Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

The idea lab section of the village pump is a place where new ideas or suggestions on general Wikipedia issues can be incubated, for later submission for consensus discussion at Village pump (proposals). Try to be creative and positive when commenting on ideas.
Before creating a new section, please note:

• Discussions of technical issues belong at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).
• Discussions of policy belong at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).
• If you're ready to make a concrete proposal and determine whether it has consensus, go to the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Proposals worked out here can be brought there.

Before commenting, note:

• This page is not for consensus polling. Stalwart "Oppose" and "Support" comments generally have no place here. Instead, discuss ideas and suggest variations on them.
• Wondering whether someone already had this idea? Search the archives below, and look through Wikipedia:Perennial proposals, and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals.

« Archives, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58

Wikinews link

A small link to wikinews.org in the news today box (at the bottom of the box), so that people can peruse more news if they so desire. Alternatively a link on this page, at the top - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events. It would make it easier for people looking for a certain category of news like "Education";or "Central America" for news of their locality. 117.221.179.80 (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)inkee

Bump JDgeek1729 (talk) 06:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It was decided to remove the links to wikinews on the main and current events pages in this discussion and this one. Cenarium (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Idea: replace the "Sandbox" item at the top of the page with "Subpages"

Dear editors: I don't know about you, but I rarely use the generic sandbox associated with my user name. I often have a number of things going on at once in my user space, so I keep them on separately labelled subpages. Instead of the link to the Sandbox, wouldn't it be handy to have a link to a list of user subpages instead? I know that one is available by clicking on contributions, scrolling to the bottom, and then clicking on "Subpages", but it was a long time before I discovered this, and it's not as convenient. Out of sight, out of mind, you know. I realized recently that there were several incomplete projects that I had forgotten about. The sandbox is there on the list of subpages, so for those who really do use the generic sandbox a lot it's only one more step, or it could be bookmarked in their browser. Any opinions about this? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but where do you see this sandbox item? I don't recall such a link existing, though my personal interface tweaks could be interfering with that. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 18:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Enabled by Preferences → Gadgets → Appearance = Add a "Sandbox" link to the personal toolbar area --  Gadget850 ^talk 18:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Subpages is also available through the sidebar at "Page information" - in the first box, bottom row, click the link "Number of subpages of this page". --Redrose64 (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I quite like this idea. Going User page -> page information -> subpages seems like a lot of work to find the pages I'm working on. It could additionally include Draft articles that you've started, and be more of a 'my drafts' sort of thing. Sam Walton (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Also including Draft articles might be challenging to implement cleanly in JavaScript, unless there's a convenient MW API call available for pages started by namespace. This sounds like a potential MediaWiki feature rather than just a gadget or userscript. Regardless, I'd add that such a list page ought to include easy links or "helpers" for starting new user subpages or draft pages. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 19:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I have this in my JS to add links to the sidebar:

mw.util.addPortletLink ('p-tb', wgServer+wgArticlePath.replace("$1", "Special:PrefixIndex/"+wgPageName+"/"), 'Subpages');
mw.util.addPortletLink ('p-tb', '/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/User:Gadget850', 'My subpages');

--  Gadget850 ^talk 19:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sidebars are good, but you have to first navigate to the page; the toolbar at the top is available at any time. Also, the link on the sidebar is pretty well hidden. First, I have to scroll down in order to see this option, which is off the page at my preferred zoom; then when I click on it the option, a list appears, and one of the items says "number of subpages to this page" (not list of subpages of this page). How many editors even know that they could get to their subpages this way? (I didn't.) Also, a link on the toolbar should be easy to implement, because the function already exists, and it should be just a matter of adding a link to it in the same that the "Sandbox" link was made, and sending the function a pointer to the appropriate user space. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: Try this code, if you want to add it to your personal toolbar, in the same location as the sandbox link (and turn off the gadget, to remove the sandbox link):

mw.util.addPortletLink(	'p-personal', '/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/User:Anne Delong', 'Subpages', null, null, null, '#pt-preferences');

You can also add links to any of the boxes in the sidebar, or to the "More" dropdown menu that usually just contains the "Move" and admin links. Let me/us know if you'd prefer one of those alternatives, and specify where exactly you'd like it located within the area. (Or if preferred, deduce via looking at the section id names (via HTML-source), and the docs at mw:ResourceLoader/Default_modules#addPortletLink) HTH :) Quiddity (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Sidenote: There's also mw:Extension:SandboxLink in development, which aims to turn the Gadget into an Extension, and amongst other benefits will prevent the "bounce" as the "Sandbox" link is added to the personal toolbar. Quiddity (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Quiddity, what do I do with the above code? I tried putting it in User:Anne Delong/common.js, which is what I presumed you meant by "JS", but I was given an error message. -- Anne Delong (talk • contribs) 11:28, 21 October 2014‎

