems to make more sense as a descriptor, particularly for outsiders. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion name has already failed replacing the Talk name in general use. No need to revive dead. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative support, but also question for clarification: are we talking only about the link in the tab row at the top of each page, where it now says "Article | Discussion" or "Project page | Discussion", or is "Discussion" also found somewhere else? If it's only that one link, I'd go for changing it, for consistence with the actual namespace labels, but perhaps go for "Talk page" rather than plain "Talk". Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just that tab link I believe, and the original proposer did say "talk page", although it's gotten a bit garbled along the way. sonia♫ 22:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I am the proposer and that is what I meant. "Talk" would be just as clear. I am glad the idea has support. What happens next? Do I have to request anyone in particular anywhere in particular to make the change? Or do I wait more time and then request? Or something else? Thank you everyone for understanding. (184.147.120.119 (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]
      • Here's what happens next. This change appears to have significant support, so this discussion has become a request for comment to get input from the broader community. It will run for 30 days gathering input. After the 30 days, somebody that hasn't participated in the dicussion will judge the consensus and close the discussion with a summary of what the community has decided. If there is consensus for the change, somebody will file a Bugzilla request to have the software changed to make the pages show talk instead of discussion. That may seem like a long time, but once started the process runs until it's completed. So you aren't required to do anything else, but you are certainly welcome to if you'd like to. Best regards. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 04:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The argument is flawed because in many pages, we tell users to look at the "discussion page". "Discussion" is much much more easy to understand than "talk" for a new user—what's a "talk page"? Do we call conference rooms "talk rooms" or forums "talk boards"? Discussion is more newbie-friendly; if we need to reword help pages, then we should do that to make it more sensible in the long run. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We should name it what we call it. Kaldari (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would absolutely love for this to happen. Absolutely.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: (edit conflict) It would make sense to have consistency between what the tab's text is and what users refer to the page as. It seems to me that "talk page" is the common term, so if we are going to continue to use "talk page" in our comments, help and policy pages, templates, etc., then we should change the tab to say "talk" or "talk page" to achieve that consistency. If we are going to continue to have the tab say "discussion", then we should actually start calling the page to which it links the "discussion page" instead of the "talk page" in our comments, help and policy pages, templates, etc. Regards, —{|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|} 05:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support "Talk" for consistency and clarity reasons. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 06:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The word talk is misleading because we don't talk there; we write. Readers might confuse this with an audio interface such as Siri. Warden (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support But "Talk", not "Talk page". The latter is ghastly. If you prefer "Discussion", I'm sure we can write some CSS/JS to give you the old style. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral If you are concerned about 'Talk' being an audio interface, then you could change the tab to Discuss, though it's not as friendly as Talk. Whatever is the consensus is fine, but I do agree that consistency is best either way. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support for "Talk". Click on "Discussion", and what does it take you to? A page that has the title "Talk:Page" right there at the top. The proposal makes very good sense, per the principle of least surprise. I've also noticed when I talk to non-editors in real life that when I explain to them how we use talk pages, they ask me how they can find the talk page for a given article. I find that I have to tell them to click on "Discussion", and that's the way to get to "Talk". Admittedly, it's not that hard to figure out, but it really is more user-friendly to make this change. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with comments - I agree that if someone wants to call their talk page something else its fine and that the default would be better as Talk page. However, it would be fairly easy to create a script to rename the page so an individual can call it whatever they want (i.e. talk, Talk page, discuss, etc). --Kumioko (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support new, and especially foreign language editors are often confused about our nomenclature. We need to be consistent, and it's typically easier to change a label than to change what many people call them. Buddy431 (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in favor for consistency, but then we should go with Discussion. It describes the function of the page much better than the vague 'Talk' . —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Fetchcomms is right, 'talk page' is not user friendly, actually it's such a weird name that if I were not a regular Wikipedia I would probably be confused as to what it means. In fact just a few days ago I changed my signature and talk page header from 'talk' to 'contact' for this reason. If the problem is the lack of consistency referring to the namespace, then the change is needed at the help page level, not in the display tabs. For what it's worth, I would support moving the namespace to Discussion:; in the meantime I will oppose changing the displayed tab to "talk page", as 'discussion' is much more straightforward. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many people at first do not know what "wiki" means, and they also learn what "talk page" means. -Wikid77 13:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that new users should just learn random things about how Wikipedia works before contributing? Just because people learn what "talk page" means later does not mean we should expect people to take the time to figure that out before they get impatient and just give up. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support "Talk". The menu option "Talk" is shorter than "Discussion" and the term "talk-page" provides a distinctive, while still short, name for such wiki-pages. A Google search for "talk-page" reveals it is closely linked (80%) to wiki websites, whereas a search for "discussion page" reveals wide, rambling use in many other websites, with no specific meaning as to what "discussion" entails. For over 6 years, many Wikipedia users have understood that a "talk-page" is not an open forum to blog about ideas; however, "discussion" might be imagined as a different type of page, perhaps open to blog-forum posts or other general discussions. Name the menu tab "Talk" to be more precise and avoid confusion. -Wikid77 13:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the purpose of consistency, I support "talk". "Discussion" is overly long and the page is called a talk page, not a discussion page. We shouldn't rename the talk namespace to discussion though. Talk and Discussion have the same meaning, the only difference being "Discussion" is much longer lengthwise. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. - Dank (push to talk) 18:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Classic skin (which doesn't have tabs) links to talk pages in the sidebar with the link Discuss this page. Would there be any change to this? — An optimist on the run! 21:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question How would this affect Monobook? I like the idea for the default skin, since it's simpler for people not already familiar with Wikipedia, but I prefer "discussion" for my own purposes simply because I'm accustomed to it. Nyttend (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Talk" - as a volunteer in #wikipedia-en-help connect, I've found that many new users find it disorienting when we direct them to the "talk page". Often, the reaction is "Wait, where is that?" and we have to explain how "discussion" == "talk". ~ Matthewrbowker Say hi! 05:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Talk Per common name, common sense, it's shorter, it's more inviting, it's consistent with the namespace. A small step towards UI sanity. Ocaasi t | c 07:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this obvious and long-overdue change. I don't know what caused it, but I'm impressed by the sudden outbreak of common sense in this thread. Robofish (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support talk An obviously good idea--why was this ever changed to "discussion?" —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although I also think its neither here nor there. Even if English is not your first language, if you can't find the "talkpage" by clicking on the word "discussion", you should probably think about whether editing Wikipedia is the best use of your time. --FormerIP (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, though I would support a broad effort to update references to "talk pages" to "discussion pages". Not sure on the namespace; I don't think keeping it "Talk" is necessarily confusing. Powers T 19:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't mind informal mentions and references to talk pages, but changing the actual tab seems to imply (intentionally or otherwise) a morphing of the pages' purpose, to general debate about the article rather than for content development as it is now. That's an erosion of wp:NOTFORUM. 66.127.55.52 (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Talk - It's a common name, and it's more consistent with the namespace and what everyone calls it. Very rarely have I ever seen someone say "discussion page".--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 19:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support–It's not only far more commonly used, it's also the name of the namespace. "Discussion" does sound a bit more formal, but the consistency with most usage and with the namespace system makes it preferable to me. oknazevad (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I prefer keeping it "Discussion" especially for new readers and editors. In many dialects of English talk and discussion are not the same thing. Discussion implies for many of us civil, rational analysis and discourse. It is not surprising that in shorthand discussions talk is used more often than discussion; it is shorter. That does not mean we should formally accept "Talk" as the default tab. There should be no problem in providing an optional display for those editors who wish to use a "Talk" tab. But for new users "Discussion" is clearer and more appropriate. --Bejnar (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the other hand, when we say "talk page" all the time, when several of the templates we use (such as {{Expert-subject}}) say "talk page", and when all the namespace names use the word "talk", it probably makes it confusing to new editors when the tab doesn't also say "talk". and while the second and third could be fixed, the first can't - both because we would need to go through all the pages in the Discussion: namespace, the User discussion: namespace, etc. to fix them, and since users are so used to using this term that they will keep doing so, even to new users. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Neither term is precisely correct, and arguments could be made either way. "Discussion" is not precisely correct, because a user talk is not for discussing the user or the user page. It's important to keep things simple, and consistent. Any potential benefit of "discussion" being more clear than "talk" is lost through the constant confusion (new) users have, wondering what we mean by a "talk page". Especially when their own 'user talk' is called what it is. The word "talk" is short, snappy, matches the internals, and isn't all that mystifying. Keep it simple. I think this is a classic case where a 'usability study' did not truly consider all ramifications of a change - if we were designing a new mediawiki from scratch, we might go for 'discussion' - but we're not; "talk" is ingrained into our culture; it is unrealistic to change "talk" to "discussion" in every place (indeed, for historical discussion, it's effectively impossible). Changing "discussion" (tab) to "talk" is simple.  Chzz  ►  00:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - For consistency with the mainspace and with what we actually call it, and to be less confusing to newcomers. I think their nature won't change regardless of what is actually written on the tab, so no possible harm done. Zidanie5 (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unless we are going to change the talk namespace to be a discussion name space. The current setup is unclear. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, since the page in question is always Talk: (or NamespaceName talk:), not Discussion:. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - greater consistency; less likely to cause confusion among newer users. Chris (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. In simple, it makes sense. Here, no. theMONO 03:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Instead of changing the tab labels, we should rename the namespace from Talk to Discussion. Why? Because I think it is more natural to advice someone to participate in an article discussion by editing the discussion page and talk gives a stronger impression that the page is for general talk about the article topic. Should I make a counter proposal to rename the namespace? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I, personally, could only support that if you can also have all past discussions changed from "talk page" to "discussion page", and make sure that all Wikipedians, including those who happen to be on Wikibreak in paralell to the discussion, will use the word "Discussion page" in stead of "talk page" - and I don't think that you could do that. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Strongly needed. Rcsprinter (gas) 16:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per most of the other oppose reasons. That and I just like the way it is now. - Purplewowies (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ovbious Support. Well, yes. It seems obvious that some people who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia, might say, "Talk page? Where's the talk page?" and all they would see is "Discussion". All I'm saying is that it seems obvious. yrtneg talk contr 23:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I also oppose this in some matter, such as the word "discussion" being more, eh, mature than "talk". My vote is now neutral. yrtneg talk contr 23:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Did nobody read two week ago's signpost, where it becomes clear that such inconsistencies are exactly (one of) the kind of difficulties newcomers are experiencing, or why is it that this is not mentioned a single time? Unfortunately, topics like these always result in wikiarguing, so I prefer abstaining from further input on this. Nageh (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • support duh. It is the talk page. Protonk (talk) 05:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • To people seriously think that the tab being called discussion somehow elevates the level of discourse on the page? And that the solution is to change the namespace to "discussion"? Even worse, are people serious in renaming both to "collaboration" or something likewise obfuscatory and multi-syllabic?! That's pretty surprising, so I apologize for my incredulity. It seems to be much easier to change the site CSS to say "talk" than change every single link and mention of the talk namespace in order to satisfy our sense of superiority. The only cogent argument I can see against using "talk" is that it mischaracterized what actually goes on in talk pages--we don't "talk", we write. But that seems needlessly pedantic. I guess we can chalk this up to the community's willingness to accept the status quo because they are used to it, consequences for new users be damned. Protonk (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support That was one of my first questions when I discovered non-Mainspace Wikipedia. BTW, it's already done over at the Simple English Wiki. Zlqchn (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; discussion was never a good alternativ to talk - same problems. I suggest Collaboration - and change the Namespaces accordingly (I think we can set up a namespace redirect from Collaboration->Talk and change relevant links). Then make an effort to stop saying "talk page" :) --Errant (chat!) 13:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I oppose for reasons of dignity and the value of description. "Discussion" is a nicely dignified word, appropriate for the prominent position given to it on each article in this encyclopedia. "Talk", in the sense of discussion, as opposed to exposition or demonstration, seems quite the opposite. And "discussion" is a better descriptor, in part because "talk" can only clearly have a sense which is general for the page. Click on the "discussion" link and you are brought to a page which hosts a discussion, a particular discussion. You are not brought to a page which hosts a talk, unless one takes "talk" in an obscure sense for such a usage. Even in the case of their general senses, "discussion" seems to be a better descriptor. What happens, or is supposed to happen, on the page, "discussion" accurately describes that; and that is a discursive conversation in any medium focused on a particular matter. "Talk" can have a sense which can refer to such a thing by subsuming it under a more general heading, but as such it does not pick out it so specifically. Lastly, "talk" having many other senses, if it is taken in these, it is prevented from referring to such as "discussion" does. This last point has been partly illustrated above by others.--Atethnekos (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—aside from consistency, it's more inviting to newbies to see a tab that says "talk". Tony (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This would make things easier for new editors, and would have some consistency when linking to the talk page. And changing the name to something different than "disucssion" or "talk" and trying to get editors to change their habits is untenable. Let's call a spade and spade. Angryapathy (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I found this slightly confusing when I first started editing, and I have seen cases of new users not understanding what the "Talk" page was or how to find it because it was labelled "Discussion". The pages are actually named "Talk:" in the urls, links, and search box. We could easily change any mentions of "Discussion" pages in the Help section etc to "Talk"; I think that a majority already refer to "Talk". If some people think that "Discussion" is clearer or sounds "better" I don't see that as rationale to leave the current fractured terminology the way it is. And it would be a whole lot easier to change everything to "Talk" than change everything to 'Discussion". And "Talk" is already the term most users use in posts. -MsBatfish (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the use of "Talk:". It's confusing for new editors when they try to search for the talk page and all they find is "Discussion". In addition, FWIW, it has already been changed to "Talk" for User talk pages. —mc10 (t/c) 17:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - There is no word that can make what happens on those pages dignified, we might as well be consistent. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Support It's a total usability howler to refer to the "Talk page" in policies, templates and communication from other users and not have a button marked Talk that the new users can click on. If we were to hire an expensive usability consultant, this is one of the first things they would tear us a new orifice over. Let's save the money and just change the label. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - I don't disagree with any of the arguments made by either side, but find myself ultimately preferring the present "Discussion". I will only say that *if* the tab is changed to Talk, a notice will need to be posted at the top of each talkpage clarifying that the purpose of the page is for discussion of the article and not "talk" in the sense of random back-and-forth chatter. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. One of the most absurd issues with UI is that it labels elements by its own jargon distinct from the wiki parlance. But this was a WMF decision, so I'm not holding my breath any change in this area will happen. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Talk". Continuity is a good thing. –Fredddie™ 06:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add a 'Cleanup' tab to articles

I propose to move all templates such as those from WP:TC of an article to a new 'Cleanup' page. This page could be located in a new namespace, such as Cleanup:Tree for the article Tree. The rationale for this proposal is, that we have two main groups of people coming in touch with an article: our readers and our editors. The cleanup templates are primarily targeted at our editors, not at people who only read articles. Now obviously, we want to encourage our readers to be bold and fix things themselves when they see something needs to be fixed. However, a reader who is interested in a specific subject is likely to notice a shortcoming of the article without the extra 'hint' that something is wrong with the article. And of course our readers are already invited to do something to improve an article via the article feedback tool. The benefits of this proposal are:

  • less clutter in article namespace
  • more seriously looking articles
  • a centralized place for the article listing what needs to be done, which might encourage boldness, since it will be more specific than generic cleanup templates

Such a new page could become a detailed 'To Do list' for an article independent of WikiProject specific lists in the WikiProject banners on the article talk page. This would also be useful, if an editor recognizes something in need of improvement in an article, but does not have the time to fix it right now. The main difference to an article talk page would be, that no signed comments should be made on that page in order to keep a clean appearance. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similar proposals have been rejected in the past. (See Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Move_maintenance_tags_to_talk_pages) It is true that cleanup templates are more important to the editors than the reader. However, some cleanup templates, such as Template:Unreferenced, do serve as a warning to readers. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me say what I think about about the points at PEREN:
1. Is there statistical data providing evidence that readers motivation to become editors is ignited by the cleanup templates? I think many readers are motivated by errors or missing information in an article that interests them, regardless of whether there are cleanup templates or not.
2. Blindly believing something one reads somewhere (for example here on Wikipedia) is never a good idea. As a competent reader of Wikipedia, one should expect that there may be problems.
3. To be honest, this is one of the most nonsensical things I have ever read on Wikipedia.
4. True, but any substancial change has its 'cost'. And it is at least my personal belief (and please feel free to prove me wrong) that this 'investment' has a potential for an overall improvement of Wikipedias content. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe any statistics have been taken on how the cleanup tags affect non-registered users. The problem I see with moving the cleanup tags to a separate page, is that it hides the problems with the article. If the readers don't know there is a problem, how will they be educated so that they know that the issue needs to be fixed. Some cleanup tags would work poorly on a separate page. For example, how would we address the section templates (i.e. "This section requires expansion") or the specific cleanup templates such as [citation needed]. Editors trying to track down and address the issues would need to jump back and forth between the pages. As pointed out by point four, there are about one million articles with some sort of cleanup tag and there are over 200 different cleanup tags. The massive amount of work that would be required to implement such a feature would be astronomical. A new namespace would need to be created. All of the cleanup bots and tools would need to be updated. We would need to alter the cleanup templates. Then we would need to actually go through and make the conversion. Even with a bot, that could take months to complete. If there is a problem with cleanup templates displaying for readers, it might be simpler to just alter the cleanup templates to only display for logged in users. There is a way to hide categories from users without the preference enabled. It shouldn't be too difficult to do the same with templates. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding 'hiding problems with the article', we could include a link at the top of all articles (a wikilink pointing to the Cleanup page) saying something like
"Click here to check whether there are problems with this article"
Regarding the large amounts of work required to implement this, I agree. Whether that is a reason not to do it, I don't know. Regarding cleanup templates referring to a specific section: it should be no problem to provide a wikilink to the section in question on the cleanup page.
"If the readers don't know there is a problem, how will they be educated so that they know that the issue needs to be fixed."
This will be done by a link, as explained above. There should be a general notice such as
"Please note that many articles are still unfinished and there might be things needing improvement. Check the Cleanup page to see what needs to be improved in this article." Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with comments - As before I like the idea of this suggestion. A couple suggestions though.
  • I do think that the templates should be placed on the article itself (they could be generated or not based on a setting set by the editor in the same way we do for Person data template).
  • I do agree that there are certain templates such as Unref, Unref BLP and a select few others that would probably need to stay on the article but for the rest a cleanup (or other name) tab could be very useful and would make the articles much less noisy.
  • I also think that we should refine the rules for the placement for some of these tags at the same time. For example, there are a lot of stubs that have templates like expand, cleanup, etc. on them and as stubs it rather goes without saying that a stub needs to be expanded. --Kumioko (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I find the arguments at Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Move_maintenance_tags_to_talk_pages persuasive. Cleanup tags that are relegated to a separate page will be ignored, not just by readers but by most editors too. A lot of my cleanup gets done when I look up something just to read it and find things that need fixing. On pages I watch, it's a constant reminder and TODO. I find that removing tags is in itself one of my motivations for doing cleanup ("can finally get rid of that tag now"). And while people should not blindly believe anything they read on Wikipedia, I really believe it does a service to our readers to explicitly point out content that is problematic, so they can treat it with an even greater level of suspicion than usual. Dcoetzee 10:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Dcoetzee. Sven Manguard Wha? 10:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We're having an RFC on this again? As far as I am concerned, nothing has changed since last time. It's the same old "I think they're ugly!" versus "They have the potential to convert readers into editors, and in a way that is more likely to lead to editor retention" debate, and I still support the latter. Anomie⚔ 12:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Clean-up notices fall into the same category as {{Citation needed}} (and similar) in one important respect; they inform readers as well as editors that the article is not perfect. This honesty adds to Wikipedia's trustworthiness. The public at large are now getting used to Wikipedia being reliable since it is fairly common knowledge[citation needed] that wherever we (editors) are not completely satisfied, we will say so, clearly. To hide that statement of dissatisfaction from passers by, could reverse the firm trend seen in the media and by ordinary folk, that Wikipedia is a great source of reliable knowledge (even the stuff that's wrong is labelled as being so). We should continue to flaunt our errors with gay abandon! "If we deny our demons, we give them power over us" (something like that anyway (Monkey (TV series)). fredgandt 22:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the very convincing reasons put forth in previous similar proposals. There will never be 100% of people that agree with cleanup templates, but it's clear that a substantial majority - including myself - think they're appropriate.  Chzz  ►  10:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: the cleanup tag is placed in the article to draw attention of the passing by editors; the suggested alternative fails to accomplish that task. Furthermore, the overhead of a separate namespace doesn't correspond to the task of building todo lists, which can be done on the talk page. P.S.: Wikipedia doesn't make difference between editors and readers, and it's one of the reason of its growth. I wouldn't change that without very good reason. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. On new pages, I always place cleanup tags in hopes that the article's author will see them and learn how to improve the article's themselves. Sometimes it works.    Thorncrag  16:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add link to sandbox on the top right corner

hello,

can't we add a link to the user sandbox somewhere in the top left? I mean ahead "my talk", "my preferences", etc? "My sandbox" would be nice; the user can rename the {User Name}/Sandbox page anytime.--♫GoP♫TCN 18:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

