Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals pages, or – for assistance – at the help desk, rather than here, if at all appropriate. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

« Archives, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78

ReferenceTooltips

Background: ReferenceTooltips is a gadget that allows users to roll over any inline citation to see reference information. A discussion on whether to enable the gadget for all users by default went on for about two months before being archived about two weeks ago. (This discussion was mentioned in the Signpost.) The discussion resulted in a some changes to the gadget, such as the addition of a delay to the tooltip, support for touchscreen devices, and an easily accessible settings menu that includes a button to disable RT, as well and options to modify/eliminate the delay, or set the tooltip to only pop up upon clicking the reference link.

The discussion seemed to show consensus in support of enabling ReferenceTooltips by default, though it was never formally "closed" as such before it was archived. Does this matter? Would further discussion be necessary for it to be enabled? Another point: During the discussion, a comment by User:R'n'B suggested users be "informed about the change (maybe by a watchlist notice) before it happens, and given instructions on how to turn it off if they wish". (Turning it off is accomplished by pressing the gear icon at the top-right corner of any tooltip and then pressing the large "Disable Reference Tooltips" button, or alternatively, deselecting the gadget in Special:Preferences.) Does anyone have opinions on whether this would be necessary, and how best to accomplish it if it is? --Yair rand (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't follow that discussion, but I can tell you the general rule: 90% of users won't notice or won't care if they do notice, 5% of users will be happy, and 5% of users will be very, very, very loudly upset—but only briefly. A couple of months later, most (NB: "most" ≠ "all") of the users, including most of the noisy opposition, won't even remember what the old system was like.

How much notice you give and how many hoops you jump through to tell people about it depend primarily on how much noise you're willing to put up with in the couple of weeks after the change. No matter how much notice you give, it won't be enough for some people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

A quick glance at the discussion shows 39 in support of the proposal, with 14 opposed. That comes out to about a 74% approval rating, which is probably good enough to enable right away. However, I think we should add a watchlist notice, so that people don't scream the way they did with the watchlist change (what ever happened to that RfC anyway?) David1217 ^{What I've done} 16:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

(Actually, several of those opposes were conditional all issues that have since been fixed, so it's really 39-11, 78%.) --Yair rand (talk) 03:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd enable it then, possibly with a watchlist notice (but then you'd have to start a new discussion, and you probably don't want to do that). One thing though: for touchscreen devices, can you make it that clicking anywhere gets rid of the tooltip, instead of just the citation? I've tried it on my iPad, and it annoys me. David1217 ^{What I've done} 04:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The intended behavior for touchscreen devices is that clicking anywhere outside the tooltip makes the tooltip disappear. Unfortunately, I don't have a touchscreen device to test it on. I don't understand what you mean by "just the citation" (Just the citation disappears? Only clicking on the citation makes the tooltip disappears? What does "citation" refer to, exactly?) Could you please clarify? Thanks. --Yair rand (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I am on an iPad right now, and when you tap on the citation, the tooltip appears. Unless you tap on the little blue number thingy (made with <ref></ref> tags), the tooltip won't go away. What I'd like is that if you tap anywhere other than the tooltip, the tooltip disappears. David1217 ^{What I've done} 04:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the bug. Apparently, in certain situations, iPads won't count touching an element as a "click" unless the user triple-taps. Hopefully changing it to also activate on "touchstart" will fix this. (I've left an editprotected request at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-ReferenceTooltips.js. Hopefully after the sync the bug will be fixed.) --Yair rand (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks! David1217 ^{What I've done} 05:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: ReferenceTooltips is working properly on my iPad now. David1217 ^{What I've done} 05:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else have a comment on whether to enable ReferenceTooltips by default? David1217 ^{What I've done} 05:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there a readily identifiable means to turn it off? Regards, RJH (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Each tooltip contains a "gear" icon in the top-right corner, that when clicked opens a menu that contains a large "Disable Reference Tooltips" button. Does that count as "readily identifiable"? --Yair rand (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup, close enough. Thanks. RJH (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• So, this discussion hasn't had much participation, and the VPR discussion did result in consensus for enabling the gadget, and it was pretty well-publicized. There probably are some users who went two months without checking VPR or looking at the Centralized discussions list and also missed both Signpost articles mentioning it, and will dislike the gadget, but hopefully those users will be able to figure out how to disable it. If nobody objects within a day or so, I'm going to make an editprotected request to the gadgets-definition page, requesting that ReferenceTooltips be enabled by default. If anyone complains that they can't figure out how to disable it, I'll request that a watchlist notice be put up explaining how to disable it, but I think it's unlikely that people will have difficulty disabling it. --Yair rand (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. Finally we'll have closure. David1217 ^{What I've done} 21:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Editprotected request is here. --Yair rand (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
    • ...And it has now been enabled by default. --Yair rand (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Let's see how long it takes before someone starts yelling. It didn't take long with the watchlist controversy today (see thread). BTW, it's working smoothly when I'm logged out. David1217 ^{What I've done} 00:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC) modified 00:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope this isn't yelling, but I started seeing the reference tooltips today, and I find them quite annoying. IMO, adding a feature that causes unexpected motion (or "appearing out of the blue") adds distraction in a medium (web pages) that is already crammed with distractions. I'm sad to see this, because one of Wikipedia's great strengths has always been its text-heavy, literate and thoughtful orientation. I think making windows appear in front of text harms readability, and I don't think readers get anything of value out of these little pop-ups that mention sources they've never heard of and mostly don't care about. However, that's JMO, and I think WhatamIdoing's 90/5/5 prediction above is insightful and probably right. Nevertheless, I would like to ask: Is there some way that we can tell what effects the reference tooltips are having on readability? If I'm wrong, and the tooltips don't interfere with readability, that's fine; I'm glad my opinion did not prevail if it was mistaken. However, if the tooltips do distract readers and make articles harder to read, I hope we have some way to find this out and consequently roll back the change. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 03:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I actually think they improve the reader experience by making easy to look at references without jumping away from the text—but like you, that's my POV. Short of actually talking to readers for feedback, though, which is probably not a viable option (too much trouble to get something running just to ask if a minor interface change is liked). So, we'll probably just go with what the community of editors has decided. David1217 ^{What I've done} 04:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Village stubs

Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) has been threatening to launch 15,000 articles about British settlements consisting of no more than "xxx is a village in Cumbria. ref =google maps". See user talk:RHaworth#Stubs. He seems to have modified this proposal somewhat but I would be interested to hear other editors views on how large a settlement needs to be before it qualifies for its own article here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Mmm, well I don't think it was necessary to begin the message with a disparaging implication like "threatening". But yeah, that's pushing the envelope a bit. There was some similar activity in terms of auto-generating minor planet articles, which I don't think was necessarily beneficial. Perhaps it would be better if this low utility information was incorporated into lists instead? Regards, RJH (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

As a courtesy, I've left a note at Dr. Blofeld's talk page informing him of this discussion. 64.40.54.162 (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

In what way would such articles damage our mission as an encyclopedia? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see how these are even stubs; it's one short sentence, followed by a link to a map. I don't necessarily have issues with mass-creating stubs with at least some information, but just saying "xxx is a village in Cumburia" with a Google map link doesn't give readers anything to work with at all. As to the size settlements need to be, I'll defer to people more familiar with classification of British settlements; I've seen such discussions take a couple different tacks, so I won't try to steer it myself. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It is certainly useful to type the name of a place into Wikipedia and to find some information, rather than finding a red link. That could mean redirects to a list until enough information is available to create a article like the outcome of the minor planets, but there is no established minimum population or notability for settlement articles on Wikipedia. This practice goes back to the days of Rambot and the articles created from the 2000 Census data for U.S. towns. Rmhermen (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, I'm fine with some information, but what we're talking about above isn't even that. When I've created articles on places (c.f. Noh Poe) I include what I consider some information; a couple paragraphs about the significance of the place and what's happened there. I'd even be fine with less than that, but I need more than just "(insert name of podunk town) exists somewhere in (insert name of country)", because that doesn't really impart any substantial information. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The practice we've been using at WikiProject Canada is to redirect these one-liners to an article about a county, township, town or city in which the community is located. For example, Glenville, Ontario redirects to King, Ontario#Settlements. See WP:CANSTYLE for details.I oppose the use of a direct link to Google Maps, as that circumvents the general mapping interface available through the use of coordinate data (that is, by using a direct link, you're forcing the reader to use a specific mapping service instead of choosing a mapping service).Mindmatrix 00:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Google maps isn't a reliable source of English place-names. If he was citing Ordnance Survey he might have a case.©Geni 13:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I was patrolling new pages a day ago and I saw evidence of Dr Blofeld's work - he had created a large number of new articles about villages in Turkey. (I was puzzled because Wikipedia's notability criteria say to me that merely being a widget doesn't qualify for an article - it must be a notable widget, and that makes sense to me.) I don't have a problem with the names of all these villages appearing on Wikipedia, but the appropriate coverage is a list of villages in a region or country. When I create a new article I strive to ensure notability is comprehensively demonstrated, so I find it disappointing when I find others who see Wikipedia differently. Dolphin (t) 08:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It's been discussed ad nausum before (I forget where the main large initial discussion was held). Many of us agree with you and feel that many of them could easily be redirected to a list articles. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