@Anne Delong: Does this edit fix it? JavaScript is very sensitive to missing and misplaced punctuation. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, now it works. Thanks, Redrose64. My, my, wouldn't I have liked to have that 50,000 edits ago... —Anne Delong (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't like this suggestion, since the "sandbox" link is intended for newbies. People who know enough to want to use subpages likely know enough to disable the gadget and add something like what Quiddity posted to their common.js (or to ask at the Village pump to find out how to do that). Anomie⚔ 10:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Anomie, in response to your objection:

• Yes, I had forgotten that the Sandbox link was a gadget and not a default setting (I don't remember enabling it, but that's not at all surprising). I apologize for suggesting that it should be replaced. Just making a new gadget that would do the same for subpages would be better.
• I'm personally happy to find out that I can paste some javascript code and get the same result, but I disagree that it's a good thing to wait for each new editor to have the idea that they could modify the interface and ask about it at the village pump (or even figure out that there is such a thing as the village pump) to do such a basic thing as finding a list of their subpages. Having to deal with javascript instead of just a checkbox would make a lot of less technically minded editors uncomfortable, and we should try to make the Wikipedia interface as friendly as possible so as to retain these content creators.
• Encouraging new users to create articles in their sandboxes, rather than just using them for experimentation as intended, has negative consequences (see the thread above this one), including users not being notified when their articles are nominated for deletion, and users wondering where their sandboxes went because they've been redirected. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The sandbox gadget is enabled by default. This can be seen at MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition#appearance. There is a script to add the "Subpages" link at User:PrimeHunter/My subpages.js (similar to the code by Quiddity). I use it myself but most users have no subpages and I don't support it as default. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Ah, much better. I've added that at Wikipedia:User_scripts#Menus_and_tabs. I would support that as a gadget (please ping me if you add it to Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals), and I agree that it shouldn't be default. Quiddity (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

A shortcut to one link which is already at the bottom of user contributions isn't much functionality for a gadget. Somebody else suggested it without success at Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals/Archive 5#Gadget for link to 'My subpages'. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

All content creators should have subpages. If many of them don't, it's because they don't know how to create them or how to find them after they've created them. The link at the bottom of the user contributions is inconvenient; it sometimes takes quite a while for this list to appear, and then there is a lot of scrolling, and another wait. The discussion that you linked to says that most users just use their sandbox to create drafts - but this is not the intended use for a sandbox, and as I have explained in the thread above, it messes up various processes and notifications by causing misattribution of articles. The solution is to recommend using subpages, but it's not convenient to find them. We should make things as convenient as possible for the content contributors, especially new ones. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Some content creators don't like working in userspace. It's purely a matter of personal preference. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You are right and I was exaggerating - sorry. I intended to say article creators rather than content creators, but even so I'm sure there are some article creators who can create acceptable articles right in mainspace. Likely editors would use their user space more if it were more easily accessible. The "Subpages" link which Quiddity help me install has saved me at least an hour of fussing around in the last week; I just wanted others to enjoy it as much as I am. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Dealing With Unresearched (and Unresearchable) Content

I am interested in becoming a much more active editor on Wikipedia now that I'm semi-retired and have time to devote to the job. Some of the subjects in which I am particularly interested are on the esoteric side of the ledger. I've spent a little time perusing some of these subjects and I have detected what seems to be a Wikpedia bias or informal policy toward subjects which lend themselves to academic scholarship. There is an accompanying disdain for subjects which do not lend themselves to such research.

Underlying some of the discussions of this issue that I've found sprinkled around the site is the assumption -- sometimes clearly stated -- that the mere inclusion of a topic in Wikipedia gives it a certain amount of credibility that ought perhaps be more closely guarded. I find that a particularly peculiar idea given the somewhat iconoclastic beginnings of Wikipedia and the overall tendency on the Internet to allow for more untested and unpopular ideas in the interest of allowing what I suppose might be called "crowdtalk" to sort things out.

In trying to figure out how to come up with a proposal to what I see as a bit of a dilemma here, I have begun to wonder whether there is a tagging or other categorization system that could be implemented that would allow content to be labeled as "not amenable to research" rather than either being dismissed or held to an impossible standard to qualify for inclusion in the main encyclopedia.