  • Strong support I actually added this a while back via user script (along with all kinds of other changes). I think having an immediate link to a user sandbox in the p-personal navigation menu for all logged in users would be a fantastic and simple way to encourage the use thereof. When users first create an account, both their user page and user talk page are red-links in the navigation menu, so what harm could there be to add another? Whole hearted support! fredgandt 08:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support great idea. Yoenit (talk) 09:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but it would be nice if the page contains an informational message explaining what their sandbox is for. It'd mystify me as a new user to click on a link and see a new page and then wonder "okay what is this for?" Commons recently added "My uploads" to the upper right and there was no real concern about the space it occupied. Dcoetzee 09:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think that is a good idea and would be especially useful for new editors. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support only if it can be turned off in a "My preferences" setting - I have four sandboxes and their talk pages, I very much like having sandboxes, but I'd rather not have the tab. Many other users also would probably not like it. If you want to have it opt-out (and a large enough consensus emerges as to allow for opt-out) that's fine, but if there's no opt out, I'd be rather miffed. Sven Manguard Wha? 10:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I'm not going to oppose an opt-out, note that you could make your sandbox page into an index/list of your sandbox pages, so they'd always be two clicks away, which is nice. Dcoetzee 11:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It already is: User:Nabla#Sub (Ok, 2 clicks and a scroll :-). Not against it, though it will force all of us to have a needless link in order to patronise new users. - Nabla (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support only if it can be turned off Per Sven Manguard. I think I have 12 sandboxes now, and I have no need to index them. When I want one, I just type e.g. "User:Anomie/Sandbox6" into my browser's search box. As for the technical implementation, should this find consensus it could be made an "enabled by default" gadget. Anomie⚔ 12:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if turned off by default Most new users won't know what it is for, or will use it inappropriately, filling the Wikipedia servers with unnecessary rubbish. But for more advanced users who want and will use this sort of functionality, it should be easily available. Bazonka (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The whole point of sandboxes is that nobody cares if they are filled with rubbish. The alternative if to have the confused users post their rubbish elsewhere, most likely in mainspace. The concern that users don't understand what it is for could be solved with a simple editnotice. Yoenit (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite what I meant. I was referring to server capacity, not content. Perhaps it's not such a problem though. Bazonka (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Something like User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Template:User sandbox notice should work. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this. A preview does for example not produce a diff that is visible to others. If a newbie makes actual edits in their sandbox, this allows for others to give feedback and advice on eventual problems with the newbies editing behavior. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with opt-out and expand to IPs: I like the idea, new users would find it quite helpful, but users who are experienced enough to go to preferences and remove it deserve not to have a clutter if they don't want it. On a sidenote who says users will use the sandbox link instead of testing it out in the main since they can already test in their user-space but no, they test it out there. And wait, what about IPs? How about putting up the WP:SANDBOX as a link in the tab for them? After all they do most of the 'tests'. Something like adding a sandbox tab along with the "login/create account" option that would read "Test edits here" on mouse hover. That might reduce random text entries by IPs who are merely checking out. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Do you mean like what's on pt:? Anyways, support as opt-out. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 15:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Chzz. As a new user it took me a while to figure out how to create a sandbox. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - oh man, this would be helpful over at the Ambassador program. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with opt-out. What if we have more than one sandbox? Would we be able to choose which one is linked? –Fredddie™ 06:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Namespace and watchlist

There should be an option to not watchlist by default pages in a certain namespace. For example, I have enabled watchlisting by default as it is very convenient, but I try to keep my watchlist below 600-700 pages at any given time. It's fairly tedious to do, because everytime I edit a WT:AFC page, block a user, or leave a message to a user talk page, the page is watchlisted. I would like a feature that enables automatic watchlisting only for specific namespaces. This also addresses the above proposal on separating pages from their talk pages (e.g. WT from WP, etc). Any support for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieEchoTango (talk • contribs) 06:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)‎[reply]

  • Oppose due to this being potentially a pain in the rear end. I can imagine too many occasions when I would have to override the exclusion of a particular namespace manually. This proposed feature would actually more than likely cause the very issues being cited as reasons to oppose the above proposal to be able to un-watch talk and other pages etc. etc. In particular the potential to forget to watch and to think that you are when you're not seems rather strong. With the other proposal, the normal behaviour (we have now) would have to be manually undone on a per page basis, meaning the likelihood of forgetting is significantly reduced (to basically zero). Simply speaking: I wouldn't want to automatically not watch all (for example) talk pages, since more often than not I want to watch both the talk and main (just occasionally not both). Blanket exclusion of a particular namespace from being auto watched is too harsh for my liking. fredgandt 09:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Anything that helps customization of autowatch would be useful. I wouldn't expect most users to use it, but I don't think it would hurt. I think a prototype of this could potentially be implemented in pure Javascript, and then anyone who wants to try it out can just include it. Dcoetzee 09:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as an opt in with the suggestion that it be made a "gadgets" feature - I wouldn't use this, but I understand how it could be useful. If it isn't possible to do opt-in, the simple alliterative would be to have autowatchlisitng on for all namespaces or for none of them, creating results identical to the two options we have now. Sven Manguard Wha? 10:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would certainly think that an admin who blocks a user should, for at least a reasonable time, have that user's talk page in his watch list. I would also expect this if you leave a message. Communication is two-way. If you initiate it, you have the obligation to be reasonably attentive to replies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that for some users like myself, I currently have autowatch disabled (because I make minor changes to many articles) but would be more likely to enable it for the User talk namespace, for precisely that reason. So your argument seems to actually favor the proposal. Dcoetzee 13:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, my message wasn't very well worded, heck, wasn't even signed, of course I keep the page on my watchlist when I leave an open-ended message, what I'm referring to is mostly related to script sent messages on user talk pages; e.g. welcomes, "Your submission at AfC was created", user warnings, CSD notices, etc. No point in watching most of the time and it grows very quickly to an unmanageable (for me) watchlist. I get your point on communications, but I also see no point in keeping hundreds of declined AfCs or various WP pages (like this one). Removing them manually every other week is tedious. Regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 15:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suspect this will get lost, but it reminds me of a feature I would like, the ability to watchlist a page, with the watchlist expiring after a month or so. Perfect for this situation and many others--SPhilbrickT 15:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please! -- John of Reading (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's something I also would like to see. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A biodegradable watch of a page? So after n time it auto un-watches? Yep, I'd go for that. As long as it was something that could be selected on a per page basis and was not default behaviour. Perhaps this should be separately proposed. fredgandt 18:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
if (wgAction == "edit" && [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 100, 101, 108, 109].indexOf(wgNamespaceNumber) != -1) { 
    document.getElementById('wpWatchthis').checked = true;
}
  • That's inherent to the watchlist feature. If you watch a page, you also necessarily watch the associated talk page or content page. My script merely chooses which namespaces will have auto-watch enabled: it might make sense to auto-watchlist page pairs when you edit a talk page, but not when you just edit content. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 16:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Note that the above script will not work in IE7< due to lack of indexOf support.) --Yair rand (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Δ/Typos

I've started playing around with database dumps and I have had an idea, however I will need more eyes/hands to get this idea off the ground. I am going to be running regular scans of database dumps for typos, see User:Δ/Typos for the first report that I have generated there are 388 pages with "the the". A few of them are valid uses but most are just typos. If I could get some interested users to lend a hand with creating the list of typos and fixing the located typos we could do a lot for the project. ΔT The only constant 20:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way your search could exclude everything except for "the the"? Although this is useful, I do see a lot of "the then", "then the", and things like "the theory". Could that be narrowed? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 21:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's fairly simple, must have forgotten about those. Ill adjust the regex and update the list. ΔT The only constant 21:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that wasn't an error with the regex, there is a user already working on the list :) ΔT The only constant 21:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Need to exclude The The as well. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Already done. (for some reason my IRC bot posted this edit twice, once now with your current timestamp the other 9 minutes before.) ΔT The only constant 21:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lists would be more useful if they included a timestamp, or were held on-wiki so that they could be watchlisted. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I love this idea! I am watching that page :) and I'll be going through some if not all of them using AWB. How often will they be updated?  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  00:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right now Im trying to get the logistics worked out. But my plans are to update the list regularly, and upon each database dump release. ΔT The only constant 03:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a massively helpful use of automated technology. Running through with a few other perennials ("diety" - the slimming god, "and and" - the overexcited conjunction, the well known online encyclopaedia "Wikipeida" and so forth) to create specific lists, so editors are not distracted would be a cool resource. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as the current dramafest that is my arbcom case is over Im going to move this into full throttle. ΔT The only constant 16:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, in that case I defaulted to assuming that in those cases The was part of the proper noun and edged on the side of caution to leave it capitalized. As for correct grammar, I am not a specialist in English grammar, but it does look correct to me. ΔT The only constant 16:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

request explicit user consent before moving a file to commons

I uploaded files to here and not Commons with good reason; I'm fine with them being on commons, but they are easier to manage from en.wiki (such as tracking where they are, for instance) and it is a rather a rude shock when you're tryimg to assemble an article months or years later and you find they are no longer in your contributions list or upload log (yes, they somehow...disappear). Could people please obtain the explicit consent of users before rudely moving their image to commons? John Riemann Soong (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bear in mind that you consent to allow this with any of your contributions. Photos simply happen to be most likely to be moved off wikipedia entirely (rather than text which is edited, deleted, moved around, etc.). I have a number of files uploaded here rather than commons for a variety of reasons and I don't usually have an issue with someone else reuploading them to commons and deleting the copy here. IF that happens just download the commons copy and re-upload it. Protonk (talk) 06:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is when people delete your files and you have no idea where they went (because they disappear from your upload log, and they don't show up as a redlink because they are on Commons). John Riemann Soong (talk) 07:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use the {{keep local}} tag, designed for this purpose. Making requesting user consent mandatory would make the majority of cases, where the uploader is no longer active, rather difficult. However, I personally find that keeping them all on commons makes them easier to track, especially with the ListFiles function. sonia♫ 06:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're free to use {{keep local}} if you really want, but keep in mind this means any improvements made to the images or their descriptions on Commons, possibly long after you've departed the project, will not be seen on enwiki. This should not be a long-term solution. I agree that tracking files moved to Commons by user is an important issue and hope that once it's solved it'll eliminate this concern. Obtaining permission beforehand is infeasible because many departed users are impossible to reach. Dcoetzee 07:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I sympathize with your inconvenience here, having to get the permission of the author to move or change something flies in the face of so many principles, policies, and standards on Wikipedia that the answer is, flat-out, no. --erachima talk 08:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing wrong with having the file kept locally. Yes, it can be copied freely -- but deleting a perfectly good, encyclopedic, functional copy without the author knowing about it at all is an issue. John Riemann Soong (talk) 08:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting an encyclopedic, functional copy where it is redundant is common and sensible-- say, for example, if a user made the same article twice under different names. Unifying all possible images in one place means that changes made will apply across all projects, making things more efficient (not to mention it being easier to find free files in one place). I doubt that anyone has meant to be rude in moving your files; they're just doing their job. The simple solution is to use {{keep local}}; it's created as a courtesy to users like you who prefer it this way, as much as it's not ideal. But your proposal is impractical and its implementation would slow file work dramatically. sonia♫ 08:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I seems that an automatic notification if/when a file is moved would be helpful. At least then people would know if the (not their) files were moved, and where to. fredgandt 08:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, notification could be done, but "explicit consent", no. It'd just add bureaucracy. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: moving to Commons no way harms editor — the image can still be watched, tracked and whatever. Moving images to Commons is in line with word and spirit of Wikipedia rules, and explicit author's content would just make matters worse for Wikimedia with no one's benefit. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but see the problem: As WP:5P says 'all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed.' However I do think that something better really should be done about the contribution list rather than deleting history. I find the business of contributions to deleted articles disappearing from history worrying too, I'd prefer they be listed even if one could not look at them. Personally I always upload to commons if possible, I view uploading to Wikipedia as something that only should be done for things with a restrictive license. Dmcq (talk) 10:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Sleeping editors shouldn't block a move forever. A little background, before sending thousands of pix to Commons I sent hundreds (mostly more useful ones) to en and many of those have later been found by other edtitors and moved to Commons. Problem is, sometimes I don't see the notice in the original file, thus fail to follow the link and watchlist it in Commons, with the result that they are poorly categorized and not geotagged. So, if I fail to see the pre-announcement or otherwise do not object in a few days, the transfer ought to go ahead anyway. Silence implies consent. On the other hand, the thing I wish is, the moving bot should also watchlist it for me in Commons. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I like the idea of an automatic notification if it's possible, but requiring consent would be problematic indeed. Commons exists for the sake of making media available to all WMF sites, so all images should be there unless there are copyright issues — please establish a Commons account and upload images there, rather than here. Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:OWN. I'm no fan of {{Keep local}} which is why I proposed a long time ago that it needs an optional reason parameter, but sadly that got shot down because, well, people who like OWNing their images and having to actually specify a reason for their desire to OWN might cause cognitive dissonance. And that would be bad. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • when a person releases an image under a free license they still actually "own" the image its just that they have given permission for the image to be used providing that certain conditions are met. Gnangarra 09:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose seaking permission before hand. I think it would be a good thing when the bot transfers the image to commons to post on the users talk that the move has occured, as user talk pages dont get deleted, if in the event that user becomes inactive the notifications will just sit there so that when the user is active again they'll know what happened. Gnangarra 09:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on eliminating the comment from the Persondata template

There's an RfC on eliminating the need to add the <!-- Metadata: see [[Wikipedia:Persondata]] --> comment from the persondata template and perhaps even eliminating it from the articles as more significant edits are made. It's at eliminating the comment from Persondata. I'm spamming it here because it's a highly visible template and this issue has come up multiple times in multiple venues for multiple reasons and I would like to put it to rest once and for all. --Kumioko (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion of this at Wikipedia talk:Persondata#Can we stop adding the annoying, useless comment now? and Template talk:Persondata#Can we stop adding the annoying, useless comment now? show that there was consensus to remove the comment in the template, and that it has been removed, as you had wanted. Is your post here asking for something more? If not, let's close the discussion here. Senator2029║talk 15:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes my questions are answered thank you. You can close the comment whenever you want. --Kumioko (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change "My talk", "My preferences", etc to "Your talk", "Your preferences", etc

Reading on the direction the WMF is going in with the Athena skin as well as what is already implemented on other sites such as Flickr, I propose a change in terminology from "My talk", "My preferences", etc. to either "Your talk", "Your preferences", etc. or even simply "Talk", "Preferences", etc. Some of the reasons laid out on the MediaWiki page and other websites include the following:

  • "My" is akin to labels being placed on objects. This goes against the fact that the website (i.e. Wikipedia) has provided people with a talk page, tweakable preferences, watchlist, etc.
  • Something like "Your..." is more indicative of a two-way conversation and is not as asocially suggestive as "My..."
  • It serves to discourage the mentality of page ownership, reenforcing a key aspect of open wikis in that there is no ownership of pages.
  • As a more general corollary to the above point, it would distance us from individual-centric sites such as Myspace and bring us closer of sharing, community-centric sites such as YouTube.
  • It's easier to tell someone to "Go to 'Your preferences'" instead of "Go to 'My preferences'".

Thoughts? –MuZemike 01:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why there is a "My" in the first place? On GMail, I click on "account settings", not "my account settings". Why is this not the case here? p-personal is obviously a user-specific panel, so there is no need to make it more obvious through the use of pronouns, it seems to me like we could do without them (e.g. <userpage> | Messages | Preferences | Watchlist | Contributions | Log out)... In any case, to address the actual proposal, I don't really find the argument convincing. Asocial is open to interpretation (for example English is considered by some an asocial language for being individual-centric (e.g. by its extensive use of possessive pronouns), but that's true only if one accepts that individualism is a bad thing.) I'm not opposed to the proposal per se, but what's the concrete benefit of changing 'my' to 'your'? For example, re point 3, why should we discourage ownership of watchlist pages, which are private and user defined (therefore "owned"), or contribution pages, which are specific to a user? The only page affected here is "My talk", but we do (thankfully) give much leeway on how users manage their talk page, which implies some level of ownership. As for having conversations with a software, well... that's beyond me. But sure, go ahead, your, my, nothing, whatever. :-) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"My" is the only way to convey that these pertain to the user who's viewing the page: "Your" is not specific (from my point of view, any other person is "you", but I'm not "you" to myself), and without any pronouns at all, the links don't convey the fact that these pertain to the individual user. Moreover, Charlie has a good point: WP:OWN doesn't affect what you set for your preferences or the content of your watchlist, "my talk" goes to the user talk page for the person who clicks it, and "my contributions" goes to the contributions for the user who has made them. Nyttend (talk) 13:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly think My expressions like 'I've said a bit more about this on your My Talk page but you open your My Preferences and ...' sound rather strange. I'm happy enough to go along with just keeping to the WMF My decision but I hope you excuse me making my fun of it every so often ;-) Dmcq (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except nobody actually says that. They say "my" when referring to their own, and "your" when referring to the other person's. By your rationale, it would sound pretty weird to say "I replied to you on my Your Talk" ;-) -MsBatfish (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about priming, I just saw a notice saying please present your myWaitrose card before payment! Dmcq (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me to be change for the sake of change. If "My" is not considered appropriate as it implies (to heavily) ownership, surely something like "User preferences" and "User talk" would make more sense. If I give something to someone and say "This is now yours", I expect them to feel a sense of ownership of the gift. Playing with words for no practical gain is a waste of time. If this were a technical fix, I might support it. fredgandt 19:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If/when Athena arrives, we can change things. Until then, as Fred Gandt says, this is change for change's sake. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with Tom and Fred here; this is not a needed change. I really don't think anyone has ever been confused by someone saying "Go to your preferences" only to see it's labelled as "My preferences". It would likely be more confusing the other way around, to have to say "Your talk" when referring to one's own Talk page - ie " replied to your post on your talk page" - which one am I referring to: my own, which would be labelled "Your Talk" or the other person's, which would also be labelled "Your talk"? Currently we just say "my talk" when referring to our own, and "your talk" when referring to someone else's. Having no possessive labels at all ("Talk"/"Preferences", or even "User talk" etc) would be even more confusing, especially for new users. I just don't think the current system is broken. And I really don't see how switching from "My" to "Your" would decrease the instance of WP:ownership. -MsBatfish (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally what I keep wishing for is an easy way to access other editors' Contributions and Watchlist. I'm not "spying" on anyone, but if I have a question about a topic and am thinking of posting on an appropriate editor's talkpage, it's very helpful to know where that editor's interests and presumed expertise lie. My experience has usually been that hardly anyone ever looks at the talkpages for articles, and questions or comments posted there can go without any response seemingly forever. It's much more effective to post directly to a specific editor, if only one can figure out an appropriate editor to look to. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlists are protected by privacy. See Help:Watching pages#Privacy of watchlists. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I suspected that might be the case. However, I've occasionally been able to access another editor's contributions, but can never remember from one time to another how I managed to find them. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All contributions are at Special:Contributions/Example. Simply replace Example with the name of the use you want the contribs of. fredgandt 05:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or if you are looking at a "User:" or "User talk:" page, there's a "User contributions" link in the toolbox at the left (at least in the default Vector skin). -- John of Reading (talk) 06:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks very much - it's the Toolbox -> User contributions that I've been looking for. If I have a question, I first look for editors who have contributed to either an article or its talkpage, and only then want to see how interested any particular editor seems to be in the topic, so that I'm not bothering people unnecessarily. I hadn't been aware of Fred's suggestion at all, so that's also useful to know. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to add -suppressredirect to the filemover user group