disambiguation

In Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts, there seems to be two paradoxical sentences. In the part "don't", it is written "Don't add entries without a blue link." It means we cannot add red links at all. On the other hand, the fourth sentence is "Don't add red links that aren't used in any articles." So we can add particular red links. Isn't it a paradox?Ali Pirhayati (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Logic-wise, I suppose it could include sentences that have both a red link and a blue link, as long as the red link is also in an article. But as soon as the red link turns blue, the other blue link would need to be removed. Excuse me, I have to go laugh at what I just wrote... Regards, RJH (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

A list of Dos and Don'ts is not going to give you the full picture. You should read Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. Generally people are discouraged from putting red links, but they're allowed in certain circumstances which are a bit too complicated to explain in a simple list. Every rule on Wikipedia has an exception, mostly. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

How are YOU going to celebrate the 4 millionth article

I'd like to find out how YOU are going to celebrate the 4,000,000 article so I can include something about it in the report. See #Article 4 million approaching above. Thanks. 64.40.54.45 (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Give some WikiLove to whoever created it! (And possibly some to the editors who created the 3,999,999th and 4,000,001st articles, so that they don't feel left out.) David1217 ^{What I've done} 16:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it even possible to single out one specific article like that? What if article 4mil turns out to be useless junk and gets speedied before the proverbial "ink is dry"? Roger (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

According to a WMF employee in the thread above, it "will be the first article to be created and not speedily deleted at a time when there are already 3,999,999 articles". David1217 ^{What I've done} 16:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Why gamble on the quality of a newly-created article? It's just sufficient to note that we passed the threshold without identifying the final addition to the heap. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)So it will only be identified an unspecified time after it is created - how long will WMF allow for it to be speedied or not? Rubbish stubs can exist for a substantial time before anyone notices and bothers to speedy it. If a notice was issued asking us to "check this shortlist of "4mil" candidates and please speedy the ones that deserve to die" we might be able to determine the "winner" quite quickly. Roger (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

@Roger, looking back through the main page history it seems that over the last 10 days, we been getting about 900 new articles per day. So a rough guess is that we'll be reaching 4 mil on July 14th or 15th. Somebody could post something at WP:AN or WP:AN/I to alert the admins that we're getting close in case they want to speedy the bad ones that show up. 64.40.54.156 (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Striking previous prediction. We'll hit 4 million later today with the help of Dr. Blofeld. 64.40.54.88 (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I will probably carry on the same as before. But then again, I've always been more interested in building up existing articles and adding meaningful information rather than worry about creating thousands of one-line articles with pretty infoboxes and navboxes merely for the sake of improving the "bottom line". --MuZemike 19:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