Fundamentally, I agree with the concepts of balanced coverage and Point of View as I understand them but I don't want to see Wikipedia become constrained by "Establishment" taboos and thinking that holds the viewpoint that *only* that which can be measured and physically sensed is "real" and worthy of either research or inclusion here.

Is this the proper forum to raise this idea? Is there somewhere else I should look to discuss it? Has it already been covered; if so, please point me to that source. I really want to understand the policy and its rationale.

Dshafer (talk) 06:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you offer some examples of the articles you might like to see created, or edits that you might like to see made, under such a proposal? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Although I too cannot determine what topics our OP is interested, I have noticed systematic bias against non-academic topics. This comes about by Wikipedians decalring that some sources are unreliable and therefore cannot be used to show a topic is notable. Academic work is normally reliable so that results in a bias towards those topics. But many others such as things of interest to women or tradespeople are not nearly so well academically studied and end up with thousands of sources that are classed as unreliable, such as woman's magazines. We then end up with poor coverage of home-life, hobbies, and building even though it is commonly experienced by many. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You didn't indicate exactly what you had in mind, but the answer is probably a strong no. I think you misunderstand what the problem is. Wikipedia is fine with nonacademic topics, and it's not about Wikipeda "lending credibility" to a topic. We have am article on Swan_dress, and somewhere around 200 articles on Pokemon. The issue is that your proposal sounds like it conflicts with our core policies of Verifiability and No Original Research. There are a lot of reasons we absolutely need those policies. The main issue is that even if you write a great article, two weeks later any nutcase (or group of nutcases) can come along and completely re-write it. Without Verifiability we have no objective basis for determining which version of the article to keep and which version gets scrapped. Your suggestion for crowdtalk to sort things out is non-viable. It sounds like a suggesting a search for Truth or even THE_TRUTH. Wikipedia requires verifiability, Verifiability, not truth. Our talk pages explicitly do NOT allow discussions about the topic itself. Such discussions almost invariable lead to unsolvable arguments, with both sides utterly refusing to admit they might be wrong. The only way we (mostly) keep the arguments under control is to force people to deal with mostly objective facts - "here are the Reliable Sources and this is what they say". We still have skirmishes over how reliable a source is, and which sources to use, and how to phrase things. But it avoids endless arguments over what's "true" or "right". You can believe a book on topic-X is wrong, but it's really hard to argue that the book doesn't exist. Arguing that the book is wrong is not a valid argument here for excluding something from an article... in order to exclude that book from the article you would need to show that book's claims were completely Fringe and that almost all other books say something different. If most books on geography say the earth is flat, then that's what Wikipedia will say.

At Wikipedia we're building an encyclopedia to report old ideas that Reliable Sources have already published about a topic. We do not permit any new ideas here. If you want to have "crowd talk" to discuss a topic itself, to sort out new ideas on a topic, that's what regular internet discussion boards are for. Alsee (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Pending changes block

I'm working on a 'soft block' proposal that is to classic block what pending changes protection is to classic protection. My draft is located here and I welcome any input before going ahead with the proposal. This also involves a new usergroup, with the temporary name of 'moderator', although this is not strictly necessary for it to work. Cenarium (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The draft proposal is now much more complete, I'm still welcoming any input. Cenarium (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Less intrusive video player icon

Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein

Previously, videos could function as stand alone illustrations in addition to being videos, which made them more useful, especially when a thumbnail was manually selected. See for example here[1], where it could show both a famous image, and a video of the event. But for some reason, the player icon has become big and dark, obscuring much of the thumb. I think the previous version was much more useful, for the reason mentioned above. See also here[2], where the icon pretty much destroys the thumbnail.