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.
Proposal withdrawn. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, when a filemover moves a file, a redirect is always left behind. However, after all instances of the file have been replaced with the new file name, the redirect becomes obsolete and the redirect is deleted. I would like to propose that -suppressredirect be added to the file mover user group. It would allow a file mover to move a file without leaving a redirect behind, and save an admin from having to come by and delete the obsolete redirect. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would there be any cases where a redirect being left behind was desirable or even necessary? fredgandt 04:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There may be exceptions where the current title serves as attribution, something like Template:Copied. There wouldn't be any problem with keeping the redirect unless the image is non-free. If a redirect is used instead of the actual filename, the use will not display in the "File usage" section on the file description page. This poses a potential challenge for non-free content enforcement, as every use of an un-free file should have a specific fair use rationale. While the use would still be listed in WhatLinksHere, it would not be listed in the "File usage" section, making it a bit more difficult in tracking the usage. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very bad idea. The creation of a redirect should only be suppressed when the redirect qualifies for speedy deletion, and in the vast majority of cases, that's not the case with the image. In particular, redirects never qualify for R3 (newly created and unlikely) unless the original title is new; if File:IMG 2222.jpg was uploaded in 2005 and you move it to File:Descriptive Title.jpg in 2011, it does not qualify for R3, because despite what the history of File:IMG 2222.jpg says, the title has existed since 2005. Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this proposal for the generic supress-redirect or a new image specific one? Yoenit (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; unless we have a modification to MediaWiki, this proposal would likely result in suppress-redirect being added for all namespaces. Nyttend (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal is for the generic -suppressredirect. It would require additional unnecessary work to implement the tool for just the file namespace. File redirects do qualify for G6, G7 (if nominated by the mover), and R3. If the file has just been moved, the redirect was just created. It doesn't matter how long there was an image there, the redirect is still new. The deletion of these redirect are non-controversial providing all incoming links are corrected. The previous name was incorrect for some reason. And if the redirect is tagged by the file mover, then it is a valid author requested tagging. I have seen some file movers take redirects to RfD, but I am yet to see one of these redirect nominations challenged and kept. It would be excessively bureaucratic to have to send all of these obsolete redirects to RfD, where they are always deleted after 7 days.
  • If an image is renamed under file move criterion #1, the original uploader has requested a move for some reason. Usually these requests are made because of an error they made. Redirects can safely be deleted, as the reasons for the move are often based on one of the other below reasons.
  • If a file is renamed under file move criterion #2-5, the original file name was completely incorrect. The redirect left behind is completely implausible and can be deleted after all file usages are corrected.
  • If a file is renamed under file move criterion #6-7, the file was moved to harmonize with the rest of a group of images or disambiguate images with very similar names. These redirects are obsolete after all instances are corrects, and the redirect can safely be deleted.
  • If a file is renamed under file move criterion #8, the redirect must be deleted, as the original file name was pejorative, offensive or crude. If this file redirects to a file depicting a living person, the redirect would potentially violate the biography of a living person policy.
All of the above reasons are non-controversial. There may be the occasional exception, but overall, these redirects are obsolete once the file instances are corrected. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this: people with the permission can choose if the redirect is left or not, so in case it's needed to keep it, they would just not check it. Petrb (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Deleting image redirects should only happen in exceptional circumstances, and the need for this ability is therefore substantially decreased. I worry that if this right is given to all file movers, it will be misused unintentionally. This right is handed out fairly liberally (and rightly so), but in the rare circumstances where redirect deletions are needed, they should be tagged and reviewed by administrators. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of delinked file redirects are a commons occurrence though. For example Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 October 26. Once the redirects have been delinked, the deletion is non-controversial. Suppressredirect does not allow users to delete anything. The flag just allows the user to skip auto-creating a redirect. Failing to create a redirect after a file move has no more potential damage than moving files themselves. As far as finding the renamed files, the move log will be visible, directing to the new file name. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about proposing a trial for limited time (1 month) to check if this feature would be misused or constructive update of configuration? Maybe it would be better than permanent change, Peter's point makes a lot of sense, however it's hard to know if it would be really misused or not, file moving does happen rarely on english wikipedia and people who do that are probably familiar with the rules enough. Petrb (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - A recurrent complaint from uploaders is that files are moved (either on this project or to Commons) without appropriate linkages or notification, and subsequently cannot be relocated. At least with the redirects, people have a chance to find their now-moved uploads. Risker (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even after a file redirect has been deleted, it still leaves behind text pointing to the new page.
So even if the redirect is deleted, the author can still find the upload quite easily. The problem is when the image is transfered to commons under a new name, and the administrator does not make a note in the deletion log as to what the new commons name is. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Even if we assume that eliminating these redirects is desirable (which is disputed), how does it make sense to do so before transclusions have been updated (thereby breaking them in the interim)? —David Levy 20:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The brief time it takes to fix a tranclusion is no different than fixing double redirects after a page move. In the off chance there are a large number of file tranclusion replacements needed, AWB or a script could be used to quickly make the replacements. Over at commons, User:CommonsDelinker goes through and makes the translusion corrections after the file rename. How is keeping the file redirects desirable? As I have linked above, they are deleted after they are delinked. There has never been any opposition at RfD over a file redirect deletion because the task is non-controversial. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The brief time it takes to fix a tranclusion is no different than fixing double redirects after a page move.
No, the two scenarios aren't comparable.
Firstly, a double redirect merely adds an additional step (a link that must be followed). This is inconvenient, but it doesn't sever access to the desired content. Conversely, if an image were to be moved without leaving behind a redirect, all transclusions would simply be broken (resulting in red links instead of media).
Secondly, the need to repair double redirects is unavoidable (unless settings are changed to enable them to function as normal redirects, which I believe proved too resource-intensive). Conversely, the current setup already prevents broken transclusions from arising as a result of file moves.
How is keeping the file redirects desirable?
It's been noted that this assists users seeking files under their original names (who might otherwise have difficulty finding them) and prevents transclusion breakage in historical page revisions.
As I have linked above, they are deleted after they are delinked.
And if we assume that the redirects should be eliminated, that's the proper means of accomplishing the task (deleting them after they're delinked).
There has never been any opposition at RfD over a file redirect deletion because the task is non-controversial.
Some users are expressing opposition now. Has a relevant community discussion ever occurred? RfD isn't a high-traffic forum, so it's possible that the practice has gone largely unnoticed. —David Levy 21:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A moved file red link merely adds a second step as well. When clicked, it displays the move log along with a link to the new file location. This move notice provides an easy way for the user to find the file. If a uploader is looking for an old file they uploaded, it is more plausible that the uploader would look at their contribution page, rather than searching for it manually. This is especially true considering that most of the file moves are done because the images have random strings of numbers. If a user checks an old page revision with a moved image, they will find the image after clicking the red link. File redirects have been actively nominated for deletion since back in March when the filemover flag was created. There has not been any opposition in that time period, at all. There are a fair number of users involved in RfD. Hundreds, if not thousands, of badly named files have been renamed in that time period. That is not something that can go unnoticed. If there is opposition to the deletion of useless file redirects, then why hasn't it been brought up. Keeping a redirect just because it would leave a red link in an old revision is not a valid keep rationale. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A moved file red link merely adds a second step as well. When clicked, it displays the move log along with a link to the new file location.
The latter statement is true for administrator/confirmed/autoconfirmed accounts. Please log out and click on File:PICT3902.JPG.
Regardless, would you honestly expect most readers to follow such a link? And are you suggesting that this would result in an experience comparable to the media's transclusion in the article ("merely [adding] a second step" to its access)?
If a user checks an old page revision with a moved image, they will find the image after clicking the red link.
See above.
Regardless, that isn't the same as viewing the image in its intended context.
File redirects have been actively nominated for deletion since back in March when the filemover flag was created. There has not been any opposition in that time period, at all.
Again, there appears to be opposition now. I'm expressing neither agreement nor disagreement. I'm merely acknowledging its existence.
There are a fair number of users involved in RfD.
You linked to a page on which numerous nominations simply went unchallenged. That establishes an absence of expressed opposition, but it provides no indication of wide awareness or consensus within the Wikipedia community.
If there is opposition to the deletion of useless file redirects, then why hasn't it been brought up.
Setting aside your description of the redirects as "useless", such opposition has been raised in this thread. Are you suggesting that it's too late for these opinions to be considered?
Keeping a redirect just because it would leave a red link in an old revision is not a valid keep rationale.
Of course it is. It just doesn't necessarily outweigh one or more deletion rationales. —David Levy 23:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support there is no reason to keep behind redirects to titles like File:IMG_156987. If the mover does what he is supposed to, all uses of the file are switched over to the new better name. I do think that we need to patrol people's file moves more like they do at commons. I have seen people move files that do not need to be moved in any way --Guerillero | My Talk 20:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary, one reason that we keep these titles (like all other titles) is that their deletion causes problems in article histories. That's a major reason that we have RFD: it exists to get rid of titles that aren't useful, but a title that's been linked in an article is generally useful. The speedy deletion criterion only permits the deletion of new titles, and proposing a solution that will get around this is entirely unacceptable — the criterion may only be ignored in unusual circumstances, so making it easy for deletion policy to be ignored is a very bad idea. Nyttend (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RfD is designed to determine whether or not a redirect meets the redirect guidelines. We do not keep redirects just because it is linked to in a previous page revision. Now if the redirect has useful page history, then in that exception, we would keep it. If we were to keep all pages just because it was linked once, there is very little that we could delete. When we have XfD discussions, no votes "Keep, it was linked to once, so we need to keep the page so that it doesn't show up as a red link if someone looks at an old revision of the page." It isn't a valid reason for keeping a page. For example, this diff from 2005. There are a large number of red links there, that, at the time the edit, were blue links. Wikipedia changes constantly. Red links in old revisions are inevitable. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one has asserted that historical usage automatically precludes a redirect's deletion. But there should be consensus that the harm caused by retaining a redirect (or type of redirect) outweighs the benefits. If a redirect (or type of redirect) causes no significant harm, even a minor benefit is a sufficient reason to retain it. (This is hypothetical. I'm not expressing an opinion regarding the harm:benefit ratio.) —David Levy 21:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the user follows the file rename criteria, there are no benefits for keeping a redirect. The names are inappropriate for some reason. Given that we are transferring our free images to commons, that will just leave non-free images and a few free images that cannot yet be transfered there. As I stated above, non-free images need to have their redirects deleted because when a file redirect is used, it does not show up in the file usage section on the file description page. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the user follows the file rename criteria, there are no benefits for keeping a redirect.
Benefits have been clearly noted. It's reasonable to argue that they're minor and outweighed by detriments, but it's unreasonable to claim that they don't exist.
As I stated above, non-free images need to have their redirects deleted because when a file redirect is used, it does not show up in the file usage section on the file description page.
That's a valid argument as to why the detriments of retaining redirects to non-free files presently outweigh the benefits, not evidence that no benefits exist.
This problem strikes me as something potentially fixable via a MediaWiki improvement. —David Levy 23:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am really happy to see that most of opposing are sysops :) that implies that although it might look bothering to them to fix file moves after file movers, they probably don't have problem with that. It seems that proposal was started to spare them of that activity, but maybe it's not necessary. However I still believe that giving this bit to file movers would cause no harm. Petrb (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Breaking file transclusions is harmful. —David Levy 21:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to convince any of us to work on anything what doesn't have established consensus because it's usually waste of time, however if this passed, I would be happy to implement it, it's an easy change. Petrb (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I used to be a fan of getting rid of old file redirects of the File:IMG1234567.jpg variety, but I came to the realization that the deletions really didn't do much good, and they had the potential to to a good bit of bad (per the reason Risker mentioned). The only way I'd support this is if users are only allowed to surpressredirect moves they make themselves (for if they make a typo in a move and have to do a remove). Even then though, not worth it. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Coordinated SOPA reaction in early 2012 RfC

It was announced on December 16, 2011 that a floor vote on SOPA is delayed, likely until early 2012. While the threat of this legislation still looms, the brief reprieve gives our community time to reach a meaningful consensus about whether to take action, and what action to take.

Background information

The Stop Online Piracy Act ("SOPA", H.R.3261) is a piece of proposed federal legislation in the United States. The bill would expand the ability of law enforcement and copyright holders to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods. It has seen widespread opposition from all corners of the Internet, and poses a unique threat to Wikipedia's continued operation.

Two proposals for a response from the Wikipedia community have been advanced so far (first proposal, second proposal), but neither was conducted with enough lead-time to reach a meaningful consensus.

Proposal

Here is a proposal that we believe strikes a reasonable compromise, chosen as a moderate sampling of the ideas posted on Wikipedia:SOPA initiative:

  • Triggering event: When SOPA has passed committee and is scheduled for a floor vote in either the House or Senate. The banner runs for the week before the vote, and switches to the blackout on the day before.
  • Scope: Response is geotargeted to United States IP addresses only
  • Duration: Maximum of 7 days for banner component, maximum of 24 hours for blackout component. Blackout is triggered on the business day before the vote. If the vote is on a Monday, blackout runs for 24 hours starting Friday.
  • Action (banner): Banners encourage people to contact their Senators and Representatives (priority given to whichever is urgent, House or Senate).
    • To the maximum extent possible, readers are given instant information on how they can take action. Campaign is designed to mobilize the public maximally.
    • The focus is on generating high-value congressional contacts (phone calls and in-person contacts vs letters or emails)
    • A VOIP-based callback system (such as the one used recently by tumblr) is an option if we can find one that fits our needs and allows us to remain acceptably independent.
    • Banners operate like the fundraising banners (served via CentralNotice, can be closed per-user, etc).
  • Action (blackout): All requests are answered with a black page. The page is semi-protected Wikitext. Once the page is displayed, a cookie is set which prevents its display again. Exact wording to be decided, but it hits the following points:
    • SOPA puts Wikipedia, and the rest of the free Internet, at risk
    • You can help by contacting your representative and senators (with maximally easy help with ways to do that)
    • A "Learn more about SOPA" link which points to the relevant article on the English Wikipedia
    • A "Why am I seeing this" link which points to a page detailing the process for reaching this consensus
    • A link to click through to the originally requested page
    • "You will only see this page once"

This gets the message across clearly, explains how to help, is targeted to people who have the ability to effect change, shows that the protest was a community decision, and doesn't reduce the utility of Wikipedia for readers.

To set this proposal in the context of similar actions in the past, see this summary.

Need

While most of us understand the power that Wikipedia has in this situation and the size of our audience, some are still skeptical that a citizen response can change the course of this legislation. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, member of the House Judiciary Committee addressed this concern on Reddit:

My best assessment is that most members of the House who do not serve on the Judiciary Committee have not yet focused on SOPA. People should realize that incredible power they have to impact the thinking of their own Representative on the subject. For example, a very intelligent colleague who is not on the Committee approached me today asking about the bill. Why? He had received an urgent and forthright telephone call from a small business person in his district who is tremendously opposed. He wanted to know more about our Open Act Alternative. This is the power that each of you have with your own Representative. --Rep. Zoe Lofgren

Statement in opposition

(replacement oppose statement by User: Wehwalt)

I have replaced the original oppose statement, by the proponent, as it omitted a number of points made by opposers. Accordingly, while nominally having both sides presented, it actually failed to do so.

No one has shown that SOPA is a threat to Wikipedia. That is, events after its passage would cause the site to shut down or significantly impair its functioning. When pressed, Geoff Bingham, corporate counsel to WMF (that is, they are the client, to whom his duty runs, not us) said that we might be deemed an internet search engine This seems to contradict the plain meaning of the statute, which refers to internet search engine returning a list of sites elsewhere on the internet in return to a user query. We do not send people elsewhere on the internet. For the position Geoff expresses to prevail (he qualifies his position by many a “could” and “might”), the language in the statute would have to be considered meaningless--and by the rules of statutory construction, courts dislike concluding that Congress inserted language, and meant nothing by it. All that is perfectly proper; it is routine for those arguing that a statute is wrong to present what is called in the law the “parade of horribles”. Suffice it to say that for most statutes, the parade of horribles presented by opponents resembles your favorite post-nuclear scenario.

Let’s say I’m wrong and SOPA is applicable to Wikipedia. What does that mean? Well, it means if a rights holder sued a foreign infringing site (that is, a site that neither has an office nor a designated person who can be served with legal process in the US, who commits various infringing acts), and won the Federal Court lawsuit, we might be asked to take down links to that site. In most cases, these are torrent farms which give the latest episode of HBO’s hits or new movies. Few are reliable sites. In practice, what I suspect is that the site would be placed on the spam blacklist at meta and people would search to ensure we weren’t relying on the content. Unlikely, that.

If we sourced to such a site, we would find another site for the citation. I find it very unlikely, despite the parade of horribles presented by advocates, that we would lose any content. There is no reliable source from some obscure African nation which “just happens” to be a foreign infringing site.

Absent the existential threat to Wikipedia, which many have claimed but none survived the cold light of day, we should not do this thing. Keep in mind that having the 5th-most trafficked website in the world advocate for a cause is a tempting platform, and many have already flooded in to make the decision for us. Keep in mind that this is something we can do at most once with any conviction (we may already have shot our bolt with the coverage of Jimbo’s call). The second time, even for a real threat, it’s just “There goes Wikipedia again.” (and soon “There goes Wikipedia”) To say that this will end the Internet as we know it, as some supporters have, is dramatic, and not supported by the facts. However, it may be a step towards making Wikipedia less-well-regarded. Editors should feel free to advocate in the manner they deem best as individuals. However, a strike is a bad idea.

Let’s keep in mind that SOPA is widely supported because there is a very real problem with anything copyrighted showing up on the internet, free, and being downloaded. Many of these sites are offshore, and rightsholders cannot effectively get in touch with them to get the content taken down. They are, at best, playing whack-a-mole. That is a problem that is going to be addressed legislatively in some way.

But let’s say we went ahead and did this crazy thing. What then? Will people searching for information go and drop everything and call their congressman. No. They will say a word the civility hawks around here wouldn’t like, and go on to find the information, either from a mirror site or elsewhere. And they will remember they don’t need Wikipedia to find information. In an earlier post, I recalled James Hogan’s science fiction novel, The Two Faces of Tomorrow. In it, a self-aware computer was tested by having its power shut off. Eventually, it managed to wire around the switch. So will our public, and as a political player we will be trusted less.

Response to Geoff

(added post, response to Geoff) I’d first like to apologize to the community for a number of grammar and style errors in my above post. I would have changed them, but with a reply on table, that doesn’t seem appropriate.

I’m grateful to Geoff for responding, as his time here has value, unlike mine. He also is putting his name and reputation on the line, I’m just posting (or being a troll, in some eyes). As a lawyer who has concentrated in certain areas (not intellectual property!) I know that the hardest person to persuade is the lawyer from another field who drops in, makes elementary mistakes, and just doesn’t get “the big picture”. If that suits me, I apologize for it. However, I don’t think I would pound the drum like this without having some reason.

A poster below disparages Geoff’s reply on the ground he has ignored technical definitions of the word “indexed” with respect to search engines, which operate to exclude Wikipedia. If Geoff has more to say on this (I will understand if he does not, his time is valuable and taken up with matters which would benefit the project), I’d be grateful for a response. If “indexed” is clearly defined or understood to have a meaning, which excludes Wikipedia, let’s wrap this up and get back to wrapping presents for Jimbo.

At the present time, if I read Geoff’s response correctly, we are called upon to take action. And why? Out of fear of sloppy legislative drafting. I grant his point that it is possible to make an argument that we are a search engine, that we do provide external links in many articles, and so some well-paid and articulate attorney can make a case that we are a search engine. The lawyer might not actually believe it (the practice of law involves advocating for clients, although a lawyer’s personal views might differ) but the case could be made.