@MuZemike, I know I've become apathetic and jaded towards the project over these many long years. I'm an IP and I'm treated like an IP. I do this of my own free will because I don't want to be treated special I wish people would stop vandalizing the project and focus on improving our content, but the current situation is what it is. I'm happy the project exists and has become sucessful. I'm guessing it's worse for you being one of our most dedicated checkusers. You see the worst of the worst and I wouldn't be surprised if you've become disillusioned with people. The thing is, this event is going to be reported by the foundation and possibly in the media. That means it's an opportunity for us. I'd like to use this opportunity the say something good about the project because people like you and I put so much time in to it. I feel the general public should know about our efforts and I'd like to bring in more Good^TM people to help with the workload. So I'm looking at this as an opportunity for something good to happen. So my honest question to you is "Do you think we should report that most people aren't going to celebrate the event?" Because I do want to report something about the feelings of the community. Kind regards. 64.40.54.156 (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a proper attitude for insiders, since the encyclopedia is on the whole more improved each time an old stub is merged than when a new one is created. Last new article I made was History of Harlem, for the usual reason that the parent had become too big. However, outsiders, that is almost all Wikipedia users, sometimes pay attention to big round numbers, so I hope a period of especially harsh vigilance by WP:New Page Patrol will quicklly winnow the usual flood of hopelessly trivial new articles to leave an arguably worthy four millionth. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Only 400 to go. Current stats shows 3,999,600 articles. Roger (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

300 to go now. So adding 100 articles took about 15 minutes. Roger (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The average daily turnover is about a thousand new pages, so a net increase of 100 articles normally takes about two and a half hours. Given that there's a surge of article creation to make the four-million, it'll probably be over in the next couple of hours depending on how much ongoing deletion there is. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Less than 250 remain, last I checked. My teeth are trembling as the moment apporaches, and let's hope I launch the Buster & Chauncey's Silent Night page for a milestone too. (No, I'm really working on a long-overdue article with this title right now.) See you soon at DYK and GA! (Oh, and I'll get a screencap of you-know-where.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 13:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The counter will surely hit 4 million during the current hour (before 14:00UTC). Now at 3,999,779 Roger (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Less than 100 to go now. Took a snapshot, all right! --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 13:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Missing my predicted deadline, the rate has noticably slowed in the last half hour or so. Roger (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Just missed it! Count is at 4,000,030 now. Roger (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

As I count using article counting method used in Indonesian Wikipedia, I think the 4,000,000th article is:

• 21:09, 13 July 2012 ‎Izbat Al Borg (hist) ‎[2,852 bytes] Meno25 (talk | contribs) (Creating)

Is it right?  Kenrick  Talk 14:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Please no! Not a bleeding one-liner! Roger (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Happy 4 million everybody. 64.40.54.88 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Whew! I wrote an article and clicked the Save button when there were 3,999,995 articles. Then instantly I took a look at new pages and saw another article related to my country which was created nearly at the same moment. Such an excitement! Reminds me those GET posts. Abdullais4u (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Th 4 millionth article is Izbat Al Borg according to chat on IRC. --Meno25 (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you say it because you created the page? Just kidding XD Abdullais4u (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, how do I see the log of the IRC chat? And why did you update {{Million milestones}} before asking anyone? Abdullais4u (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations!! -- Bustocco (Dimmi!) (Yiyi on it.Wikipedia) 14:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations from Italy!! --Erik1991 (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

A redirect is the 4 millionth article? How iconic. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Red dot map for Williamsburg, Virginia

Does anyone here edit those red dot maps that appear on every US city/county article? The one for Williamsburg, Virginia has been incorrect, indicating York County instead, since 2006. Asking on the article's talk page, the talk page of the user who made the map, and have not been fruitful. I haven't found any sort of centralized red-dot-map task force to complain to and lack the know-how to do it myself, so does anyone here edit the things or know how they're made? Thanks! Hiyayaywhopee (talk) 03:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Try the centralized red-dot-map task force, they are usually helpful--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, awesome. Thanks a lot. Someone else sent me another map that happens to be highlighting Williamsburg, but it would be great if this one could get fixed too. Hiyayaywhopee (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Phantom of the Opera

how does christine get hympnotized in the Andrew Lloyd Webber's edition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.57.159 (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can't find the info you want in any of the relevant articles or their external links, you could try asking at the Reference Desk. Rivertorch (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Alcohol Blood level chart

I read the blood alcohol level chart and it didnt make sense to me.In many times in my life i have had .5 alcohol blood level or higher,knew this from arrests in the past.And i didnt die, i think the chart needs to be a bit higher.Not here to brag or cause problems.Just a thought.I have quit drinking for the most part these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chucksteak60 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think...