Perhaps the icon could be moved to one of the corners of the thumbs, instead of smack in the middle? And be smaller, too. Or maybe there could be a parameter for making the icon either dark or light, depending on the thumbnail, so where wouldn't have to be a huge, dark bar around it to make it discernible? Or maybe the play icon could be moved to the caption field? FunkMonk (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Great suggestions. Videos are sometimes used as the lead image of articles on animal behaviour, but I have often replaced these because the play icon makes the still-image difficult to see, let alone be in any way informative.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, another idea, maybe videos should have their own kind of window, like sounds have, see for example here.[3] A player bar like that, and with the thumb over it, would be much more useful, I think it looked more like this initially, if I recall correctly... FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Anyone know where it would be best to propose this? FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

  Since AFAIK it's not something that can be locally configurable, it would need a change to the MediaWiki software, so file a change request at bugzilla: (in the left sidebar, click Enter a new bug, put it under MediaWiki, Interface); although you might like to ask WP:VPT if they have suggestions. Several VPT regulars are also bugzilla regulars. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I think this is an excellent idea. Either a bar on the bottom or just moving the "play" icon into the bottom right hand corner seem like they would convey the same basic information (this is a video you can play), but in a much, much less intrusive way. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 15:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@0x0077BE: This is now under discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Less intrusive video player icon, but FunkMonk didn't note that here when they started the new thread. Per WP:MULTI, please consider this one closed, and comment on the VPT thread. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Paying admins

I propose that we set aside a section of Wikimedia Foundation money to pay admins to recognize their highly significant and beneficial contributions to Wikipedia. Jinkinson talk to me 19:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This makes sense, in my opinion, because I think those who help Wikipedia be the wonderful repository of information it is today should be rewarded. It also fits in with the extremely close scrutiny people must face to become an admin already, which makes it somewhat like applying for a job anyway. Jinkinson talk to me 19:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That will only lead to corruption. Being an admin is already a privilege exploited by many. Real life politics should set a pretty bad example. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that there are approximately 6000 admins on the Wikimedia projects, right? This would cost quite a lot of money, and would have substantial effects on what kind of people try to become administrators. --Yair rand (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

How would you set the pay scales? Is it to be an hourly rate - or a set amount per admin action? Both are open to corruption - I could spend twenty minutes weighing up the arguments for and against at an AFD, and then claim that it took two hours; or I could spend a happy half-hour in wanton protection, deletion, or blocking, just to pad the invoice.

Then there is the issue of currency: assume that everybody is paid in Uncle Sam's Bucks. In some countries, one USD buys a lot more than one dollar would get in NYC or LA. There are a lot of admins not in the USA; do these get the same rate as somebody who is living in the USA? Alternatively, people could be paid in their local currency; there is then the exchange rate to consider, and these fluctuate. Let's say that I'm in Britain, and am paid in pounds sterling at a level set when there are 1.60 dollars to the pound. If the pound later strengthens to $1.76, Wikimedia need to pay me 10% more on their own scale so that I get the same amount on my scale. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll take the bait. Admins aren't the only users who make 'highly significant and beneficial contributions' to Wikipedia. Plus, I'm an admin but my most important contributions were not through my admin actions, and by far. There's also that it's unfeasible, but it's already been stated. There's certainly a need of recognition, but not just for admins. A 'featured editor' in the Signpost would be a better idea, but it's not without issues either. Cenarium (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Even poor Stewards don't get money of their hard work... --Stryn (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• What about paying people for successful FA nominations if they contributed to a significant portion of the article? Everymorning talk to me 16:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia was created to provide free access to knowledge to everyone in the world. It is a volunteer service. No one is, can be, or will be paid for their contributions. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service for more on this. TheGeneralUser (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Addition information on TV wiki pages

In the right hand column where technical information is shown for TV series, I wish they would have the option to also say if the series died/was cancelled on a cliff hanger. People like myself would really like to know that the show ends this way, sort of similar that the book you're reading has had the final chapter torn from it. Gunnerclark (talk) 10:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gunnerclark: You say "the right hand column where technical information is shown" - the right hand column of which page(s)? Please give examples. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Sorry. Here is the bar on the right for the series Happy Days, that gives the info such as music directors, country of origin and number of episodes. The sectionn for original broadcast, you could add a new line something like "cliffhanger ending?"Gunnerclark (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gunnerclark: That right-hand column is called the "infobox", and there are several hundred different kinds of infoboxes for different kinds of article. They're built using templates, and Happy Days uses a template called {{Infobox television}}. Most templates have a discussion page specific to that template, the one for this infobox is at Template talk:Infobox television. Your proposal is best discussed either there or at WT:WikiProject Television, because this page is very much general. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Page Protection rights

I have an idea for a new category of rights that could be granted to non-Admin Users, Semi-Page Protection creation for limited amounts of time. This would be similar to granting Rollback rights to a User, an ability that an Admin has, but that is limited in scope. I don't know the technical feasibility of this, but a User with this right would only be able to apply or remove Semi-Protection to an article either with an expiration date/time or a fixed maximum period of time. Admins would still be the only personnel with the ability to apply/remove the higher levels of protection.