But come on, is the search engine argument a winning one? Really? Not just one that is plausible, one that can win, or at least have a solid chance thereof, in court? That Wikipedia is a search engine? Really?

I think the difficulty with Geoff’s post, leaving aside the question of “indexed” which may dispose of the whole thing, is in his argument that we may fit the part of the definition of search engine in that it may be claimed that our primary purpose is “gathering and reporting, in response to a user query, indexed information or Web sites available elsewhere on the Internet.”

This seems dubious. Many of our articles, especially at the higher grades, have few online sources, working from scholarly books and other print reliable sources. My latest project, Cross of Gold speech has nearly no online references, but is almost entirely sourced to well-regarded books on the Gilded Age. We give the reader information, not distinguishing between offline and online information. Yes, we do contain information available elsewhere (i.e., off Wiki) on the internet, but really, is a judge going to rule that it is our one and only “primary purpose”? That this is the raison d'être of Wikipedia, the reason it has become the 5th most trafficked website in the world? Because we are (arguably) an external search engine? I would respectfully suggest that this is unlikely to be a winning argument, not in a court of law. Really, do you think any judge is going to rule that Wikipedia’s single primary purpose is being a search engine for sites outside our domain? I’ve seen judges do many ill-advised things in my time, so I never say never. However, if we are to live in fear of what seems an unnatural interpretation of the statute--we might as well hide in the basement until they come for us.

I do not say Geoff is wrong in calling SOPA a threat. Indeed, I am certain that we are in agreement on much of this. I recall a saying that everyone’s in danger when the legislature’s in session. But there doesn’t seem to be much here. Yes, SOPA bears watching, unexpected things can come out of manager’s amendments and conference committees. But right now the threat is not existential. It’s at best--or, if you prefer, at worst--foggy.

@Geoff--regarding last statement, well said. Have a good flight and best wishes of the season.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Internet search engine"

I want to thank Wehwalt for his thoughtful essay. As I noted in my blog, I think the biggest flaw in SOPA for Wikimedia is the loose definition of "internet search engine." Because this has been discussed above and elsewhere, let me explain in a little more detail why, in my opinion, rights owners will argue that that statutory definition covers us.

Under the new SOPA version (before the markup), the full definition of "internet search engine" (Sec. 101(15)) read as follows:

"The term 'Internet search engine'--
(A) means a service made available via the Internet whose primary function is gathering and reporting, in response to a user query, indexed information or Web sites available elsewhere on the Internet; and
(B) does not include a service that retains a third party that is subject to service of process in the United States to gather, index, or report information available elsewhere on the Internet."

Section (A) arguably applies to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is:

(1) "a service made available via the Internet" [There should be no dispute here.]
(2) "whose primary function is gathering and reporting ... indexed information ... available elsewhere on the Internet"[1] [Rights owners may argue that the primary function on Wikipedia is gathering and reporting information in articles (which constitute "indexed information") that are primarily sourced through information available elsewhere on the Internet as evidenced by our reference links at the bottom of our articles.]
(3) "in response to a user query" [Users employ our own search function, i.e., user query, to find Wikipedia articles (or "indexed information")]

(Section (B) does not appear applicable to Wikipedia.)

This above parsing of the legislative language demonstrates at least the sloppiness in the legislative drafting, and, given the ambiguities such drafting give rise to, we can expect adverse rights owners to seek to take advantage. If legislators wished to exclude Wikipedia-type sites, they could have done so using more specific language. They have not, and that worries me. Geoffbrigham (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to some of the arguments (most of which I find quite fair in their presentation), allow me to quickly say the following (before I hop on a plane):
(1) The primary reason to oppose SOPA is its effect on the Internet and the precedent it creates for further censorship once the government gets comfortable with pulling down entire sites. That is, our focus should not necessarily be on only the definition of "internet search engine." Our site relies on other sites to provide us sources, so, in my opinion, an attack on those sites is indirectly an attack on us.
(2) As I said in my blog, one of the most serious issues with SOPA (Section 103) appears to be addressed from a Wikipedia viewpoint with the amendment introduced before the mark-up. The chances are now slim that any rights owner would argue we are an "Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property" under that provision.
(3) I understand conflicting views on the interpretation of "internet search engine," and, believe me, I will argue vigorously that the definition does not apply to us if we are challenged in court. That said, I don't always trust prosecutors and judges - who sometimes look for ways to put round pegs into square holes without much technical expertise - to interpret the poorly-drafted definition of "internet search engine," especially when such proceedings are at the urging of well-financed and motivated rights owners. In the end, we might be required to incur significant costs in courts to defend our position if the government does not exercise proper discretion. A clean definition would prevent that. In short, I'm concerned about the power and money of rights owners and how they may improperly affect government policy in this regard.
Again many thanks to all for their different opinions. I have tried to be balanced in my presentations and blog because I believe the community needs to understand the impact of SOPA without hyperbole, but obviously I welcome thoughtful disagreement which helps provide additional perspective. Happy holidays to all. Geoffbrigham (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal statements from proposal authors

Ian Baker: While I work for WMF as a developer, this proposal is made by myself as an individual. I am aware that the Foundation officially opposes SOPA, but am in no way representing the Foundation when I write this. I care about Wikipedia deeply, and am therefore very concerned about this bill's imminent passage. raindrift (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales: I have sought to assist Ian in trying to make this proposal mild and widely acceptable. We do not have a lot of time for debate, as markup is set to begin again on December 21st and this could still make it to the floor of the House quite quickly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment signed by Jimbo, was not added here by Jimbo. fredgandt 00:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. It's from this userspace draft raindrift (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • I support this proposal, but I believe that a full-scale, international blackout (à la the Italian Wikipedia) would be more effective.
    SOPA stands to affect readers around the world (not merely those in the United States). During the Italian Wikipedia's strike, users in various countries contacted ambassadors of Italy to express their concerns. It would be helpful if the same were to occur with ambassadors of the United States.
    I also worry that a one-off message (with the ability to click through to the desired article) would be treated as little more than a nag screen (dismissed and forgotten). As upsetting as it is to deprive readers of the encyclopedia, that might be the only way to get their attention and prompt them to take action. —David Levy 00:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purely technical issues/concerns Some readers may not have cookies enabled. Session id? Could this cause accessibility problems for some users? fredgandt 00:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If cookies are disabled, the user will see the blackout page once for each article they visit. --Carnildo (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could be done with both a cookie and a session id. Session id would ensure it only comes up once per visit where cookies are disabled. Cookie could ensure it only comes up once at all. So someone with cookies disabled will see it everytime they close their browser and then come back to Wikipedia but not on every article.--v/r - TP 16:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against First, quite likely several US presidential candidates (to candidates) have different views on this subject. Which candidate(s) will WP support? Second, I do not know anything about SOPA in particular, but I strongly believe that defending intellectual property is extremely important (unless we want to descend into a dark age of search and copy, as creating does not pay for your food and bed) This is highly ridiculous, this is - I thought - a encyclopaedia, not a political platform. - Nabla (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You acknowledge that you "do not know anything about SOPA in particular". If you were familiar with the bill, perhaps you'd understand why opposing it isn't remotely the same as opposing the defense of intellectual property (just as opposing the USA PATRIOT Act isn't tantamount to supporting terrorism).
    Indeed, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia — one based on specific principles. If a politician happens to disagree with said principles, that can't be avoided. —David Levy 01:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I take the criticism - of not knowing - as fair and took a look at our article. Actually I have already seen it sometime. Overall it looks fine. Sites facilitating copyright infringement should be stopped. It supports my guess that this is "the internet at large" being against copyright. That includes WP. WP - as a community, not every member - show little respect for copyright. I once uploaded a few photos, the copyright tags I placed on them were changed several times by some random users a couple times or so. WP also leaves up to community discussion several legal matters (like fair use for images) while we are no court at all. WP has no moral authority at all to protest. Joking a little, this is like a bank robber opposing a law against robbing banks. But all that is my opinion about copyright and its (poor) implementation at WP, subject for a nice calm, or heated, internal discussion. This discussion here is about WP direct and intentional interference in USA politics. First, that is completely against WP purpose, as I see it; Second, the WMF may natuirally do turn WP into a political platform, as they may, and probably have the right to. Me, I am against. - Nabla (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying your position. I was unaware of your bias. —David Levy 02:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Bias?!, prejudice, lack of objectivity? Where do your opinions come from? Out of thin air? Because someone told you? You born with them implanted in your brain? They come out of your pure and kind heart? Or are they born out of your life experiences, just like mine? Your life experiences are good reasons, mine are «bias»? Campaign as much as you want, but cut the crap, do'n play all saintly, and do not insult others's opinions. - Nabla (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I neither insulted your bias nor claimed that I possess none of my own. I merely stated that I was unaware of yours. Had I realized that you believe that opposition to SOPA stems from "being against copyright" (a position fundamentally incompatible with supporting this proposal), I wouldn't have pressed the issue. —David Levy 04:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Is this not what could be fairly called "a perennial proposal"? It has been knocked back twice already. How many more times do we have to go through this? I emailed Jimbo stating my concerns regarding the hypocrisy of this proposal. It went something like this: For Wikipedia to state loudly that it is against proposed laws that are (from most peoples perspectives) designed to protect copyrights, will be a media nightmare. Who honestly thinks the media at large will stand shoulder to shoulder with us, and sing our praises for doing the right thing? They sell dung; and the stinkier the better. This is delivering it to them in truck loads. Wave buh-bye to our reputation folks! fredgandt 01:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, you're referring to two very different proposals, both of which failed for reasons irrelevant to this one. The original RfC (which focused on the general idea instead of specific implementations highly unlike the one proposed above) generated broad support.
    Secondly, you seem to suggest that we should worry more about PR than about defending principles that enable Wikipedia's existence. Obviously, I disagree. —David Levy 01:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrelevant'? Excuse me for looking bemused O.o. PR matters. If the aim of this proposed fiasco is to protect Wikipedia, consider the harm it might do. This is surgery with a rusty spoon. There are better ways. fredgandt 01:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Yes, irrelevant. Those proposals failed because they entailed rushing into implementations substantially different from the one proposed above. The general idea received broad support.
    2. I didn't say that PR doesn't matter. However, it will cease to matter if Wikipedia fades into history.
    Also note that the Italian Wikipedia engaged in a significantly more extreme variant of this protest with positive results.
    You say that "there are better ways." What do you suggest? —David Levy 02:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not responding to the end of the world posturing.
    I suggested to Jimbo by email that he use his own clout to raise awareness without dragging Wikipedia through the shit in the process. How ever many readers Wikipedia has each day, it will be nothing compared with the numbers that read the papers and watch the telly. He, without the backing of WMF could easily get any audience he chose, and no one could deny him the right to claim the limelight as creator of Wikipedia (although many try). This is now for certain my last comment on this thread (my last was but I was asked a direct question). Not being dramatic, just said my bit and moving on. fredgandt 03:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe (and I don't think that Jimbo believes) that he commands such power and influence. He's well known, of course, and he is doing his best to raise awareness of the issue. —David Levy 03:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but go further. Blackout all articles about movies made by MPAA members, with no possibility of viewing the article for the 24 hours. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah and then permanently blackout all pages to do with Nazis and terrorists and child abusers and rapists and cheese and frogs... fredgandt 01:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But I like cheese. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: action could well go further into economic restraints on the utility of Wikipedia to the supporters and groups lobbying in favour of this bill. As an immediate proposal this is worth supporting and putting in place. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Including internationally as described by David Levy at the top. Mark Hurd (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the third time, support, though I'm concerned the proposal is not bold enough. A full, almost immediate, complete blackout is in order if we are to generate serious and significant media attention, which is basically the only thing politicians care about. But then that's only my view. I support WMF action against SOPA, though only if not associated with political organizations (e.g. those also associated with other causes than SOPA). CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - Wikipedia should not appear to have political bias.  An optimist on the run! 08:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as Wikipedia is concerned with free access to the web. Thus it's a part of Wikipedia's mission to react on such events. The political bias issues are irrelevant here, as no politics concerned. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - By carrying out these actions Wikipedia will sacrifice its perceived neutrality and the protecttion that it gives. Lose that neutrality and it will be much easier for companies (or people with an agenda) to take legal action as the FIRST step without the bad PR that would create now.Even worse are some of the suggestions above that want to censor Wikipedia - I mean "Blackout all articles about movies made by MPAA members, with no possibility of viewing the article for the 24 hours" and "action could well go further into economic restraints on the utility of Wikipedia to the supporters and groups lobbying in favour of this bill Then goodbye Wikipedia. That is just asking for Wikipedia to be sued or shut downNigel Ish (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As I wrote previously, it is inappropriate for the community to compel any user to edit or not edit to make a political point. It would also set a truly awful precedent, with unknowable consequences. If some threshold of consensus is all it takes to turn Wikipedia into an instrument of politics, then Bill O'Reilly can take over the encyclopedia if 1% of his three million nightly viewers respond to a call to register accounts. Even if nothing like that happened, Wikipedia would be permanently politicized. Every time a controversial piece of media legislation got introduced, it would be "How will Wikipedia respond?" all over the news. Nigel Ish also highlights some upsetting avenues this could open toward liability. And as Nabla says, how far does this go? If it becomes an issue in the U.S. presidential campaign, which candidate do we endorse? Lagrange613 17:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - Having read the bill and numerous informed analyses of it, I believe that SOPA threatens the very existence of Wikipedia. This requires decisive action, and requires it urgently. It makes little sense for Wikipedia to refrain from action in order to uphold our apolitical ideals when so doing may well result in the elimination of the site itself. This is an extremely poorly-conceived and constructed piece of legislation, and it demands an unequivocal response. This is not a slippery slope. The Wikipedia community has historically shown great restraint against taking indiscriminate political action, and will continue to do so in the future, regardless of what decision is made here. The is no equivalency between an awareness-raising action regarding a bill that would necessitate universal censorship of Wikipedia and, say, the endorsement of a political candidate. To propose such is an insult to the intelligence and discretion of this community.
Of the three SOPA-related action proposals thus far put forth, this is by far the best-articulated, and most immediately practicable one. It is respectful of the community, addresses all major the previously-raised objections, and is compatible with NPOV. It also—and I consider this crucial—includes a strong emphasis on creating high-value action on the part of the Wikipedia community and readership. The Tumblr auto-calling system mentioned in the proposal was a massive success, without which SOPA might have sailed through without the scrutiny that it is now receiving, and which it so needed. Without the tumblr action, our community might not even have the opportunity that we now have to draw further attention to this deeply-flawed legislation.AaronMuszalski (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC) — AaronMuszalski (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong oppose. As I have said, the statute as presently drafted is inapplicable to Wikipedia. End of story.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikimedia Foundation's general counsel has advised the community that SOPA does pose dangers to Wikipedia. While the latest version exempts American organizations from some sanctions (such as cutting off payment processing), the WMF could still be subject to court orders to review every outgoing link from Wikipedia and to block certain domains. I find it hard to imagine a more direct attack on the freedom of the Wikipedia community. Do you have another legal opinion to cite? NeilK (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Counsel conditioned his opinion with many a “might” and “could”. I see no definite statement of opinion on what, in fact, SOPA would do to Wikipedia. What he is doing is the “parade of horribles”: That is, if you pass an ordinance banning playing the radio on the subway, you have repealed the First Amendment and you are now living in New Pyongyang. I’m a lawyer myself, I know when a lawyer is advocating for a client’s position. That’s what he’s doing. Perfectly proper, and perhaps not entitled to the weight and authority you’re giving it. Always look to the qualifiers in a legal opinion. Any lawyer can hand you dramatic language. It looks impressive in print, but when run through legal analysis, not much is left.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I support this because while not being consistent with NPV, SOPA endangers the very idea of open internet sites like wikipedia Cat Cubed (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support SOPA will effect the very nature of the internet --Guerillero | My Talk 20:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'm not fully understanding arguments against this action due to Wikipedia's perceived neutrality - Wikipedia is indeed not neutral in this situation and needn't behave as such. With lawmakers making comments such as "this worked in China" we, of all those on the web, should certainly be supporting any action that could help prevent this bill from going through in its current state. This is an effective option; take advantage of the opportunity to make an impact. LoriLee (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support – I've previously opposed taking site-wide action since I had believed that Jimbo's voice in the media alone would be enough. Unfortunately, I don't believe that to be the case any longer. As a result of witnessing the rejection of so many amendments on December 16th, I believe that a stronger message from the WMF and the enwiki community is needed in order to spread awareness of this bill. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - SOPA poses a direct threat to what Wikipedia stands for. As Vint Cerf wrote in a letter to Lamar Smith, SOPA opens the door to "unprecedented censorship" of the web. When statements like this - including an appeal from 83 of the internet's founders about the dangers of SOPA - fall on deaf ears within Congress, it's time to act. Wikipedia has the power to reach thousands of people, and that kind of power should not be taken lightly or used carelessly. The situation is dire, but there may be hope if Wikipedia contributes to the awareness effort. As representative Zoe Lofgren pointed out, people have a tremendous power to influence legislation, as illustrated by the story of one of her colleagues rethinking his position on SOPA after a phone call from a small business owner in his district. If more representatives hear from their constituents about how counterproductive and dangerous this bill is, maybe the tide will turn. This is a crucial moment in the Internet's history, and I think that Wikipedia should take a stand, because SOPA undermines every value that this community is built on. The neutrality that people are so protective of in this discussion can only thrive in an open internet. The sum of all human knowledge will not thrive in the balkanized internet that will result from SOPA being passed.Nadya lev (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • Oppose as POV and a distraction by "movement groupies" over content creators. We should not restrict content to make a political point (to support or oppose a law). Similar to not censoring. This is censoring the entire site. I'm also concerned that this seems to appeal to people that would rather found a movement than write content. Wales and Gardner should worry about content problems we have (10 years into this thing). This is a distraction. It takes us further down the road of losing the best writers and retaining people that want to use the blank slate as part of some meta-battle. (And if you don't like it or think I'm not AGFing or shouldn't impute motives, tough titties. I would look anyone on this site in the eye and say what I beleive.)TCO (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're calling Jimbo a movement groupie, I'm not sure who you would consider a "real" Wikipedian. Jimbo continues to contribute to articles to this day. Furthermore you are proposing a false dichotomy, that we can only care about content quality or legal threats to the existence of Wikipedia. We can do both. NeilK (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not to besmirch the work Jimmy Wales does on behalf of the project, which I do very much appreciate, but I really must chime in here. The link you provide purporting to show that Mr. Wales "contribute(s) to articles to this day" shows no such thing. Oh, he changed a URL on one piece in mid-November, etc. But he basically engages in Talk pages, Noticeboard pages, and other matters relating to the apparatus, not the content. Once in a while there is a contentious BLP that brings editorial action, but that's ultimately a function of project maintenance and defense rather than content creation. That's neither here nor there, there are many people who do these things — some productively, some not. But it is a misrepresentation to contend otherwise. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support for a weak proposal. Every media report will make reference to the fact that we considered a blackout but bottled it. --FormerIP (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'd actually prefer a stronger action more like what the Italian Wikipedia did, but I can get behind this proposal. NeilK (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I have a couple of questions. I can understand those who think this kind of protest is inappropriate, and would prefer something different. What I don't get are those who object to taking any sort of action. According to the WMF's general counsel, this is a serious threat to Wikipedia's independence (and if you disagree, please show us a different legal opinion). So are you arguing that it's more important to avoid any hint of POV -- even about issues of state censorship? Personally, when I look back on this episode in 10 years, I'm not sure I am going to feel good about concluding "well, we may have let Wikipedia become a collaborator with government and industry to keep people ignorant about certain things. But I'm glad that at least we never pushed any POV on our users with a banner ad or anything...." NeilK (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's important to avoid any hint of POV even about issues of fill in the blank. Otherwise it will be "Wikipedia condemns anti-copyvio measures but not child pornography or AIDS denialism or overzealous gun control or spending time on copyright on the Internet instead of unemployment" or whatever bête noire you choose. We can't pick favorites with political causes, or do-gooders will be knocking down our door asking us to pick them. I reject collaboration with either side of this debate. We're an encyclopedia, so informing readers is part of our mission; we just can't inject the political views of the majority* of editors into that process. (*Really the majority of the minority that participates at this board.) By all means draw attention to the debate around SOPA, but do it within the bounds we set for ourselves: work the article up to FA and make it TFA around some appropriate moment, like one house or the other voting on it. Lagrange613 06:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia, by its very existence, aligns itself with a POV contrary to SOPA's intent. You might as well argue that our "pro-free content" POV is inappropriate. —David Levy 06:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Wikipedia is free content is one of the five pillars; Wikipedia provides links to copyright-infringing websites is not. SOPA would not outlaw free content. Lagrange613 07:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't about a desire to provide links to copyright-infringing websites. Do you honestly not realize that? —David Levy 08:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "SOPA would not outlaw free content". Sure, but it'd give anyone a weapon to cause untold quantities of harm regardless. Someone with powerful lawyers gets pissy about the fact that we legitimately use their non-free logo under fair use, or perhaps that we disagree with them on Bridgeman v. Corel, the lawyers start making a ruckus and then god knows what happens. Or think of the child porn stuff a few years ago: it would have only taken one or two rogue prosecutors to go after Wikipedia: this is what you get when you detach intellectual property enforcement from due process. Wikipedians try very hard to keep the site free of copyvios and we still fail, and will continue to fail. SOPA is a gun pointed at our head and the trigger could go off at any minute. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was only that Wikipedia does not "align itself with a POV contrary to SOPA's intent." Tom Morris correctly identifies the stakes here as risk to the project, not some deep contradiction with Our Precious Values. And taking a public political stance like this is very risky indeed, for reasons opponents continue to spell out. Lagrange613 15:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Wikipedia aligns itself with the POV that the online dissemination of free information should be unencumbered. SOPA threatens to make it too onerous for Wikipedia, let alone downstream users, to handle.
    2. Has the Italian Wikipedia's protest — a significantly more extreme variant — resulted in adverse political consequences for Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation? —David Levy 16:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I don't see Wikipedia aligning itself with any POV, because I don't see myself as part of a political movement. I understand that some people feel that way, but I don't think it's appropriate for them to impose their vision on the rest of the editing (and reading) community. I guess that makes me one of TCO's "content writers", though we're mostly a soft-spoken lot. I don't know much about the Italian Wikipedia's protest, but I do think it's a little early to evaluate all of its effects. In any case the English Wikipedia is so much more visible that I doubt the value of the comparison. Lagrange613 22:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is part of the free culture movement. When politicians threaten to harm said movement via onerous legislation, the lines between "social movement" and "political movement" are blurred.
    The Italian Wikipedia is the fifth-largest. Its protest (which was worldwide, blocked article access with no option of clicking through, and had no predetermined duration) generated massive media coverage in Italy (the country considering the problematic legislation) and a substantial amount internationally. I've seen no evidence that the Italian Wikipedia's reputation (or that of the Wikimedia Foundation, which endorsed the protest) has been damaged. Many Wikimedians (myself included) initially expressed concerns similar to those discussed here, but the general public found fault with Italian parliament (and reacted accordingly). That protest's success inspired this proposal. —David Levy 00:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is emphatically not part of any movement, social or political. It is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit regardless of membership in any movement, social or political. Individual contributors may feel they belong to a movement and that editing Wikipedia is part of their participation in that movement. Which is fine as long as they don't use Wikipedia as a soapbox. Lagrange613 01:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "The Wikimedia Foundation believes that all people everywhere should be afforded equal access to information. It supports network neutrality and the free culture movement." (Source: WMF Answers page)
    "Your donation makes you a key supporter of the free culture movement..." (Source: Jimbo Wales)
    No one asserts that Wikipedia is a soapbox or that we ordinarily engage in the type of activity proposed. But let's not pretend that the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects are uninvolved in the free culture movement and advocacy related thereto. —David Levy 04:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikimedia Foundation has a fiduciary duty to advocate for all its constituent projects. It's decided that identifying itself with the free culture movement is a good way to do that. Wikipedia is not bound by this decision to adopt a political POV; on the contrary, the Foundation does it so we don't have to. Lagrange613 14:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't asserted that we "have to" engage in the proposed protest. I've explained why I believe it to be an advisable course of action. It is, of course, entirely reasonable to disagree.
    But one of the arguments against the protest is that it would be non-neutral. My point is that Wikipedia, as a project of the Wikimedia Foundation, already aligns itself with the free culture movement and the POV that the dissemination of free information should be unencumbered.
    Do we normally interrupt page loads to announce this? No, of course not. That would be a significant departure from our standard procedure. Does that make it a departure from the principles on which the project is based? No, it doesn't. We seek to build an NPOV encyclopedia, but from an organizational standpoint, we've never been neutral on this subject. —David Levy 20:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "SOPA would not outlaw free content"? The proposal keeps changing, but some versions would not outlaw free content, but would change who decides if complaints are valid from a court, which is obliged to be fair and neutral, to the ISP of the person or organization who puts up the disputed content. Of course, the primary interest of the ISP is minimising the amount of staff time devoted to content issues, and the quickest way to resolve issues is to cancel the account of the accused subscriber. So some incarnations of SOPA don't outlaw free content, but do deny due process of law to possibly free content. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, are you saying that there's nothing wrong with this action, but that it will lead inevitably to Wikipedians being dragged into other issues? I think there's no risk of that. First of all, SOPA is very clearly targeted at sites like us. Its entire intent is to affect internet entities where content is contributed by users, which were formerly shielded by the DMCA. We are not becoming exercised over this bill by accident. I think the Wikipedia community is smart enough to figure out when we must speak out and when we should be silent. If not, we can get legal advice from the WMF or others, and we can do what we're doing now -- talk it out. There's no slippery slope here. Nothing about this action commits us to other, future, unrelated actions. NeilK (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm less worried about getting dragged into future issues (though that is a concern) than I am about changes to our image. At the moment people read us as an encyclopedia, and this will lead to people reading us as an encyclopedia that crusades for one political POV at the expense of another. If we're pigeonholed like that it may be harder to attract new users, which is becoming more and more urgent. Lagrange613 22:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for action. I'm flexible on which proposal. Just like the DMCA, this law operates based on allegations. It operates in the absence of an actual court determination of infringement. The law requires Wikipedia to censor targeted sites, even when any allegation of infringement is clearly false. Even if a site actually contains nothing but Public Domain material. Even more significantly, I think it's wrong to say that Wikipedia itself actually is safe from being taken down or de-funded under this law. Wikipedia's supposed safety is conditional upon Wikipedia being confined within US borders. Imagine for a moment a law which explicitly prohibited Wikipedia from ever moving outside the US, prohibited us from ever utilizing any systems outside the US. Is there anyone here who would tolerate any such thing? It is impossible for anyone to assert or accept that Wikipedia actually is safe from the most catastrophic portions of this law, not unless you first imply and accept the radical position of forever prohibiting Wikipedia from moving or using any system outside the US. Alsee (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia's Alexa rank is 6. Any bill about the Internet has the potential to harm (or benefit) Wikipedia. Where do we draw the line? Lagrange613 06:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The difficulty of knowing where to draw the line does not mean that we shouldn't draw the line. If you want a clear test, here's one: if a law forbids content that the community has come to a consensus on as being valuable to include in Wikipedia, we should oppose that law. Seems like a no-brainer to me. And I know that includes a lot of things like freedom of panorama or laws against Nazi imagery in Germany, and I'm not advocating that we protest those things as strenuously. But another issue is, when should we take action that interrupts the average reader's experience on the encyclopedia? I think that is a judgment call, and we'll have to talk it out every time, as we are doing now. The point is I don't think you can argue for no action merely by saying that it's hard to know when action is required. NeilK (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What content that the community values would be forbidden under SOPA? Lagrange613 22:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the Pirate Bay article has an external link to the site, so that's some content right there. And The Church of Scientology already abuses copyright to kick sites off the internet that are critical or provide neutral information about their organization; we can expect them to use this tool as well. But the thing is, while SOPA purports to target piracy, it really places website publishers at the beck and call of anyone who is willing to pay a lawyer. (Caution, I am not a lawyer, and that cite comes from October, but I believe it is still relevant.) In many cases, a judge does not decide what is an appropriate measure to take, the claimant does. The obligation to monitor content isn't theirs, it becomes ours. The risk to Wikipedia may be lower -- the current draft exempts US websites from some provisions, and few organizations would risk the blowback of kicking Wikipedia offline. But consider that we also largely rely on the rest of the Internet to verify all the significant claims in the encyclopedia. If it becomes difficult for non-US sites to be critical of the class of "anyone who can afford a lawyer" I don't see how Wikipedia can succeed. No site on the web is an island, and Wikipedia least of all. NeilK (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So the only content you can think of is the external link to The Pirate Bay? Seems like an easy thing to fix. Then you expand your rationale to suggest that Wikipedia has a duty to protect the rest of the Internet, placing us on an even slipperier slope. Lagrange613 04:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you asking me to enumerate every article before you take the threat seriously? I don't know what SOPA will look like in its final form, or when enforced, and neither do you. Something that leaves so much of the judgment to private companies is unlikely to err on the side of free speech. And the whole point of SOPA is that a site can be banned for the action of a single user, or a single page of content. But speaking of slippery slopes, exactly how much of Wikipedia's content are you willing to let the government ban, or rightsholders curtail? It's clear that you think we can lose a few articles about self-described "pirate" groups. But how about, say, the "Pirate Party", a significant force in European politics now? Where do you draw the line? NeilK (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We already have policies restricting content to protect us from liability, e.g. WP:BLP. We are well past that. I didn't say I was willing to lose articles, and I don't think that's at stake here. I'm not trying to justify SOPA (my opinions on it are irrelevant) but to express how unpersuasive I've found the doomsday predictions about the bill's prospective effect on Wikipedia. Lagrange613 21:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Look back at the root of this thread (my Strong Support vote). I explained SOPA can take down anything, including a site hosting noting but public domain content. And either (1) you accept Wikipedia may someday be directly&catastrophically taken down under this law, or (2) you implicitly accept the law effectively prohibits Wikipedia from ever moving outside the US. Alsee (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am an European, but I believe that any similar law aimed directly against the freedoms of people merit similar response. Wikipedia is global project and as such it should defend itself on a global level no matter government of which country is attempting to propose change which could affect it. Petrb (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support When bad laws threaten the survival of Wikipedia, we must make a stand. The argument that it is a violation of WP:NPOV doesn't hold up because our very existence isn't a matter of neutrality. We prefer free content to non-free content, we prefer open source to closed, we prefer free access to closed access: the very parameters of the project aren't neutral, and rare, extraordinary action to protest dumb laws that threaten the survival of Wikipedia and the free Internet generally is a price we occasionally have to pay. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wikipedia needs to inform readers that free access to information is being placed in jeopardy. The comments above about Wikipedia's neutrality misunderstand the situation: the best advice currently available indicates that the bill presents a unique threat to Wikipedia's continued operation (see link in proposal). It would be irresponsible to fail to inform readers of that unique threat. Johnuniq (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per my comments on Jimbo's talk page and elsewhere.--v/r - TP 16:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral if it remains targetted at US IPs only, oppose if it's expanded to include non US IPs. Having read our lawyers response and some follow up comment, the actual extent of any threat to wikipedia seems to remain fairly unclear. Therefore, I remain opposed to any action involving non US IPs, particularly since the ability of non Americans to directly influence the bill is limited anyway. As also per my earlier comments, I'll let those from the US decide what they wish to do about it themselves. Nil Einne (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I preferred the tools-down global blackout (as several countries follow the US example and might try restrictive laws of their own, and action should be taken there too), but any action is good action. Sceptre (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Google pay us to shut down Wiki? Just wondering. Supposedly we are discouraging large individual grants (to not be beholden). But then we just got a half million from the founder of Google. And he has given us a LOT over the years too. And he has billions tied up in Youtube and Google and all. When we read the Wiki counsel's advice, we find out that Wiki itself is not under much danger. But Google has a lot of problems. And they are a ginormous, for profit, entity. So...just wondering on the timing of that last grant. Signal? TCO (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with conditions. A more limited affected range at first, targeting only the IP ranges serving the U.S. Congress at first (although if we can exclude Senator Ron Wyden's office and Rep. Darrell Issa's (cosponsors of the more acceptable OPEN Act), we should. There is no sense in pissing off the entire US Internet population, even for a day, until and unless things get desperate.