... that there are too many templates in the english wikipedia. The german version is much better, they don't have the stupid stub templates. --93.82.2.91 (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Expand the article and simply remove the template. Problem solved. ;-) mabdul 18:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Stub sorting seems a harmless activity since the templates appear at the bottom of the page, so I can't begrudge the fact that there are so many of them. However, even with the sub-division into ever finer grades of stubbiness categorization, it's probably not having much of an impact on the actual article population. Most such articles can sit there for years collecting dust with a big mound of stub tags at the bottom. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

An article should be limited to 3 stub templates, perhaps we should reduce that limit to 2 to reduce the big mounds. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Anecdotal AFT5 information

This is completely anecdotal, but one of the things I've gleaned from AFT5 is that a lot of readers come here looking for the wrong things. While many of these can't be changed (i.e. What is Barack Obama's phone number?), there are a number that are easily solved by our other projects. I've found many that asked for quotes of a person and similar things. Imagine someone wanted to read the text of The Raven. You need to scroll all the way under the sources to find the links. This might not be a problem for those who know other projects exist, but it is for those who don't. Maybe we should find a new location for those templates, the infobox might be appropriate. Otherwise, we need to do a better job of advertising our sister projects. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm rather curious now. Where does one view the feedback received through the tool? Resolute 20:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I wish there was an easier way to find it. Personally, I go to Talk:Justin Bieber and click view reader feedback at the top of the page. Then click See more feedback from other pages at the bottom of the Justin Bieber Feedback. (You don't necessarily need to use Justin Bieber, I just use it because I know it has the tool.) As I wrote this I learned that Special:ArticleFeedbackv5 takes you there. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. And... oh dear god. Umm, this is undoubtedly better than the old tool, but man, I fear for anyone sifting through those comments for anything that is actionable. At any rate, on the topic you started, I wonder if adding a sidebar box above the foreign language links would give parallel links to Wikiquote and the like the kind of prominence you are looking for? Resolute 20:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The complete text of The Raven is in Synopsis, the first section after the lead. You see the first stanza, and can get the full text by clicking show. We can't do this for everything, due to copyrights, or the full text may not be appropriate for the article. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

On the "actionable" front, try the "most relevant" view :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Please help improve Birth control

Birth control is easy and very important to improve. Please see Talk:Birth control#Reviews on the topic in the Lancet this month through Talk:Birth control#Comparison. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Help decide about more than $10 million of Wikimedia donations in the coming year

(Apologies if this message isn't in your language. Please consider translating it)

Hi,

As many of you are aware, the Wikimedia Board of Trustees recently initiated important changes in the way that money is being distributed within the Wikimedia movement. As part of this, a new community-led "Funds Dissemination Committee" (FDC) is currently being set up. Already in 2012-13, its recommendations will guide the decisions about the distribution of over 10 million US dollars among the Foundation, chapters and other eligible entities.

Now, seven capable, knowledgeable and trustworthy community members are sought to volunteer on the initial Funds Dissemination Committee. It is expected to take up its work in September. In addition, a community member is sought to be the Ombudsperson for the FDC process. If you are interested in joining the committee, read the call for volunteers. Nominations are planned to close on August 15.

--Anasuya Sengupta, Director of Global Learning and Grantmaking, Wikimedia Foundation 20:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Distributed via Global message delivery. (Wrong page? Fix here.)

World Peace Machine Almost Available - Looking for advice

I have a vision for a new social site designed to streamline dialogue so that thousands of people can come together to draft their own legislation. I have no technical training or experience in designing webtools, nor any funding to contribute to people who do have these skills, but I do have a 12-page description of exactly how I see it working that I am willing to share with anyone who wants to make it work and will email to anyone who wants a copy. I'm not sure whether it's appropriate to post the entire description as a proposal for a Wickimedia project or not, and because I have no idea how to build it myself I'm a little afraid of my vision being lost and of not being part of the final project. I don't mind if other projects pop up however similar or different using parts of the idea, but I really want an intact version of the vision to come to life; I really believe it can change the world (and I really want it to). Any advice for an un-technical person with an idea like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shielding C (talk • contribs) 10:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You might want to submit this as a letter to the editor of your local newspaper. It's not really something to include in an encyclopedia until it has been reviewed and commented on by others. Best regards. 64.40.54.164 (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

News alert: SOPA back for dessert

...in the form of the Intellectual Property Attaché Act (page does not exist yet). 68.173.113.106 (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Correction -- page does not exist with funky diacritics yet. (Hold on and I'll create a redirect.) This page totally exists. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw it. Thanks. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia France Research Award

Hi all,

Wikimédia France, a non-profit organization supporting Wikimedia projects in France, is launching an international research prize to reward the most influential research work on Wikimedia projects and free knowledge projects in general.