The benefit would be additional assistance for the Admins that patrol the Requests for Protection Noticeboard and those Users with the right who routinely patrol the Pending Changes list would be able to protect any article that is experiencing sudden and/or short term vandalism without posting a request at RfP. A secondary benefit could also eventually be that the Admins can spend more time addressing requests for higher levels of protection since most seem to result in short term semi-protection.

Your thoughts? --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea, I had a similar one, but with pending changes protection instead of semi-protection. For me, the ability to prevent edits is too strong a power and should be reserved to admins, but the ability to defer edits for review could be expanded. There are a few issues though, with both. One issue is escalation of privileges : if a user can protect temporarily, they should be able to unprotect (in case of mistake), and they could protect again, so like this protect for longer than the maximum allowed, unless some awkward technical limitations are put in place. If those aren't put in place, the system is ripe for gaming, meaning complaints and drama. A second issue is the forced choice problem : applying semi (or PC) protection is not a binary choice, there are alternatives, such as : blocking users, using a higher protection level, etc. If these alternatives are not available to the user, the decision will be biased. It may have been more appropriate to block users, or fully protect the article, but the user can only semi protect it... This is similar to non-admins closing AFDs, who cannot delete articles so are bound to make a non-delete decision (and this lack of alternative skews their decision making), hence the non-controversial requirement (can't be adapted here since it's discretionary).

I came to the conclusion that this idea is inapplicable, and after a while, arrived to the proposal that I'm now actively working on : pending changes blocks, see User:Cenarium/PCB. This would help in a variety of circumstances, including bursts of vandalism on a specific article. And it has the benefit of reducing admin workload, so they could focus more on issues requiring more judgment. Let me know what you think. Cenarium (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• I get your points and its great to see that someone else appreciates the situation. Obviously granting this right has to come with caveats and a measure of caution, gaming and misuse will always be an issue that will need attention. I haven't fully read through your proposal yet, but the gist seems to be a way to "throttle back" a specific user versus an article, correct?
• I am recommending semi-protection only because I agree with your stance that the ability to prevent edits is a strong power, but I have also witnessed for months ongoing vandalism and POV pushing by IPs and Users (registered accounts) in articles such as Diwali and articles for politicians for little more reason than the time of year it is. Also, for my suggestion to work, the granted User would have to understand that if the application of the right is not adequate, then they have an even stronger case for ask an Admin for a higher level of protection or for a block to be applied to someone specific. That limitation in and of itself would prevent misuse and provide for ongoing review. The WP community has a hierarchical structure that I'm trying to respect while addressing a problem and easing the burden of those whose put the time in to counteract it. Seems like you're trying to do the same.... :)
• As for your proposal, how can I help? --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• I could see it being useful if there is a lot of vandalism in a very short time on an article, by that I mean every few minutes or more. This right could be used once for one hour every 72 hours, to cover those emergency cases until an admin can review the situation. In 2008-09, we often had cases like that, mostly due to 4chan attacks, but I don't think we have many of those anymore. On an article like Diwali, it doesn't raise to that level, and RFPP can handle it in time. Cenarium (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Active discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Unbundling_the_tools. FWIW my suggestion was to allow reviewers to change the PC1/PC2 levels of a page. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, found it and commenting. Good stuff! --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding or removing semi protection, and or applying pending changes to newby and IP edits would be a great thing to unbundle. It is much less contentious than blocking or deletion so I would hope we could create a separate user group for this akin to rollback, with admins able to issue and remove the right as appropriate. Full protection and the stricter form of pending edits would need to remain part of the admin toolkit. It also has the advantage that these are very distinct things that don't greatly overlap with other admin tools. ϢereSpielChequers 12:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It's relatively uncontentious, but also questionably useful. The number of rollbacks in a given day is in the thousands, while the number of semi-protections is in the tens. Do we really need a lot more people with the ability? Mr.Z-man 16:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mr.Z-man, I understand your point, but spend a couple weeks patrolling the Special:PendingChanges list and likely you will start to see the patterns of vandalism. Granted I agree that the overall number of rollbacks is in the 1000s, but habitual vandals are persistent, deterring their efforts will be an effective tool. I've personally requested one block recently and have seen 3 others applied in the just the last 10 days. It's my opinion that these vandals continue because they often go unchecked. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