    Then we extend to IPs serving all organizations supporting SOPA (RIAA, MPAA, movie studios and record companies ... we can certainly determine these from the edit histories of the corresponding articles). And ideally we get Facebook, Twitter, Google and everything they own (i.e., YouTube) to do this as well.

    We sustain this until the bill is killed and/or OPEN is passed instead, lifting blocks only for those people who have capitulated to our demands.

    There's an election year coming up. I think a lot of members of Congress, facing primaries and redrawn districts or both, would not want to be in the position of passing legislation that would offend us, Facebook and Twitter when not only can we cut them off from all three while their opponents or prospective opponents are not. Time would be on our side here. As the joke goes, what do you have when you're holding two green balls in your hand? Kermit the Frog's full attention. Now all we need is someone to volunteer to hold a big fluffy white cat in their laps when we record the video of our demands. ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, begrudgingly. I think we should go further than this, much like the Italian Wikipedia did. But this is better than nothing. --Rschen7754 08:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We are also working on a banner-action on the german Wikipedia. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 08:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose SOPA is terrible but it is not a threat to the existence of WP. That is where this differs from the Italian law earlier this year. I agree with many that it is the first step down a slippery slope which could lead to problems for WP, but remember that this action could also be the first down a slippery slope. I think that the Italian project's actions this year were probably justified, but this is the kind of response I worried about. How tangentially related to WP will legislation have to be for the users to weigh in? If the default is that we do weigh in, what's to stop us from blacking out every time some bill threatens the other interests of our community (and given the demographic homogeneity of editors, there is likely a fair bit of overlap)? For me the test must be a clear threat to the continuation of the project and this does not come anywhere close to meeting that standard. I hope you will all actually call your representatives and hand write a letter. From conversation with former congressional phone pit grunts, these are the most effective tools. -- InspectorTiger (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, if this is all we can get. I'd still like to see my stronger proposal (#2 at the Wikipedia:SOPA initiative page, but this is enough to get at least a good few people's attention. Wehwalt is a good editor (I know that for certain), and may be a good lawyer (no way for me to know), but Geoff is a known expert on this particular area of law. It's clearly an ill-considered bill that's totally discounted the opinions of technical experts, and has had a laughable run in Congress. More than once has been heard a variant of "Well I don't understand the technical issues, but...". NO, NO, NO. If you don't understand the technical issues, and people who do tell you repeatedly it's a Very Bad Idea, you stop and do not move until you understand why they say so. Given the clear lack of consideration given to this bill, it's certainly very possible it could have unintended ill effects on Wikipedia. Geoff's opinion is that it's likely to. Given the current abuse of the DMCA, and the fact that this can do far more damage, I see why he says so and tend to agree. I'd rather not let it pass to settle the argument, I'd rather take Geoff's opinion seriously and kill this thing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A minor gripe with your comment: Even if people don't fully understand the implications of the proposed legislation (because they don't fully understand the legal technicalities), they may still oppose using Wikipedia to promote a political point of view, without their view/opinion being any less potent. The issue up for discussion here is not if SOPA is bad, but if Wikipedia should say so. fredgandt 16:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I apologize if I was unclear, as your comment was quite correct. I was referring to actual comments by the members of Congress who have been commenting on this legislation (to show that it's ill-considered and why it's so likely to be a blunder), not comments by Wikipedians. Sadly, it seems most of those discussing the bill here (on both sides) understand the technical issues better than the members of Congress debating it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah right gotya. Yes it's a crying shame that our planet is run by morons. fredgandt 17:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I heard someone quip once, you can understand all of the problems in the US if you recognize that Congress are the teenagers we've hired to babysit the emotionally immature segment of our society. Unfortunately, we've given them the run of the house and spent way too long out at the movies; sooner or later we're going to have to go home and clean up the mess they've collectively made. --Ludwigs2 18:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - While running an educational banner is a good idea, blacking out the site is a terrible concept for something that is not a life-and-death matter for WP. SOPA is no such thing, even if passed through both houses unchanged and signed by the President. Pressure should be happening NOW by WMF behind the scenes. Public Copycat-The-Italians gestures are both ineffectual and annoying. Carrite (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose any direct opposition by Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors should all call and/or write individually. Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren of the Judiciary Committee has stated it is already having a positive effect and now with the postponing of the vote and the 25 amendments to it, it is obvious the bill is receiving alot of opposition. We are not listed as a Political Activist Group with the IRS. I believe we are in the group of charitable organizations such as 501(c)(3) status and so we should take care not to lose our status, and for another, Lets keep our eyes on the prize, i.e., defeating SOPA through individual calls and letters. Mugginsx (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE Jimbo Wales has stated on his page this is not a problem so I would withdraw my objection on my above stated grounds. Mugginsx (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I would support the above proposal IF the choice is either that or nothing. Why isn't there a centralized place to discuss all proposed action against SOPA?? There seem to be numerous different discussions regarding proposed action against SOPA (such as a "blackout", banner, etc) at various locations, including several here at the Village Pump, several at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative, and there are/have been several at User talk:Jimbo wales, among other locations (and there are likely many that I don't even know about). This makes it really confusing for people to find out where to discuss or to know where their voice will count. Can't we just have one clear location where discussion takes place??
I am really worried that we will end up doing nothing at all, not because we decided to, but for the sole reason that we discuss it until it is too late without ever reaching any kind of consensus either way and/or that the discussions are all over the place and about so many different proposals so there is no way to even determine whether there is consensus for/against a particular action.
And for those who haven't already, I suggest reading/commenting on the "concrete proposals" at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative#Concret proposals workshop. (which I thought was supposed to be the centralized location for discussion, but apparently it's not). -MsBatfish (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose
This will probably get censored/deleted again (oh the irony), but what the hell, I love exposing hyprocites:
Pay the fuck attention kiddies, this little event that you're basically shitting your pants over...oh, hey, guess what, IT ALREADY HAPPENED! No, srsly, it ALREADY THE FUCK HAPPENED! Woah! TWICE in fact that I can recall off the top of my head just in the past 15 years!
I mean, hurr de durr, where were your stupid asses in NINETEEN NINETY SIX when Congress passed the CDA, the Communications Decency Act, which, by the way, was like 38 shades WORSE than this current bill you're all spastic and frothing over.
And make no mistake, Congress WILL pass it into law, they're getting a FIFTY SEVEN MILLION dollar bribe to do it, essentially. And they've no problems at all with that knowing that their "big brother" the Supreme Court will simply step in right afterwards and fix their epic fucking mess...they get to keep all that bribe money of course and the MPAA/RIAA will be out FIFTY MILLION dollars...win-win all around!
They do this all the time, it's practically their job description, there's actually been a whole slew of these idiot "laws" in the past 25 years, every single one deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court within a year of their passing through Congress, usually due to lawsuits from the ACLU and/or the EFF.
The last two major ones were the CDA, Communications Decency Act and the COPA, Children's Online Protection Act. This new bill is basically the exact same thing, just reworded slightly. Same old shit, different acronym.
Honestly, I can't believe I'm the ONLY one to point this out! I mean, hello, 1996! Blue Ribbon Campaign?! Surely I couldn't have been the ~only~ person online back in 1996! Tha'fawk...they sure are breeding you kids stupid these days.
Mmmm, should probably mention, in the event that a really fucked up law does come to pass, it usually takes the Supreme Court about a year or so to completely boot fuck it...BUT, when they're sued they usually file injunctions and shit that prevent them from actually putting the law into effect at all...so even though the law could effectively be completely passed...yeah, that doesn't mean they can actually act on it.
It is pretty hilarious though, first it was "decency", then it was "won't someone think of the children?" and now we've got "scary pirates" in the latest incarnation, but it's all the *SAME* fawking bill, just slightly reworded and with new acronyms, CDA... COPA... and now SOPA. I mean, what, do they think the Supreme Court isn't gonna notice it's the EXACT SAME BILL THEY ALREADY BOOT STOMPED?! *rolls eyes* It really is just for the money when you get right down to it.
That's the current version of my Anti-SOPA Idiocy rant...feel free to repost/edit/plagiarize at your discretion elsewhere, the important thing is just getting it circulated.
--InvertedCupcake (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC) — InvertedCupcake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
There was no wikipedia in 1996. And yeah, you were pretty much one of the few people online back then. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:NOTADVOCATE. 'Nuff said. If individual editors want to state their opinions on their user pages, they are free to do so. Hundreds of editors already do so, for a myriad of issues. Wikipedia is not in the business of advocating a political cause, even if it will directly affect them (which I highly doubt, but that's irrelevant). If Wikipedia does go into that business, they will lose my support. Buddy431 (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This, hilariously, has absolutely no teeth and is an pathetic conservative "lets pander to the opposers to get their support". At least have the gall to stick to your guns and propose a full outage. Anyway; Geoff's comment at the top is very uncompelling as he glosses over the word "indexed" (which has a specific technical meaning in relation to search engines). This protest is predicated on our being seen as a search engine which, lets face it, is impractical. SOPA is idiotice, American tech law is going the way of the dogs. Ignore it, up roots and go somewhere sane. Or put up and shut up. --Errant (chat!) 00:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a well crafted proposal and an appropriate response to dangerous legislation that stifles free speech. Wikipedia should take this opportunity to stand alongside all the other online communities that, like us, help make the Internet not suck. (Thanks Reddit, Twitter, Public Knowledge, Scribd, EFF) Gobonobo T C 17:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Wikipedia should not involve ourselves in political advocacy, period. To permit any deviation from that principle would be to fundamentally compromise our neutrality. Robofish (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not what wikipedia is for and is wikipedia meant to be neutral? MilborneOne (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Considering what happened to Veoh due to the UMG v. Veoh lawsuit (bankruptcy), despite winning at every stage of the litigation, this is quite prudent. We simply can't depend on the good graces of those who wanted to pass this legislation to interpret it according to the "specific technical meaning" of words. Let's face it, one argument UMG made in that lawsuit was that DMCA's takedown safe harbor provisions did not apply to Veoh because...the content was accessible from the Internet. (Never mind that the takedown provisions pretty much presupposes that the content is accessible.) Perhaps after years of litigation courts will find that SOPA does not apply to WMF, but that would still result in huge amounts of resources wasted by the Foundation. T. Canens (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support due to the impact that this would have on Wikipedia/Wikimedia and the internet at large. CodeBlock (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support The bill has the strong possibility to pass into law, considering the amount of money backing it. Yes, it is true that WP tries to avoid bias. However, if this bill were made into law, and Wikipedia did not shutdown as a result and decided to continue on, Wikipedia would be forced by law to become biased. Rabbitfang 16:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You got some evidence for the sentence that begins "However,"?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I was basing that sentence off of what is said that WP would be required to do (e.g. remove links/references to some sites and to remove images that provide useful information for an article). Maybe 'biased' wasn't the best word; "less neutral" would probably be better. Rabbitfang 22:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion cont