What is quite new about this award is that everyone can participate:

1. by ranking nominated papers to elect the winner (ranking is shared with the award jury).
2. by submitting important articles in this field of research for the Award.

Regarding the latter, we are now in the process of proposing papers and we'd appreciate if some of you can lend a hand.

If you consider a paper has been particularly important in the field of free knowledge/Wikipedia studies and must be taken into account, do not hesitate to submit it now! Please use this form

Deadline for paper suggestion is August 1st.

After that, the next phase is shortlisting nominated papers. The Wikimedia Award Jury will study all proposed papers to submit 5 papers to the final vote in September. The announcement of the winner is planned in November.

Please find all details here: m:Research:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award

If you have any questions, please use the project talk page m:Research_talk:Wikimedia_France_Research_Award

Thanks! --Rémi Bachelet (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Double-crested Cormorant

Intriguing question here we need opinions on - see Talk:Double-crested_Cormorant#Inclusion_of_colloquial_name_.22nigger_goose.22 (i.e. "nigger goose" wasa historical name - do we include or not, please discuss there) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Best browser or settings for editing on an Android tablet

This is going to need a bit of WP:OR but having recently obtained an Android tablet to replace the aging laptop, I have been disappointed in the wikipedia editing experience on the tablet. I'm not sure how much is due to Android and how much is browser related but has anyone else found a good wikipedia editing browser? I like opera on my desktop, but opera mobile 12 seems to crash too often and lose text from edit boxes if I switch windows/multi task and then return ( it reloads the page rather than keep it in memory). I'm trialling maxthon at the moment but it seems slow and also seems to lose text easily. Finally, is there a skin/set of preferences that improves the mobile/tablet editing experience? The-Pope (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I have used both Dolphin and Google Chrome on my ASUS android tablet and both work good. GB fan 02:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Dolphin was next on my list. The parallel question (maybe more for WP:VPT) is when will the dedicated mobile app support editing, not just reading. The-Pope (talk) 04:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Time to do away with "no spam email" gimmick?

Background information:

• discussion on Commons
• brief discussion of this issue at the Oversight talk page

So, in order to discourage spambots this little trick is used so that copy/pasting certain email addresses doesn't work. Taking the functionaries as an example,

• if you open the edit window you see this: {{NonSpamEmail|functionaries-en|lists.wikimedia.org}}.
• On the actual page you see this:functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org
• If you copy that and paste it into your email address bar you get this:functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org. No @ sign, and thus your email will not go through.

It was suggested at the oversight talk page that we make it more clear that copy/pasting will not work, but I am more in favor of the suggestion made in the discussion at Commons that we just stop doing this altogether. Spam gets into the queues already anyway, and it is extremely simple to remove it by clicking the "one click spam" button. If we get inundated by spambots to the extent where we can't click that button fast enough to delete it all we can reconsider. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Until a decision is made, we may wish to add a statement above the email addresses in question that copy/paste will fail. I don't think we need consensus for this as it is just a 'bug' notice. I would do it boldly as done in commons but the page is fully protected.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I've notified the functionaries, the arbcom, and OTRS of this discussion. If anyone knows of any other uses of this please notify them as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/General_requests#Email_failures I mentioned it at meta as well. I hope I found the correct forum.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Template:Di-no permission has a clickable email that opens Outlook Express for me. Does anyone know how long this has worked and can we make the others do the same?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

What fits into advertising?

I've read through Wikipedia essays and policies, including WP:BANNER, WP:ADVERT, and I want to ask a question. If I submitted an AfC, and I add a link to this, Village Pump, that leads to the AfC submission page in order to get a faster review from Wikipedians, is that considered advertising? If no, then please look at this: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Wonderfl; if yes, please tell me why and how it is. Greek Fellows (talk) 08:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)