If it's just one vandal on a page, the proper solution is blocking that one user, not protecting the page. And that's another issue with unbundling. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Mr.Z-man 20:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, to use your analogy, it's a good tool if the offending User has a registered account. You can block just the one person (a single "nail"), but if its an IP, then you end up potentially blocking multiple Users from the entire site versus a single article. My suggestion is to provide a small "hammer" to those that have been forced to use a "monkey wrench" to accomplish the same thing. Good questions and comments, by the way. This is helping to establish the usage policy for this right. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There's little way of knowing whether an IP address represents one person (as it often does, especially for residential ISPs) or many people. But generally speaking, multiple people editing from the same IP address in a short (24 hour) period where one is a vandal and the others are constructive is rather rare. There already is a "usage policy" for protection, the protection policy, which says that it should only be used for vandalism "when blocking individual users is not a feasible option." Mr.Z-man 19:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion that could use additional input

I/we could use some additional input here. It's a proposal to deprecate {{No footnotes}}, and replace it with - a somewhat differently worded - {{No inline citations}}. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

STOP HOOKING INTERNET BROWSER'S ALT-F COMMAND

STOP HOOKING INTERNET BROWSER'S ALT-F COMMAND. BECAUSE NOBODY USES THE ALT-F FEATURE TO SEARCH IN WIKIPEDA. ASO IT APPEARS WIKIPEDIA CREATING DISPARAGEMENTS OF MICROSOFT INTERNET EXPLORER. A LIST INCLUDES NONE OF YOUR LINKS OR SUGGESTIONS TO XIPH.ORG FOR WINDOWS INTERNET EXPLORER TO PLAY YOUR EMBEDDED MOVIES WORK AT ALL, ANDSEEMS DECEIT CAUSING YEARS OF DYSFUNCTIONAL EXPERIENCES WITH WIKIPEDIA FOR AMERICANS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B36:4750:64B2:EB7F:52E0:B1F0 (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else, but when I press Alt-F in Google Chrome it jumps up to the drop-down settings menu, not anything in Wikipedia. Sam Walton (talk) 09:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

(I'm not the IP editor who created this thread.) This is because, unfortunately, each browser+OS combination invokes access keys in its own way. For example, I use Firefox on Linux, and I need to press Alt+Shift+<key>, e.g. Alt+Shift+f to move the cursor to the search box. See Wikipedia:Keyboard shortcuts#Modifier keys for an overview per browser+OS combination. On top of this, WP users may have JAWS (screen reader) running, which, according to Wikipedia:Using JAWS, will jump to the search box with Alt+f. As for xiph.org and IE, the default installation of VLC should include the ActiveX extension that enables in-line Ogg Theora playback. If that doesn't work, then use the directshow filters. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Historical

This template is so small and inconspicuous that it barely registers when viewing a page, yet it has a very important task -- letting new users know that the page is inactive! I've experienced now a few pages where new or IP users have continued to use a page despite the template being in place. I think a clearer template would be very useful. Do other users share this thought?

What would be thoughts on doing something such as either changing the image to give it more contrast, changing the text, or altering the background colour? As this is the idea lab, please do not just support/oppose. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

How about changing the graphic to the red x used on {{failed proposal}} and {{closed down}}? This would probably bring more attention to it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that is a great idea that the icon (included at left) is included. It is also consistent with the other two 'historical' templates also. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• I see no issue with it being included on the left side of the template AND the file cabinet with the red Xed page on the right side of the template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Technical 13, where to go from here? I lack the necessary permission to edit this template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Put a PER on the talk page linking here for the consensus and showing what code to change. Make sure to put the change in the templates sandbox too. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 05:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleting article revisions

I think it should be possible for any administrator to delete an individual revision of an article without deleting the whole article then restoring only some of the revisions. I think that in some cases, when an article is tagged for speedy deletion but looks like it could have been written in another way which belongs, when an administrator sees it, it should be up to the administrator's discretion whether to delete it or remove the nomination template and then nominate it for deletion to give a chance to fix the problem, once the problem in the article is fixed, it could be closed as keep, then the administrator wouldn't need to delete the whole article since they could instead delete the very disruptful history revisions. Same goes for when an administrator sees a restored article that was previously deleted. Wikipedia making this change might prevent articles in the future from being mistakenly deleted that didn't need to be like when Fram deleted Marine D3 possibly because it had the sentence "It's not even necessary for one to diet or exercise to lose weight if one eats Marine D3." in it according to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 110#Promotional articles. I'm not sure if it's worth starting a deletion review of Marine D3 to suggest that it be nominated for deletion instead of speedy deleted, then if it doesn't get edited into being non-promotional during the deletion discussion, it can be deleted. Blackbombchu (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