Committee meets on Wednesday

Could we at least send some letter to the committee by Wednesday (when they reconvene!), asking for them to at least carve an exception for WP? It'd kind of suck to have to move the servers to Iceland next year, if we could have just politely asked right now. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to limited amount of time we have, if we pursue the open letter course, I would recommend the follow:
  1. Have Jimbo Wales or another member of the WMF craft an open letter to the Committee. The letter should be hosted on the web.
  2. Use Twitter to inform Committee members about the open letter.
  3. Convince a Congressperson (via Twitter) to mention Wikipedia and its concerns during the markup session.
--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations to the two above editors for laying it out clearly: SOPA can do whatever it wants to the 'net as a whole, provided some exception for WP. Not joking, I much rather read clear positions tan the few holier than thou I've read above. - Nabla (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How would that work? If it's actually specific to WP, that wipes out our ability to fork, which would do away with Wikipedia being a "free encyclopedia", which is kind of important... --Yair rand (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Best not to try for those kind of earmarks. With the House as it is, it likely won't get much traction. Better to change something broader, like narrowing the rules to apply as close as to what the bill was originally intended for (not what it's become).∞陣内Jinnai 05:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do it

SOPA is an important issue, and I generally support any effort to derail it's possible passage. That being said, don't do this. Just... don't. Wikipedia should remain as apart as possible from any and all real world politics. Delving into the political field is the province of the Wikimedia Foundation (and, by extension, of Jimbo Wales himself). The editorial community of all of Wikimedia's properties should retain their neutrality, let alone their place as editors. If it's acceptable for the community, as a Wikipedia community, to become directly involved in politics then we have absolutely zero credibility when it comes to editorial decisions regarding any article with any political content to it.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 09:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SOPA markup postponed until January

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2134110/sopa-hearing-postponed – Previously, markup was scheduled to resume on December 21st, but now it's rescheduled for January. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legal question

How could political advocacy of the sort proposed here impact our tax status? Mugginsx pointed out this issue at WP:SOPA. Thanks. Lagrange613 05:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad at least two persons have concerns here besides me. Just what does everyone here think is going to happen if all of a sudden tax status changes? Are they going to pay the taxes to keep this afloat? They don't even believe the Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren of the very same judiciary committee who states calling in and sending letters to your particular Congressman as well as the Committee is WORKING. I am sure that they think they are helping but what they really are doing is unintentional plotting the possible end of Wikipedia! Please check this out yourself. It is all online.

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

For a general overview of this and different foundations irs status look here at Wiki: 501(c) organization.

For Wikipedia status look here: Wikimedia Foundation .

ANSWER FROM JIMBO WALES: Copied below from User talk:Jimbo Wales page where he has posted an answer to this concern. I defer to his judgment. Mugginsx (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The key here is the "substantial part" test. It's complicated and I'm not an expert, but as an example, a typical test is to look at spending on lobbying, and the general rule here is that it must be less than 5% of total revenues. We have good advisers, and the Foundation isn't going to do anything that jeopardizes its tax status. Fear about that ought not to restrict community action in this area!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Reflist should be shown when previewing a section edit

When previewing a section, a presentation of a the reflist should show beneath the preview (anywhere on the page is better than nowhere), containing all references (as they would normally be displayed). from the section being edited. fredgandt 02:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have WikEd but I haven't seen any option to do a reflist, is there one instead of sticking in reflist and then forgetting to take it out and then doing a second edit to correct my error. Dmcq (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Anomie's comments, proposal update Instead of showing a reflist for the section being edited, the reflist for the whole page (calculated to include your previewed edits) should be shown. I think that would be simpler to code and would circum...get around... the issues Anomie raised. I've adjusted the proposal lead. fredgandt 00:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which means the parser has to process the entire page, which could get messy and slow on pages with 100s of references. I could see this as an opt-in tick-box or preference option though. It would remove the danger of me forgetting to take out the {{reflist}}. What I would like to see is the exact same output that putting in the {reflist} does, I can live with the named refs showing as errors, as I can assume they were already properly formatted. Franamax (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have not done the research but I would be surprised if this is not a perennial proposal. I've reviewed the code in Cite and it's intertwined with how our parser works currently. Anyway, this is not impossible to fix with our current technology, but at this point I don't see an easy fix. Personally I'd rather wait until the new parser is done, and we will not only be able to preview cites but probably show them in WYSIWYG. Unfortunately that is more than a year away. NeilK (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a very positive comment. I firmly believe, if something is worth doing, it's worth doing properly. Sometimes, that means waiting. Quick fixes are often unsatisfactory. I'd love to see this incorporated in the next generation of software. Nicely plugged in rather than glued on the side. fredgandt 02:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this would be the third time I have seen this proposed. Support-support-support - so to to be clear I mean strong support. I cant tell you how many time I have forgotten to remove the {{relist}} when just editing a section after having to add it because I want to see how the refs appear. Moxy (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this is a feature I have been missing for years. Ajax gadgets are often to slow to load. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This issue requires an update to the Cite software extension. It is logged as Template:Bug. To support this, create a Bugzilla account and vote.
There are three current solutions, which I have not compared:
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 03:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gadget850. Voted. fredgandt 03:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki and domain redirects via URL

Alright, this may sound silly, and may possibly be more appropriate on meta, but I don't use meta, so I'm asking here. I generally use the URL to navigate between wikis, for example if I'm looking at someone's Special:Contributions, I just have to change en. to fr., and there I am. And then, if I need to go to commons., I don't need to change .wikipedia.org, the software automatically translates it to .wikimedia.org. My "problem" is that it doesn't do the opposite translation. So if I come from the French Wikipedia, e.g. Discussion utilisateur:, I'm not redirected to User talk: when I change fr. to en., nor is wikimedia.org redirected to wikipedia.org once one changes the prefix. I propose that domain and subdomain redirects be established for all languages, at least to and from (from is already done) .en for interlanguage, and from .wikimedia.org to .wikipedia.org when going from meta or commons to a wikipedia (the opposite is already done). This could also apply for other types of wiki though I'm not familiar with them. Thoughts? P.S. I'm technically incompetent, sorry if there is something preventing this in the software or some kind of technical conflict that I'm not aware of. Regards CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds similar to something proposed on the wikitech-l mailing list recently. Anomie⚔ 12:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know, thanks! Was there any follow-up on the proposal? CharlieEchoTango (contact) 03:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the sections (as opposed to watch the whole page)

I would propose a feature for a Wikipedia: namespace to watch only specific threads. On big pages like this one or noticeboards the editor can be interested in a particular thread, but watching it becomes more difficult when there are many threads and some of them are buzzy. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support with opt-in or opt-out: this would be useful as suggested in a thread above as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but see Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Allow watchlisting individual sections of a page.  An optimist on the run! 09:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, though what we should be voting for is an opt-in beta of Wikipedia:LiquidThreads. They keep testing it out on other wikis, though things would move a lot faster if they allowed approved enWP users to try it out on their talk pages (or on a special beta page in their userspace). Liquid Threads is currently the only tech capable of making this happen on WP, and it was started in 2006! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Unless you really meant threads, I recommend changing the proposal to "Watch sections (as opposed to watch the whole page)". I'd support that for sure. Saves doing it all by user script. And I imagine quite trivial to create and install. fredgandt 11:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as an "opt-in or opt-out" feature, providing it is not overly difficult to implement. Would be highly useful and convenient for editors interested in watching only a particular discussion.--JayJasper (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this idea, but acknowledge the complexity (and current impossibility) of implementing this. See bugzilla 738. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 23:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the idea. On Portuguese Wikipedia/Wikisource Village pumps (example) it is used a system of subpages transcluded into the main page, so that people can (un)watch individual topics. There is also a proposal here for using a script to make the system a little more user friendly. Helder 00:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We can all jump up and down and support this in principle, but unless there is consensus to install LiquidThreads, I'm not sure what we are going to achieve by writing comments and putting words in bold before them. And, trust me, to install LQT, we're gonna need a lot more consensus than this. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't know which is the issue with liquid threads, but that was not the original proposal, nor it is unavoidable to achieve the desired result. See Template talk:Did you know, Wikipedia:Peer review, or Wikipedia:Featured article candidates (see their structure, not their specific purpose). They have individual pages for each nomination, transcluded into the main nominations page. So just change "nominations" with "discussions", and the system can work equally well for plain discussions. Cambalachero (talk) 13:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it's very complicated to implement this and there is already LQT extension which support this and works great, so I don't believe anyone would be interested in integrating this feature. So even if this reach support I doubt it change anything. You should consider a proposal of installation of liquid threads instead. Petrb (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AFAIK, all requests to enable LQT on new wikis are marked as LATER until the extension is completely rewritten (see mw:LiquidThreads 3.0 and the recent status updates). Helder 15:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While it would be useful to be able to watch a specific discussion, if the intent is to use LiquidThreads, this is a very bad idea. Liquid Threads adds unnecessary complexity to talk pages and gives talk pages an appearance similar to a forum. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not "my" proposal, but it isn't to install LiquidThreads; it's to enable watching sections (as I read it (see my suggestion above)). You're opposing comments made by others. fredgandt 18:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The exact wording of the proposal is threads. Current Wikipedia talk pages do not have threads, they have sections. I would support the implementation of section watching, providing it does not come in the form of liquid threads. Currently, LiquidThreads is the only technical way to implement this proposal. Until that changes, I am opposed. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was my assumption that the use of the word "threads" was just semantics and did not refer to technical threads, just any way to watch part of a page as opposed to the entire thing. I thought it was quite obvious from the post that the poster was talking about the "sections" on a page. I'm sure it is enough to put a qualified "support" if you oppose the use of LiquidThreads. -MsBatfish (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed I used the word threads to refer to what technically appears to be a section. I didn't actually know about the LiquidThreads by then. Though I support the LiquidThreads, if there was any implementation that only allowed watching the specific sections, didn't change anything else and could be used right now, I would support it. This thread is not about LiquidThreads. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Mugginsx (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I myself have thought numerous times that some sort of section-specific watch would be very useful on large, frequently-edited discussion pages (like this one). Unfortunately, it is my understanding that this has been brought up before but turned down with the rationale that the developers are already working on implementing LiquidThreads in the future, which will make Wikipedia discussion pages like the ones on forums or bulletin boards. Not sure if I fully like that idea. Why can't we support the idea of watching sections without supporting the idea of LiquidThreads? It seems unproductive for people to say we have to either implement LiquidThreads or leave it exactly the way it is. Surely (as mentioned above) there are other ways to implement something like this? -MsBatfish (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I could very much support the OP assuming "sections" is intended, and only if it's technically feasible to integrate it without having to use scripts or add-ons. But I've run into liquid threads at Wiktionary, and there's no way on God's green earth I'm going to fart around with those. That's equivalent to a slammed door in my face. Milkunderwood (talk) 08:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support watched sections However, there is a technical issue or two that would make this less than straightforward to implement (though far from impossible). The major issue is that section titles can change (at any time (as this section title did just recently) and very easily (no consensus or admin needed)). So each would need to be tagged (on creation) in such a way that it could be tracked, even if its name changed. A UUID of some kind would solve the problem, but would require programming to be written that currently either doesn't exist (in MediaWiki) or would need tweaking from code not specifically designed to do this job. The current software will automatically pick up a page name change and switch our gaze to watch the new title, whilst keeping (dependent on settings I think) an eye on the original title too (redirects are italic for me). Also, the current software deals with deleted titles ok. We just end up watching a red link. So it seems to me, MediaWiki already has a basic blueprint for new programming to implement this (although not straightforward). fredgandt 00:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest we start a writer's workshop

May I suggest we start a workshop like they have on the French Wikipedia? I don't exactly know how they work, but the idea seems to be that they are pages where novices and experts congregate and discuss things. I know that sounds similar to the Ref Desks, and they are working well, but I mean starting workshops focused on specific goals, not linked merely to existing projects, but encompassing something broader. I think the best starting point would be a writers' workshop, focusing solely on improving the writing standard/ encyclopedic style of articles. The workshop would consist initially of one page, where we would nominate an article to work on, thrash out suggested improvements to the writing, and then post the changes back in the articles. Editing of content would be kept to the barest minimum. If successful, the idea could be expanded. IBE (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I've noted it and will pursue it with them. Any further comments on the suggestion are welcome, but I did feel there had to at least be something very similar already. IBE (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notate file pages with they articles they have been used on

Originally titled File:DSCF1548.JPG.

There are an amazing number of pictures that get uploaded to WP, with no (or poor) descriptive text, with ambiguous names, and the uploader disappears forever. Almost every single time an image is uploaded, the uploader edits an article to add that image, often with a descriptive caption or edit summary. Years go by and somebody edits the article so the image is no longer linked, the author is gone, so we now have no idea what the image is of. Sometimes the linked article is deleted so even the edit history is useless to regular editors. These images get deleted all of the time.

I am proposing we have bots add this information to the file pages, so that even if it is not currently being used, we will at least have descriptive text and know what article someone thought it would be useful for. I recently spent several days moving hundreds of images that were in this situation. I had to go through the uploader's edit history, sometimes I would just guess (the worst guess I had to make is now called File:Possibly Ecuador.jpg). Adding this information to the file pages would save so much time and effort. Specifically I am proposing two things:

  1. We run a bot that adds these tags as the file is added to the article. The information will be the User name, article and section heading the file was added to, edit summary of the addition (if one was provided), and caption (if one was provided).
  2. We run a bot for existing local images (starting with orphaned images), scraping info from histories.

For free images, this will make them a lot more useful when they are moved to Commons. Also, it might be a good idea to put this info in a collapsed template, so the page won't be cluttered, but the text will still hit searches. If this idea meets approval here, I will take it to bot requests. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: A bot is now being worked on to complete this task, see Wikipedia:Bot requests#Bot to notate local file usage. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 12:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Learn to be a Wikipedia Administrator - New class at MSU

Greetings. My name is Jonathan Obar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This coming semester I will be running a little experiment in one of my undergraduate classes. I thought that I would propose the idea to the community before things get rolling, and ask for your suggestions, feedback, criticism, and also your help!

Here's the idea... students these days (especially those studying communications) are fascinated by social media. The Education Program has done a fantastic job tapping into this fascination and the results are clear. A recent survey analysis that we completed suggests that more than 70% of the students (across the US) that have participated in the Education Program are enjoying the experience and prefer editing Wikipedia to writing "traditional" term papers. To students, social media is fun, but it's also relevant. Many communication students hope to get jobs with a new media focus and hope that their university experience prepares them for the position that they've been hoping for. This new class I'm developing, this small experiment, takes the Education Program to the next level. Instead of training students to be editors, why not train them to be administrators? The goal will be to provide students with a far more in-depth understanding of how Wikipedia operates, how the hierarchy of administration works, how policies are created (what the policies are), what admin tasks are completed daily, and so forth. What will also make this class different from most of the classes that are participating in the Education Program is that the entire class will be devoted to the "learn to be an administrator" concept, whereas most EP classes focus mainly on course content (depending upon the discipline) with the Wikipedia component being secondary.

In speaking with members of the Wikimedia Foundation and a variety of experienced administrators, it became clear right away that the students would not be able to actually perform advanced admin tasks. We had discussed potentially matching students up with admins as "buddies" so that the students could shadow them (it's an idea we're still considering), but I realized that this wouldn't allow students the freedom to participate in a truly active learning experience. Of course we wouldn't want students performing admin tasks without having gone through the formal RfA procedure, something that we won't be able to have the students do in such a short period of time (most of them probably don't have enough edits to get to the first level anyways). So, instead, the course will do the following:

Students will...

Step 1

  • Study Wikipedia policies in general
  • Study Wikipedia admin policies and procedures
  • Learn how the community operates
  • Introduce themselves to the community in a variety of ways
  • Begin to integrate themselves into the community
  • Begin to edit

Step 2 Conduct a variety of basic admin tasks like...

  • New page patrol (will introduce themselves to the community first)
  • Recent-change patrol (will introduce ...)
  • Review images for copyright issues (will introduce...)
  • Begin to organize a "bookshelf" for administrators
  • Begin to build the bookshelf

Step 3

  • Reach out to the admin community to chat
  • Review different admin boards
  • Reflect on their experiences and write about them
  • (Hopefully) interview a few administrators about their experiences.

As you might imagine, I'm going to be figuring things out on the fly as I see how things go. For now, I thought that I would bring this idea to the community and ask for your feedback and suggestions. Personally, I think that this new idea will benefit all involved. From what I've heard there is a backlog of admin-related work on WP, our class could try to make a contribution in that area. I have also heard that the administrator community isn't growing at the rate it once was - our program is potentially training the Wikipedia admins of the future. The WMF likes the idea because it still gets students involved, connects a university class to WP and may lead to a new arm of the Education Program. The benefits to the students are obvious... learn the interworkings of one of the most popular social media/networking sites in the world.

Anyhow... What do you think? Anyone interested in helping out? I'd love to have some admins skype into our class, perhaps a few at a time for a discussion/debate? It'd be great if the students could interview a few admins too! Learn about what you do and why you love it!