For years, it's been possible for administrators to delete individual revisions, but it wouldn't make sense to use it in the way you suggest. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Blackbombchu: See WP:REVDEL#Changing visibility settings. No need to delete the whole page. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

If something is speedy deleted, you're allowed to recreate it, as long as it's not substantially identical to the deleted page. It's always up to the admin's discretion about whether or not to speedy delete something. In that specific case, I would agree with the speedy deletion. It was an article about a nutritional supplement that made all sorts of health claims sourced to "sponsored content" advertisement "articles" on sites that would be questionable sources even if they weren't paid for by the company selling the product. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. That would be something like peer-reviewed articles in reputable medical journals. If you removed all the dubious claims, all you'd be left with is "Marine D3 is a type of food" (which isn't even accurate, since it's a pill, not food). Mr.Z-man 15:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Layout

Four years ago, when constructing List of world records in masters athletics I was looking for a way to emulate html code placing a table within a table to force layout within a specific space; to cover multi-event competition (Decathlon, Heptathlon, Pentathlon) scores that get complex. For context, compare the poor way the same information is laid out in List of world records in athletics. Originally I created new articles and placed them into the layout, but articles are too public and because the articles looked weird as a stand alone, they generated a lot of trouble--proposed deletions. I finally was given the suggestion of creating templates, which eliminated the controversy. Template:Rolf Geese M60 World Record Score is the active example. That is until today. I have an editor seeking ways to harass me (we have a standing disagreement) and he has found a policy about single use templates. The concept has even been discussed here. As concluded in that discussion,

"that's a rule that we created and therefore a rule that we can change to accommodate this kind of sensible use."

But apparently the policy still exists (though I can't find it). If legit, then I will have situations that might violate that policy and this wikilawyer will use it to delete the content if I don't make an adjustment. So how would a single use get approved? Or would there be a better way, that is not violating policy, to insert this kind of layout? Trackinfo (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether "single use" is written into a policy but it's a common deletion argument at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. {{Rolf Geese M60 World Record Score}} and all the others in Category:Athletics record templates do seem like an impractical way to organize this content. I would make a template for each type of event and then call that template directly from the article where the score is displayed. It wouldn't require much extra space in the article source, for example replacing {{Rolf Geese M60 World Record Score}} by:

{{Decathlon score|13.01|5.15m|12.20m|1.54m|60.95|15.77|39.84m|3.40m|37.18m|5:33.42}}

I'm not a fan of the layout in List of world records in masters athletics#Decathlon, but if the scores were made with the same template then layout changes could be made in a single place instead of having to make the same changes in 15 templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

That actually sounds like a good idea, kind of a format like an info box. Now my problem is I haven't a clue what I'm doing in such construction. About 6 months ago I started another info box and it turned into a disaster. I couldn't get help and surprisingly, the mess I left, not transcluded into articles, is still there, non-functional. I asked for help back then, none came. How do I find someone to mentor me through developing those wiki skills? Trackinfo (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I have created a primitive {{Decathlon score}} with the formatting of {{Rolf Geese M60 World Record Score}}, except I centered the text, used lower case letter in the second header words, and omitted "wind" (it would be possible to test for presense of wind in the parameter and add something in that case).

{{Decathlon score|13.01|5.15m|12.20m|1.54m|60.95|15.77|39.84m|3.40m|37.18m|5:33.42}} produces:

100m (wind)	Long jump (wind)	Shot put	High jump	400m	110H (wind)	Discus	Pole vault	Javelin	1500m
13.01	5.15m	12.20m	1.54m	60.95	15.77	39.84m	3.40m	37.18m	5:33.42

I still don't like the layout when many of these tables are displayed together like in List of world records in masters athletics#Decathlon, but changing layout will be manageable if there are only a few such templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"Readers first" rule

I want to propose the "readers first" rule, but I wonder if it's ever been done before. Policies and guidelines are no longer enough, and WP:five pillars... I don't know if editors will remember them anymore. --George Ho (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There is an essay at Wikipedia:Readers first. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I have briefly read it. However, it is rarely or not cited in page move discussions. Also, the essay doesn't mention how readers can search certain titles or spell them. --George Ho (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this idea in concept, but its the practical application that I fear will be abused or misused. I too read the essay and I've seen its principles applied to push a POV or misrepresent information. For example, 2 of the suggestions are to "avoid jargon" and to "use common words". In technical articles about science or math, this just isn't feasible. I personally view it as a "dumbing down" of the information for readability sake. We have the benefit of Wikilinks, so virtually anything can be cross linked to additional explanation. I have also seen misuse of this concept in political articles where a particular point is being made and the way its explained supports one particular argument under the guise of "common language". I think we have to accept that we have a myriad of types of people who use the site and not everyone will "understand" or "get" everything in every article. It may require addition reading before the primary article they are interested in becomes clear. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Administrative Appointments Commission

I would welcome input on User:Cenarium/Administrative Appointments Commission, an idea based on the recent discussions and suggestions on reforming RFA. A commission would appoint and reconfirm admins for six months terms, and after two reconfirmations, an admin could request permanent adminship to the community. Cenarium (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Creating automatically links

I have the idea of a bot which links automatically non-linked pages to a specific page by analysing what pages are visited after a specific page (which should be part of the same theme). Example: Many persons which were on the page tree visited after this the page plant to inform also about plants. Because there was no link in tree to plant they had to search for it in the searchbox. The bot would recognize that many persons visit plant after visting tree and turn the already, in the text of tree, existing word "plant" into a link. Is this possible? --Impériale (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

New "vandal stopper" user group

I've been looking at all the talk of unbundling admin rights lately, and I came up with the following idea: Create a user group for stopping vandals, with the rights to block and protect, but with the following restrictions to address concerns raised with ideas similar to this one:

Blocking:

• Vandal stoppers can't deny talk page access when blocking
• Vandal stoppers can't block autoconfirmed accounts
• Vandal stoppers can't hard block IPs
• Vandal stoppers' blocks of IPs expire after a maximum of 31 hours

Protection:

• Vandal stoppers can only use semi-protection and PC1 protection
• Vandal stoppers' protections expire after a maximum of 24 hours

Both:

• Vandal stoppers can't modify or remove blocks or protection set by admins
• All currently-outstanding blocks and protections by vandal stoppers will be viewable on a special page
• Admins can "okay" a vandal-stopper block or protection, which will effectively make the action count as being performed by an admin (removing it from the special page and preventing vandal stoppers from further modifying it)

Thoughts? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. I would find this right to be useful before becoming a full admin. However, do you think the group could be renamed to "vandal fighter"? "Vandal stopper" sounds a bit unprofessional, in my opinion. --Biblioworm 02:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Biblioworm: Vandal fighter was my original idea, but I thought that was too unprofessional and changed it to stopper. I really don't care what color we paint the bike shed, though. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

In principle I think this is a great idea, a limited tool for protection against IP vandals. It's a useful group of editors and I know a number of editors are particularly interested in it. I'm sure there would be a way of getting this done technically. How would someone get such a tool? --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@LT910001: I could write the necessary code for this if we get consensus for it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Fully Support @Jackmcbarn: I fully support this great Idea as this will be a very useful tool for many people who help in fighting and removing vandalism. TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The list of technical privileges is interesting; the social and policy consequences and implications should be further discussed.

How would this toolset be granted or withdrawn? Like rollback? Like regular adminship? Somewhere in between?

Is it the intent that the only situation in which this class of editors will be allowed to use these tools is where there is clear-cut vandalism, as described by WP:VAND? (That would seem to be the intent, but it would be essential to spell this out. Will these editors intervene in content disputes? Should they?)

Note that having blocks that expire on vandalism-only accounts may have undesirable and unwanted side effects. I expect that most experienced editors here can work out the WP:BEANS for themselves.

How useful would this privilege bundle actually be? Looking at the list 500 blocks in the blog log ([4], which coincidentally works out to about 24 hours' worth of blocks) I see only a tiny fraction of blocks that would be technically possible with the proposed toolset. Most blocks of IP addresses are for two or three months as part of the housekeeping to deal with spambots and open proxies, not short blocks for vandalism. Most of the blocks of non-autoconfirmed accounts are indefinite blocks (for vandalism or username issues). Looking at the last 50 entries in the protection log ([5], again, about one day's worth), there's only a couple that run for 24 hours or less.

In other words, it looks like either the vast majority of actions taken by editors with these privileges will have to be immediately revisited and extended by an admin with the full tools anyway, or there will be a massive increase the number of times and situations where we use short-term blocks of IP addresses and semi-protection. Is that sort of shift in the use of tools considered desirable? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)