Really looking forward to your comments.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar Jaobar (talk) 06:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am supportive. We do need to train more admins. Having students learn about Wikipedia before they edit content I believe will be better then them trying to edit content before learning how Wikipedia works.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I have seen in my experiences in admin coaching, people who edit for the purpose of becoming an administrator are like shooting stars: Bright at first, but they fade fast. I'm not convinced that what we need is to train administrators; what we need is to raise up editors who like what they're doing here. People who like it here and like what they're doing here tend to do a better job of things, from what I see. bibliomaniac15 07:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a great idea... but so far, only in theory. I don't know if you're aware of this, but the various Education Programs are on thin ice due to the vast amount of substandard content they generated -- skim WT:United States Education Program, the threads I linked to at WT:Canada Education Program and the whole of WT:India Education Program to get a feel for the issues. The most successful student projects on Wikipedia have professors that are experienced Wikipedians. This need for this is more acute since you are teaching Wikipedia and how we ward out unwanted content. This means you need to get your hands dirty shoveling crap, especially in the areas in which you want to teach (this will help you answer student questions). It's great to have the backlogs reduced, but doing so in an incompetent manner is counterproductive.
Calling Wikipedia "most popular social media/networking sites" is cause for concern.
Also, I have removed your email address as publishing it on-wiki is a Bad Idea(TM). MER-C 07:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer: I have worked with Jaobar in the past, as an Ambassador, and he is a professor at the University I attend (I have not, nor will be taking a class with him due to being in different departments). That being said, Jonathan, is a knowledgeable Wikipedian [10] with over 800 edits, and has had a successful class within the program (ie: this one of which created many good articles such as this article - all of which were made by 1st year undergrad students and in this case classified as a DYK on April 19, 2011). Hence I would not worry about the experience of the professor - instead would ask/hope that users would make any suggestions to the type of tasks these students could perform without requiring admin rights. Epistemophiliac (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that User:Jaobar has more experience than the typical EP professor. My specific concern is that he has little personal experience in the areas he wishes to cover (e.g. image tagging and [11]). MER-C 12:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd downplay the "admin" side given that in spite of the community's frequent stated belief that adminship is "no big deal", it is a term of art in the Wikipedia community. They are really being taught how to administrative tasks, rather than tasks that require sysop powers. Given that people are likely to get a bit tetchy about this, and given that students might get the wrong idea and go around claiming they are now Wikipedia administrators because they do new page patrolling, I'd leave off the word "admin". Think about it like this: imagine if you taught a bunch of graduate students how to teach undergraduates. You might call said training course 'How to become a professor'. But that doesn't mean they are professors at the end of it, they are TAs who have skills that would be handy for them if they choose to stay in academia. The course could quite easily be called something like "How to be a Wikipedian" or "How to edit Wikipedia" or something like that. There does definitely need to be a better name for "that thing that non-admins do that is administrative". I've used the term "admin-like tasks" but that's kind of a mouthful. There's "WikiGnomes" which I use and like, but I have a funny feeling it might not play well outside of the Wikipedia community. (Of course, if we called admins "sysops" then saying that non-sysops are "administrators" doesn't imply that they have any kind of special powers. But, there are good reasons why we shouldn't call admins sysops!) —Tom Morris (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be more emphasis on building an encyclopedia. Everything on the syllabus is worthwhile for an administrator, but the students should actually know how to build an article as well. If they cannot do this there is not a chance that they would survive a WP:RFA. For a Wikipedia maintenance person (gnome) you should also introduce categories, interwikis, stubs, use of templates, different forums for help and problems, and projects such as WP:AFC WPBiography and the more specialised projects. Also article recognition and grading such as WP:DYK WP:good article and WP:featured article should be covered. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm broadly supportive of this: an introduction to Wikipedia's culture and policies would be a valuable course. In particular, there are a number of skills that are secondary to editing Wikipedia that nonetheless are highly applicable elsewhere that might be useful to include in a university course, such as the basics of copyright (and free licenses), or perhaps some rough ethical considerations on things like articles concerning living persons or editing with a conflict of interest,. I share some of Bibliomaniac15's concerns: a course with the implicit goal of adminship has a significant chance of giving contributors a fast rise followed by a quick burn-out. People see the "carrot", the implicit power of the admin position, but don't understand the reality that it is a position highly constrained by the community's agreements on how that power may be used, that it is a position whose purpose is often more "janitorial" than "administrative". People who succeed long-term in this role do so in part because they personally care about the project, and are willing to ignore insults and worse to help out. I'd like to help with your project regardless, but I think that you need to be extremely clear at the outset of the course about "the mop". {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 15:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"basic admin tasks like... New page patrol (will introduce themselves to the community first) Recent-change patrol (will introduce ...) Review images for copyright issues (will introduce...)" But these aren't admin tasks. These are tasks any editor can do. Are you trying to discuss the tools admins have (blocking, locking, deleted/restoring, editing certain pages) or just non-article writing tasks that everyone can do? Rmhermen (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • These aren't specifically admin tasks, but they introduce the concepts that admins need to be familiar with and are often the types of work people are required to do before successful completion of an RFA. Before taking on speedy deletions, contributors need to verify an understanding of what constitutes an unacceptable article or image; before blocking vandals, contributors need to demonstrate an understanding of vandalism and the best approaches to unproductive changes. These are among the tasks that an admin trainee might be put to do. I'm not sure myself how anybody could otherwise learn how to be an admin on Wikipedia without actually being an admin, although interviewing existing admins seems a good idea. Otherwise, the only way I can think to give them a taste of adminship is to set them up on a mock wiki and let them have it. It would be good practice with the tools, but there's no way that they could replicate our culture, unless a bunch of us followed along and tried to replicate our controlled chaos. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Rmhermen, you're suggesting a course in social-media oversight editing. There's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't require an admin bit; especially where wikipedia offers WP:AIV WP:ANI and the entire variety of disciplinary systems that depend on quality reporting of issues. Bit holders are just our drudges. More could be got out of protecting a day's Featured Article than by bit hunting. The final dot point would break ethics laws and expectations of professional conduct from teaching academics where I live; your professional and legal obligations may vary. Also, your course content seems kind of sparse if this is a 36 hour face to face contact / 120 hour total learning obligation course. It omits some elements of social-media oversight, like content evaluation (quality & importance rating, peer review, GAN, A-class review, FAC). It also seems a bit overbalanced towards "whack-a-mole" moderating, as opposed to community culture building. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Thanks for your comments thus far. I'll respond to the ones that stand out:

  • "It's great to have the backlogs reduced, but doing so in an incompetent manner is counterproductive."

- I don't consider myself an expert Wikipedian, but I've been working with and studying the community for a year now. I feel prepared to make this next step. Remember that this will be an experiment, and I think something worth trying. Let's be optimistic! BTW, I'm aware of the concerns that have been raised in Canada and the US, and they generally have to do with professors not devoting enough time to connecting their classes to WP. This will not be a problem with my class. The problems in India have to do generally with copyright violations from what I've heard, again, something that you won't have to worry about with me.

  • "Calling Wikipedia "most popular social media/networking sites" is cause for concern."

- Wikis are social networks in my opinion (Facebook and Twitter offer two of many variations), and I know a large number of communication scholars that would agree. Sorry, the Wikipedia community doesn't have the final say here. If interested in this issue, I would check out some of the work by danah boyd and Nicole Ellison on the topic.

  • "Given that people are likely to get a bit tetchy about this, and given that students might get the wrong idea and go around claiming they are now Wikipedia administrators because they do new page patrolling, I'd leave off the word "admin"."

- Students will not be considered admins at the end of the course, nor will they believe that they have met the qualifications. The purpose of the course is to teach students about being a WP admin, what it means to be a Wikipedia administrator (and perhaps an expert Wikipedian), among other things.

  • "There should be more emphasis on building an encyclopedia"

- Students will learn how to edit in this course. This will be the first topic that we cover, along with how to connect to the social network. - BTW, I could use some help with the latter ... can people suggest a variety of spots on WP where my students can introduce themselves?

  • "a course with the implicit goal of adminship has a significant chance of giving contributors a fast rise followed by a quick burn-out"

- Again, the goal is not achieving admin status, but rather, learning about the admin system, policies, structure, culture, etc. These are communication students who want to learn about you and what you do on Wikipedia. The community fascinates us, we want to learn. If students choose to pursue adminship, they will have to get editing. They will not have the opportunity to complete 5000 edits as a part of the course, so they'll have to follow-up once the course is finished.

  • ""basic admin tasks like... New page patrol (will introduce themselves to the community first) Recent-change patrol (will introduce ...) Review images for copyright issues (will introduce...)" But these aren't admin tasks."

- This course is an introduction to the admin process and structure on WP. In my opinion, administration of WP goes beyond the "access granted" duties allowed to official admins. Students will learn about these "access granted" duties hopefully from some admins that are generous enough to help us out (perhaps by speaking with some of our students) ... and also about some of the "admin" tasks completed by the community in general. Perhaps I have to rethink some of the terminology.

  • Are you trying to discuss the tools admins have (blocking, locking, deleted/restoring, editing certain pages)

- Definitely. If people are willing to help out with this, we would be very appreciative. Below I'm going to ask if people are interested in being interviewed by our students. Perhaps a few of you might be interested in skyping into our class to talk about your experiences?

  • "The final dot point would break ethics laws and expectations of professional conduct from teaching academics where I live"

- I assume this refers to our conducting of interviews? Our students will all have passed IRB (ethics review) before conducting the interviews, which will be both voluntary and anonymous. While your pseudonyms may be provided on a list, students will be randomly assigned to interviews, and no names or information that will identify you will be noted in their work.

  • "Also, your course content seems kind of sparse"

- All suggestions are welcome. This is one of the reasons that I posted this note. This will also be an experiment. I expect to make mistakes ... and will learn from them! Thanks so much for your comments and feedback. Please offer more if interested! Jaobar (talk) 06:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About looking for spots for people to introduce themselves, may I suggest getting your students to leave notes on WikiProject talk pages? While there are no real spaces for editors to have a conversation that's not related to the encyclopaedia in some way, WikiProjects will in general be very happy to welcome new users, and only too happy to point them in the direction of work that needs doing. You could maybe get your students to look at the WikiProject Council directory and choose something that they like. Note also that there are many WikiProjects that deal with Wikipedia maintenance and systems, which might be useful for the course. Oh, and there's always the Department of Fun ;) — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Students, the scholarly community and the Wikipedia community have different definitions of social network, and I suspect the student definition is similar to ours. We tend to delete facebook-like crap with little (if any) mercy and posting such nonsense has adverse consequences. I suggest you make it clear to anyone who is going to edit that Wikipedia, as far as they are concerned, is not a social networking site. MER-C 13:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, while from an academic standpoint Wikipedia may be a "social network", from a practical, how-we-do-things-here standpoint, it most certainly is not. One of the first items that the course curriculum should focus on is what Wikipedia is not. From the recent, shall we say, "difficulties" in the Canada program, it is clear that the differences between writing academic papers and encylcopedia articles must be hammered home right at the beginning. Let's not encourage students to run before they can walk. – ukexpat (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would avoid all notions that this course is intended to teach people how to become Admins or prepare them for adminship. I used to be very active in Admin Coaching and still find it amazing that the community doesn't respect coaching. But it doesn't. Wikipedia frown upon admin coaching and people who underwent it were actually criticized and opposed because they were 'taught how to pass an RfA not to be better wikipedians.' A notion I disagreed with, but alas that view killed wikipedia admin coaching. Also, one of the issues that hurt coaching was that some coaches had check the box issues that they wanted their coachees to do. "Go tag x articles for speedy deletion", "Go patrol x number of new articles", "Go welcome X number of users", "Go participate in x number of XfD's", etc. What ended up happening is that people with little knowledge/interest in specific tasks went in and made their contributions to fullfill the coaches expectations and disappeared. They didn't learn anything and often created more controversy/issue than it was worth.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 22:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Intermediate revisions by one user not shown"

Here is a typical diff between the current revision of a page and a much older revision. In the centre there is that extra message "(33 intermediate revisions by one user not shown)".

I'd like this message to be tweaked to say either "by this user" if those revisions were by the user who made the top revision, or "by one other user" if those revisions were by someone else. The distinction is important if you are thinking of clicking one of the "rollback" links. In the first case, you are about to re-instate the revision displayed on the left; in the second, you are about to roll back just one edit and re-instate a revision that you can't see. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support something along these lines. Took a while to think about this (off doing other stuff), but I think something along the lines of a list of intermediate editors in chronological order, displayed in a hidden (hover to show) drop down, would be useful. The idea of simply tweaking the message seems simple, but would require a lot of if's and else's. Simply showing the intermediate users in a list requires only knowing who they were. Then the user viewing the diff can see everything they need to, to make the right decision. Personally, I see a lot of over zealous use of rollback (example: to rollback one vandalism, where undo does the same job, whilst also allowing for some explanation in the summary), and think any user considering using rollback should be more fully versed in the editing history of the page before clicky-clicky fever takes over. If folks are not willing to spend a minute reading the history before viewing the diffs (which some are apparently not), at least this proposed extra info would perhaps save a few cock-ups. fredgandt 16:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not possible without a major rewrite. Note that "one" is a count, and not designed to designate who made the revisions. If there were more then one, it would say "...by three users". What would have to be done then? List them all separately? That is already done on the history page. — Edokter (talk) — 17:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing any change to "by three users", because in that case it is clear that the rollback buttons are not going to re-instate the version shown on the left. The only ambiguous case is "by one user". -- John of Reading (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Essay

I've read a few blogs and also some feedback on the dashboard and it appears to me that one of the reasons folks find Wikipedia confusing is that all of our policies "link" to more policies. So someone trying to get an understanding of Wikipedia would continually be reading a new policy, guidelines, or essay and never find "the end". I think we need an essay that does two things: 1) It explains why there is no "end" in the circular format of our policies, and 2) It explains why our policies are circular and sometimes contradictory. I think this essay needs to contain absolutely zero wiki-links except for a "see also" section at the bottom or some citations. It should explain that one does not need to know all the finer points of Wikipedia, give a brief explanation of the more major points, and suggest that a reader take each policy one at a time in full before trying to tackle another. It needs to explain why this all seems insurmountable and confusing and how to contextualize each part individually and collectively. The bottom line is: It needs to offer a "Be bold" message that suggests the reader be patient with themselves and Wikipedia but to give it a shot and be open to learning. WP:INSURMOUNTABLE with WP:THEEND and WP:CROSS LINKED as shortcuts? Thoughts?--v/r - TP 16:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RUNFORYOURLIFEWHILEYOUHAVETHECHANCE! fredgandt 05:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Air Force. That is actually a really good essay to write. Mean it. Thought the adminship was rotting your brain, but it appears not (yet).  ;-) In all seriousness, I think a heartfelt man-to-man essay of the sort you propose is exactly on target. Maybe make the point that users can learn by trying things and do the things that come easy first and work their way up. More of an apprenticehip model. I still don't understand all our Wikicrap policies and get by pretty good without doing so...TCO (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to some degree the nature of Wikipedia makes interwoven policy pages inevitable, however, I do wish when someone has a simple point to make they would spell it out in a sentence rather than a policy page link. Or maybe when you use a policy page link, spell out what you're trying to say, then do something like ("for more information, see WP:Link"). Jztinfinity (talk) 15:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Binding content discussions

I table a proposal to the Wikipedia community that I hope you will support. Since May, I have been rather active in attempts to reform the dispute resolution processes. Back in June, I proposed the creation of the dispute resololution noticeboard, which has been reasonably successful in its aims to provide an open style of addressing content disputes.

Since then, I have been working on a few other ideas. While I want to come up with a way to tackle POV pushing, my current proposal is Wikipedia:Binding RFCs, a method for resolving intractable content disputes. The proposal explains how the process would work, but in essence, it's a two part discussion which would be closed by three users, an admin, a user experienced in the subject area, and a user experienced in dispute resolution. I envision the discussion structure would somewhat resemble the recent RFC on the verifiability policy, but with some changes, part one of the discussion would only be to present evidence in favour of X proposal or Y proposal (policies, reliable sources, past precedent etc) and the second part being an AfD styled discussion, with comments weighed depending on strength of argument.

I'm happy to answer any questions relating to my proposal and clarify any details. I feel the proposal page itself explains how the process would work, thus I have not rehashed it here. I think that this differs as opposed to other binding content proposals because it puts the power to resolve these issues in the hands of the community. I encourage comments on this and hope this is something the community will support. Regards, Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 07:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, an editorial board staffed by the DR people? That's not putting decisions in the hand of the community, that's putting them in the hand of a cabal. Now there is nothing wrong with decisions being made by cabals (every area has its regulars)... but binding ones? Dangerous stuff. Binding decisions, if they should ever be taken, should only be taken by people vetted by the community as a whole. There is already an arbitration committee for handling "binding" decision; and no, I don't think we need an editorial committee to rule over actual content. This is not the idea I have of a wiki, and definitely not the one I have of Wikipedia. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you completely misread my proposal. At the moment, AfDs, RFCs and many other discussions are closed by admins. This proposal would not create a cabal at all. It would mean that instead that three independent users would close the discussions, as opposed to one. The suggestion of a user experienced in th area (say a WikiProject participant of the topic) may be able to add perspective, and a user experienced in DR would help ensure that other venues of DR were tried first. There could be a requirement for these users to be admins, though I note a few discussions that were closed by non-admins well (ie the Ireland article names RFC a month or so ago). But I want to emphasize this is not a creation of a new content committee, I agree that's a bad idea. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 08:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, yes I did indeed misread the proposal. Disregard, and apologies. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 16:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' - While I'm very much in favor of reining in and, if necessary, eliminating POV warriors, I'm not sure that a draconian device such as this advertised on obscure noticeboards populated by certain sorts of WP volunteers is the answer. I've seen too much of the drama board lynch mob mentality around here. Ultimately this should be the function of our elected representatives, ArbCom. That they seem to have no taste for "resolving content disputes" (even though they, in practice, do exactly that) is part of their own group failing, in my view. They need to work faster, to seek less massive and often irrelevant testimony, and to be more aggressive topic-banning POV warriors off their treasured battlegrounds. I'm not saying that binding content rulings is a bad thing, I just don't trust the precise mechanism you propose to deliver fair and well-considered results. Carrite (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ya know, part of th problem with many current discussions is a lack of knowledge by the community that they exist. I would think that using watchlist notices advertising the creation of a binding discussion would attract the attention of more editors than something like an AN thread. I also do think that having three closers will deliver a more balanced result as opposed to just one closer. That said, we won't know unless we try. I've in fact been discussing this with arbitrator Casliber as an alternative to Remedy 5.1 of the Abortion case, as I feel it would be a good test case, but realise this process needs to get the support of the community first. Thus, I am asking for the support of the community. If the test case goes well, then great. If it crashes and burns, then at least we know it doesn't work, but we won't know if we don't try. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 19:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on eliminating {{Portal box}} and just using {{Portal}}

There's an RfC on eliminating {{Portal box}} and just using {{Portal}}]]. I'm spamming it here because it's redundant and is currently a highly visible template. --Kumioko (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the normal thing to do just to tag them with {{tfm}} and then add an entry at WP:TFD? -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your right and I thought about doing that but since its used on over 40, 000 articles I hesitated doing that. If you think that venue would be better suited for this discussion its completely fine with me. --Kumioko (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-center where people can "work" 5-25h/week against hourly wage

The model I think could work, in Sweden as well as in other countries, is this. The city/commune (or the state) put in some money, for example by transferring money from the unemployment benefits to this sector (less people would be full time unemployed and the students wouldn´t have to borrow as much). Then wiki-centers, or perhaps first wiki-associations, will be founded. Students who have spare time, or anyone who wants to work with wikipedia (or wiki-work in general), will be allowed to apply for work in these centers. I don´t think full time is good, but maybe 5-25 hours a week and with some time limits (one, two or three years) so that many people get the chance, not just a few. One could arrange this in several ways. One way could be to arrange it like a paid course (which means that there has to be teachers as well, who obviously have to get some kind of wiki-teaching degree first). And if it´s arranged like a course one could have several levels, the first levels are general (understanding the concept and how to search information), then some levels where editing is practised (writing articles, translating articles, cleaning articles, engaging in debates and so forth), and last but not least - to go to schools, libraries and universities to hold lessons, and the same for newcomers. Many people will probably instinctively say no, because it feels like the neutrality will be lost in some way (bias). But with this concept I don´t see this as a major problem. If, for example, the city of London finance some wiki-centers in London and then the people who get part time work there can write whatever they want, or do whatever wiki-work they want, no matter if they produce one or one million articles, the payment is the same (hourly payment for example) - then it is hard to tell how this could be judged as a biased-wiki-work. I especially think that wiki-centers like this should be established in Africa, the best locations would be close to universities. The main reasons are 1. People there need employment, and students needs money to finance their studies. 2. It would be good for the democracy and general knowledge. 3. It would be good for Wikipedia at large because Africans will probably write about Africa quite a lot, and Africa is not covered so much. But I can also think of good arguments for similar arrangements in Europe and other "rich" regions. Employment/income/democracy/inclusion/youth and student politics/good for the development of Wikipedia (new groups will join) and so forth. --Mats33 (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see neutrality being a problem. However, this is far beyond the reach of Wikipedia or the WikiMedia foundation. To organize anything along these lines would require the involvement of multiple institutions and organizations under the governance of a global administration. It might be possible to convince local governments/councils to organize local funds for educational projects, but for those projects to be so firmly linked to Wikipedia, is likely to be any such suggestions death-nail. For local governments to direct funds away from any other sector (benefits or otherwise), would not be done lightly. I strongly doubt any local government/council would consider wiki-centres a worthy use of their limited funds. Perhaps schools and/or collages/universities at a local level could be convinced to do more work with Wikipedia, but there are already projects like that under way (so I believe). I'm sorry, but the grand scope of this idea would require some sort of new world order or the backing of some private philanthropist (you could ask Sting). fredgandt 16:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've always said that if some Bill Gates character came along and decided to chuck a few billion towards Wikipedia, and chose to pay to have some kind of hermetic community of editors spend their days editing Wikipedia, that would be fine by me. The issue with "paid editing" as we call it is the fact that it almost always brings with it a WP:COI. If BigCorp Inc. paid for you to write about BigCorp Inc., that's a COI issue. If some mad millionaire wanted to pay someone a living wage to churn out articles on obscure philosophers, I don't see what the issue would be. Of course, I don't see anybody really wanting to pay people to write the sort of stuff we'd want, so it's all a bit hypothetical at the moment. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Google Foundation did at one point. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Google Project. We got some very good reviews of articles from professional medical writers as a result. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allow interlanguage links to Commons for non-article space pages

Interlanguage links from Commons to en: work perfectly well, yet going the other way (e.g. the link [[Commons:Commons:Village pump]]) merely produces an inline link: Commons:Commons:Village pump. Is it possible to enable this as a functionality? It wouldn't be acceptable for article pages, as the equivalent namespace in commons is reserved for galleries, and we have {{Commons}} for that, but would be useful for user pages, templates, possibly categories etc. There would be problems where these inline links already exist, but it should be possible to resolve these by getting a bot to add the necessary colon at the start of the link. Any thoughts?  An optimist on the run! 08:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, Interlanguage links should be going both ways. However I would also allow that in the article namespace. I know we have {{Commons}} and {{Commonscat}}, however they are not always equivalent to interlanguage links, since one can add them for to individual sections of a big article or have links from photographers article to a category of photographs by a photographer, etc. Most interwikilinks from commons are from Commons categories to wikipedia articles. I do not see it as a problem to link back to the categories. --Jarekt (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've been thinking about this lately as well. I work with categories a lot on Commons, and bi-directional linking between articles and the topic category would be quite handy. The local "Commons" and "Commons category" templates should not be affected by this proposal, as they perform a different kind of function. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Message to the Foundation r.e. GoDaddy

Recently is has emerged that GoDaddy, a domain name registrar that the Wikimedia Foundation use, have come out in strong support of SOPA. It has made big news and there is a movement by lots of companies and individuals to move all service away from GoDaddy. (see http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nmnie/godaddy_supports_sopa_im_transferring_51_domains/) Obviously there is no fault in the Foundation here - but it would be nice to see them take the same action. I propose that the community supports a message to the foundation (as obviously this is not a decision we can make ourselves) to move away from GoDaddy. Something like:

The English Wikipedia community, in light of GoDaddy's support of SOPA, believe that the Wikimedia Foundation should move any services away from that company in protest at their position.

Obviously actually doing so will be a pain in the neck. But it would be nice to show the Foundation we support such an action. --Errant (chat!) 15:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as proposer --'Errant (chat!) 15:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This could make a nice big splash and would be a relatively harmless way to show solidarity with the anti-SOPA movement. The actual implementation by the Foundation might take a bit of time and planning to do, but the point would be that simply announcing that they are going to move would be an important way to signal opposition to SOPA, and solidarity with all those who are against it. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also like to note that in the Reddit threads, there are a LOT of people who have said that if the Foundation do this, they'll donate. Even if not everyone who has said they will donate actually go through with it, there's probably a couple thousand dollars. That's a pretty damn good reason to move. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great idea. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Individuals could go further and send discard notices to correspondents who's email domain is registered through GoDaddy. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support just another reason to why we should not use godaddy --Guerillero | My Talk 16:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have no idea how much of a nightmare it would be for an organization the size of Wikimedia to change registrars, but if it is feasible, it would be the right thing to do. Resolute 17:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Wikipedia is directly funding a company that, in turn, makes significant payments to the politicians driving this bill. For the 2012 election cycle, GoDaddy's PAC has so far made contributions to 13 candidates for the House of Representatives ([12]). Six of those donations went to co-sponsors of the original SOPA bill (including the Representative who introduced the bill, Lamar Smith). In other words, the Foundation's dollars are being used to influence politicians to act directly against this project's interests. Note that there is additional community discussion at WP:SOPA to determine what actions (if any) Wikipedia should consider in response to SOPA. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support CharlieEchoTango (contact) 17:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The "English Wikipedia community" is not organized to make politicized statements like this. Townlake (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - another "We must do something - now!" response.  An optimist on the run! 17:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no, it isn't. The only thing that would be done would be telling the Foundation that the consensus of the community is that it'd be nice if they could stop using GoDaddy. The Foundation could then, if they agreed, make an announcement that they intend to stop using GoDaddy as soon as is practical, and ask the tech staff to do so. It'd be nice to signal the community's intentions (if indeed they have an interest in doing this) sooner rather than later, and it'd be great if the Foundation could strike while the iron is hot, but this doesn't commit the Foundation to doing it in any particular timeframe. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a thought - is there any verified evidence that this is GoDaddy's stance?  An optimist on the run! 17:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to their statements, GoDaddy's PAC (funded primarily by GoDaddy's senior management) contributes to the campaigns of politicians who introduced and cosponsored the bill. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as yet more political propaganda creeping its way onto a "neutral and balanced" site. — Joseph Fox 17:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but how would it do that? The Foundation agree that SOPA is bad, all this is about is nudging the Foundation to switch away from buying services from a company who act in opposition to the intentions of the Foundation. If it were to happen, there would actually be no change to Wikipedia or any WMF sites, just to their DNS entries. It'd be a good way to express solidarity with opposition to something the Foundation have already agreed goes against the best interests of the site. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is therefore not a neutral route, of course. And I'm pretty sure Go Daddy aren't going to lose sleep over a client switching away from them, really. — Joseph Fox 17:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not one, no, but many many multiple ones, as inspired by the reddit post that discovered this information. --MASEM (t) 17:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, considering the bandwidth and number of domains used by the foundation, this will be a helluva scratch in their paint. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The Foundation don't use GoDaddy for hosting, just for domain registration. That is still probably a couple hundred dollars a year. The symbolic value is more important: when people see the Foundation changing supplier, that'll prompt others to do likewise, and it'll show solidarity with people who are opposed to SOPA. Supporting companies who act against the best interests of the projects (which is something the Foundation have accepted, see Geoff's blog post). —Tom Morris (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While they're at it, why don't we transfer wikimedia servers outside of the United States. The united states, as much as it likes to believe it does, does not control the internet at all. I can see the .com and .net domains fading into second-class usage if SOPA is passed, as another non-censored domain takes their place... Either that or this will turn into something like International Draw Mohammad Day, where EVERYONE posts a copyright link to the whitehouse website then submits a piracy notice to the US government ordering their website be removed or face legal action under their own bill. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • OT comment Well, that's a bit of a mixed bag. The US by and large still has the best protections for freedom of speech of any plausible location. We wouldn't want to put them in Germany where we might not be able to cover the Horst Wessel Lied, or the United Kingdom, where defamation law is notoriously plaintiff-friendly and truth is a somewhat unreliable defense. On the other hand it would be nice to have freedom of panorama, which we don't in the States. --Trovatore (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is DNS registration the only service that WMF gets from GoDaddy? If so, the bandwidth issue is trivial, as most (and all serious) ISPs would already cache the major project sites' DNS results. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The WMF has already expressed its opposition to SOPA, with good reasons. It should not continue spending donors money on a company that has been so outspoken in supporting the act. the wub "?!" 18:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support – Stop supporting your own destroyers. We shouldn't fund those who would rather see our work destroyed or compromised. Perhaps we can even convince GoDaddy and others that continuing to support SOPA will harm their reputations and revenues. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Ill advised for the reasons stated by the other opposers and by myself in previous posts. SOPA is inapplicable to Wikipedia. We are now setting the bar for political activisim somewhat low.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Here is a cached copy of GoDaddy's blog post on their position (the page seems to have been moved or blanked (no surprise considering the battering they are getting in the press)). They make some interesting points, well worth reading.
    • The media have jumped on this, and GoDaddy is being dragged through the mud. Consider how Wikipedia would also be dragged through the mud if it chose to get dramatically involved in large scale public protest or (not that it is suggested) support. The media are not moral; they sell news. Any news they can make sensational sells copies of their stink. Support, oppose, or remain neutral; whatever Wikipedia does that is seen clearly as a public demonstration, will give the media a chance to spin it any way they can to sell more stink.
    • Whether Wikimedia support or opposes SOPA should be done relatively quietly, since Wikipedia is their baby and the world at large knows it. Whatever WMF do loud and in public will effect Wikipedia directly. fredgandt 19:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow! In the time it took to type the above, GoDaddy killed the cached page and replaced it with a statement, that they are no longer supporting SOPA. fredgandt

I'm gonna suggest we close this now: Jimmy has weighed in on User talk:Jimbo Wales and on Twitter, saying that the Foundation have agreed to move away from GoDaddy. Seems like there's not much point in continuing with this proposal. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus withdrawal of support. The only message they got was that they were losing money. "Fighting online piracy is of the utmost importance, which is why Go Daddy has been working to help craft revisions to this legislation" Now they support some minor unspecified revision to this turd. "It's very important that all Internet stakeholders work together on this" They still support the goddamn thing, and they say it's important that we support it too. "Go Daddy will support it when and if the Internet community supports it." Their withdrawal of support is temporary! LOLZ. I wish I had an account with them just so I could move it away. Alsee (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major London Underground Stations

Basically a template like Template:Major Railway Stations in Britain, only for London Underground stations. It would include Bank-Monument station as such and many other underground stations that see amazing use or hold many lines. Tez011 (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps something that would be better brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport. the wub "?!" 18:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Transparency

In the interest of avoiding a bias or any special interest agenda on Wikipedia, I propose that Wiki provide a list of who donated how much money to Wikipedia. Amusedspaceman (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Dec. 23, 2011[reply]

Why? To thank people who thought they were giving anonymously, or to name and shame users who haven't given?  An optimist on the run! 21:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation annual report lists all donations of more than $1000 dollars I Believe, I dont think you really want a list of all 573,568 contributors. I am sure if you cant find the report somebody will provide a link in a moment. MilborneOne (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a regular editor, I do not know, nor do I want to know, who Wikipedia's largest donors are specifically for that reason. By not knowing who our donors are, I am less inclined to give any thought to their concerns. If Jimmy Joe Bob's Pulled Pork, Inc. donates $5 bazillion, I have no idea. When I edit [[Jimmy Joe Bob's Pulled Pork, I give it the same attention I would give to Crazy Jane's Pulled Pork, even though Crazy Jane repeatedly says on her menus that Wikipedia is a communist conspiracy aimed at controlling our minds by adding fluoride to our drinking water. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to ensure a lack of bias is to uniformly insist that all pages be based on reliable sources in proportion to their respectability and impact. This puts all editors on an equal footing since any editor can, in principle, acquire and summarize any source within the limitations of policy. Since the WMF has a very, very light hand regarding content disputes (notable exceptions being child pornography and copyright issues), this suggestion would have essentially zero impact on the content of most pages. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep record of deleted image revisions

For an NFCC image like File:Cape Air logo.svg, previous revisions get deleted by a bot when the image is modified, to meet the fair use criteria. I know it's technically messy, but it seems it would make sense to leave a record of the original versions in an altered form like

13:11, 20 March 2009 SomeUser
05:53, 19 March 2009 OtherUser
05:51, 19 March 2009 SomeUser

just a thought. —Designate (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a real example; a user uploads a high resolution scan of magazine cover. After a while someone else tags it as NFCC, resizes the image and writes a Non-free use rationale. A year or so later another user finds the copyright was not renewed and changes it to a free image. Does this third user know there was a high resolution scan? And in this case the original uploader had retired from Wikipedia. It is nice that non-admins know the history. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is standard practice on Commons and I would Support modifying bots to do the same here. Dcoetzee 21:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bald proposal - we should ask newspapers to provide links in Wiki format

I know this proposal is very bald, but we have to do it one day: Wikipedia is very big and many people are spending their time to edit it. Editors can use some help to make their editing work faster, by focusing on essentials, on doing intelligent edits, and wasting less time with routines. I waste lots of my time just formatting references. Take for example this link: [13]. If I want to reference it, then I have to copy: the link, the name of the article, the date it was added, the name of the author and the name of the newspaper, to make it look like this:

<ref>[http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/12/euro-crisis-3 The euro crisis - Is everything fixed?], Dec 16th 2011, R.A., ''The Economist''</ref>

I have to bounce like five times from one window to another just to copy all the data required. It should be done automatically. We should try to talk with the newspapers and ask them to help us, by allowing their readers to copy the links to their articles in a custom-format. This can be done if the newspapers implement a JavaScript for formatting URL's, or maybe by creating some Firefox extension that grabs the required data and process it to make it usable for the user - this option would require an extra HTML tags in the newspaper articles that the addon can look for. I know this is not easy to do, but if you add all the time the Wikipedia editors waste on formatting references, it would result in an enormous amount of time wasted. If some newspapers would implement this feature, then other newspapers will be encouraged to do it too. Not only Wikipedia editors can use such a feature. Every day there are new Wikis on the internet, and their editors can use the feature too. Sometimes the Wikipedia editors are referencing data from well-established blogs, so it might be a good idea to try to convince the programmers of Wordpress and Livejournal to implement the feature too. The knowledge on Wikipedia articles is helping all the humanity, including the journalists. But we also need some help from journalists too, in order to make our work better, for the benefit of everyone. —  Ark25  (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Web pages can already set various Meta elements. I don't know how standardized and widespread they are. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ever tried using ProveIt? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Have you tried Wikipedia:RefToolbar? --Jayron32 05:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will try to use those tools and I will come back ASAP. —  Ark25  (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, with the [ProveIt] addon I will still have to go back and forth between Firefox windows to copy all the elements: URL, name of article, date, etc. I don't really understand how to use the RefToolbar, can you help me to understand how it works? Do you have some examples of specific DOI references? like for example of a doi: that references a newspaper article. —  Ark25  (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: firstly, we have different citation formats, so the housekeeping will still apply in any case. Next, I see no actual problem in copying the needed data. Finally, why should some newspaper provide a specific format for the single user? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aimed donations

As proposal for the future, I would like to make donations to aimed branch of wikimedia. I guess a very simple "paypal donation link" in each article and if that article is, for instance, about science, then the most part of the donation will go to the scientific branch of wikimedia (which I guess don't exist at all today).
More specifically, I'm thinking also to to the copyright of a work: particularly when someone edit a page about a literary/musical work, I guess he would be happy to donate 1 cent to its author (so not just only to the authour of the wikipedia page, but to the author of the work too, like I would do e.g. for an article about Roger Waters, paying Roger Waters, although he has already much money, because I like that his work and I'm happy to edit it: in the way I'm proposing I would be a bit more motivated to edit the article). As well as if one edit the LHC article, he would be happy to donate 1 cent to CERN.

Reply from Wikipedia information team (info-en@wikimedia.org)
Thank you for your email. Our response follows your message.

> As proposal for the future, I would like to make donations to aimed branch of wikimedia. I guess a very simple "paypal donation link" in each article and if that article is, for instance, about science, then the most part of the donation will go to the scientific branch of wikimedia (which I guess don't exist at all today).
Donations to Wikimedia go to fund the operation of the site rather than any particular "branch". The Wikimedia Foundation maintains the servers and builds software that enables the editing community to work on the project. The process of article development and maintenance is something done by volunteer editors. There is no way to specifically target funding on just some topics and not others because the bulk of the work that the Foundation does isn't editorial but primarily technical.

That said, in some countries, there is outreach done to different groups, specifically the work done with cultural and educational bodies. It is up to chapters to try and find the best partnerships they can pursue, and those decisions are usually done on what can bring the most amount of benefit to the overall goal of letting every single human being freely share in the sum of all human knowledge.

> More specifically, I'm thinking also to to the copyright of a work: particularly when someone edit a page about a literary/musical work, I guess he would be happy to donate 1 cent to its author (so not just only to the authour of the wikipedia page, but to the author of the work too, like I would do e.g. for an article about Roger Waters, paying Roger Waters, although he has already much money, because I like that his work and I'm happy to edit it: in the way I'm proposing I would be a bit more motivated to edit the article). As well as if one edit the LHC article, he would be happy to donate 1 cent to CERN.
The problem with this proposal is not everyone is interested in supporting the subject of the article. I expect the people who edit the articles on Roger Waters or the Large Hadron Collider would be fine with a small fraction of money going to Waters or CERN, but having an article isn't an endorsement. If I knew that a cent was going to some terrorist or neo-nazi group every time I improved the article about them, that'd not be a good thing. There are also massive accounting headaches with this, and it would leave the underlying issue there. The point of the fundraising is to raise money to support the Wikimedia projects, not to support the subjects of articles. If we started giving money to the subjects of articles, the money lost would have to be made up for by increasing the amount of money raised.

That said, if you wish to support other groups, we actively encourage doing so. We have had lots of e-mails saying things like "how dare you ask for money while cancer still exists?" and things along those lines, and our answer is always the same: donate to those charities too!

I hope I've answered your questions: thanks for your ideas, and I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm in coming up with ideas. We have a whole page on Wikipedia called the Village Pump (idea lab) where people come up with ideas on how to improve Wikipedia - see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28idea_lab%29>

Yours sincerely.

A writer's assistance program

There must be many people out there who have much knowledge about something but are scared away from contributing because they have problems trying to use a computer (yes these people still exist), are scared off by the wiki syntax or the many policies and guidelines. So rather than having them try and fail at creating a Wikipedia article by themselves we might have a pool of volunteers taking article suggestions by e-mail, checking them to see if they can fit in and seek reliable sources for them (this can be undertaken by yet another volunteer). I think even Articles for Creation may be too difficult, there are many pensioners who haven't gone beyond the typewriter yet have valuable knowledge to offer. So we could have a writer's assistance program rather than just sticking confusing tags on articles, which often are never fixed. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 05:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user and Wikipedia:Article wizard and Help:Contents.
—Wavelength (talk) 05:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ It is unclear whether the phrase "available elsewhere on the Internet" modifies the phrase "indexed information" as opposed to modifying only "Web sites." I am assuming it modifies both phrases, though there is arguable ambiguity on this point.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&oldid=467819030"