Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Myers6609 (talk | contribs) at 01:11, 7 January 2009 (→‎Mathematics Article comprehension fix: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts
The proposals section of the village pump is used to discuss new ideas and proposals that are not policy-related (see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) for that).

Recurring policy proposals are listed at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals. If you have a proposal for something that sounds overwhelmingly obvious and are amazed that Wikipedia doesn't have it, please check there first before posting it, as someone else might have found it obvious, too.

Before posting your proposal:

  • Read this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.
  • If the proposal is a change to the software, file a bug at Bugzilla instead. Your proposal is unlikely to be noticed by a developer unless it is placed there.
  • If the proposal is a change in policy, be sure to also post the proposal to, say, Wikipedia:Manual of style, and ask people to discuss it there.
  • If the proposal is for a new wiki-style project outside of Wikipedia, please go to m:Proposals for new projects and follow the guidelines there. Please do not post it here. These are different from WikiProjects.

Introductory Sentence Proposal

I propose to standardize the introductory sentences in all articles across wikipedia into the following format:

[Indefinite/definite article] + [Article title] + [relevant conjugation of the verb ''to be''] + [definition/overview etc.]

(NB: The article may be omitted if it is inappropriate/unnecessary.)

This is an example of a legitimate opening sentence according to my proposal (from the article Apple):

The apple is "the pomaceous fruit of the apple tree, species Malus domestica in the rose family Rosaceae."

Here there is the definite article, followed by the article name, followed by the third person singular conjugation of to be (is), which is then followed by the definition. Another example is given below (from the article Guerrilla warfare):

Guerrilla warfare is "the unconventional warfare and combat with which a small group of combatants use mobile tactics (ambushes, raids, etc.) to combat a larger and less mobile formal army."

Here, the article is omitted, but the article name is there, followed by the third person singular conjugation of to be, followed by the definition (which I have put in quotation marks for emphasis). An example of a sentence which does not conform to my proposal is given below (from the article LaRouche criminal trials):

The criminal trials of the LaRouche movement in the mid-1980s stemmed from federal and state investigations into the activities of American political activist Lyndon LaRouche and members of his movement.

Here, it is not immediately clear what "LaRouche criminal trials" are. The use of "stemmed from" gives no immediate indication of the subject, and to me, assumes previous knowledge of the reader. A better format, in line with my proposal, would be:

The LaRouche criminal trials were "a series of trials occuring in the mid-1980s, which stemmed from federal and state investigations into the activities of American political activist Lyndon LaRouche, and members of his movement."

Here, there is the definite article, the article name (stated word for word for no confusion), and then the third person plural past preterite of to be (which is were). Following this, there is the definition (once again in quotation marks for emphasis).

I think that there are too many cases of topics being started vaguely and ambiguously, when what is needed is the formula for the introductory sentence which I have proposed. This is more than just the Use-mention distinction, it's about starting the topic by defining the word-for-word article name. That is what the introductory sentence should be. It should not be jumping into a discussion about X, without first saying "X is ____." Thanks for any feedback and comments on this proposal, and fingers crossed that it passes. --Paaerduag (talk) 06:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many topics are indeed started vaguely and ambiguously. How is formula the best prophylactic or antidote? Incidentally, is a good article about a particular person one that defines that person? Tama1988 (talk) 08:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that in the case of people, the introductory sentence should outline that which makes the person notable, as 'defining' a person is impossible. But in terms of people, I'd say that pretty much every single article on an individual person already follows the 'formula' (for lack of a better word) that I've given in bold, above. For example, the Michael Jackson article begins thus:
Michael Joseph Jackson (born August 29, 1958) is an American recording artist, entertainer, and businessman.
This sentence follows the 'formula' I gave above. It states the article name (with more detail by adding the middle name, which is fine, although in cases not involving people, I'd say word-for-word transcription of the article name is best), and follows with the correct conjugation of to be, and then an outline of what makes the person notable. My main aim with this proposal isn't about 'defining' as such, so much as it is about a clear and concise introductory sentence using the formula I've given above, which most article employ anyway. It's just a clear "X is ____." I just think that ALL articles should follow this pattern, to maintain consistency across the project. --Paaerduag (talk) 09:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could rewrite the start of Ebonics to for example "Ebonics is a term that was..." but I don't see how that would be an improvement. I fully agree with consistency in, say, the use of terms -- anomie may have this meaning or that one, but its meaning shouldn't slither from the one to the other in the course of your paper -- but I don't see how a requirement for consistency helps here. (Actually it seems a bit fetishistic to me.) Must the readers of Wikipedia be so diligently protected against variation? Tama1988 (talk) 09:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in terms of the Anomie article, it already follows the formula I've made:
Anomie, in contemporary English language, is "a sociological term that signifies in individuals an erosion, diminution or absence of personal norms, standards or values, and increased states of psychological normlessness."
There, the article name is stated, sure there's "in contemporary English language" added, but I'm not against such additions, because overall this already follows, perfectly, my proposal. After the name and the informative addition, the correct conjugation of to be is present, and once again I have put the definition in quotation marks for emphasis. Therefore, the anomie article perfectly conforms to my proposal. We know what 'anomie' is - it is a sociological term. And, never having heard the word before, I immediately knew what it was, after reading the first sentence. Whoever wrote that sentence did a fantastic job :) --Paaerduag (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like instruction creep to me. And there are some few cases where forms of "to be" are expressly avoided so we do not have to have edit wars over whether something "is" or "was". Anomie⚔ 12:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take the instruction creep page as an example. This is the first sentence:
Instruction creep occurs when instructions increase in size over time until they are unmanageable.
Ok, so I know when 'instruction creep' occurs, but do I know what the hell it is? Nope. For that, I have to read on, which defeats the purpose of the introductory sentence, which should succinctly summarize what the article is about, which is usually done by succinctly summarizing what the subject of the article IS - what IS it?. Of course, I know the 'instruction creep' page isn't a proper article, I merely used it to demonstrate the point I'm trying to get at. Also, I'd appreciate if you can give me an example of an article with an "is"/"was" debate - I want to be able to understand this issue firsthand. Thanks. --Paaerduag (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to add that, after reading the instruction creep page, I believe my proposal does follow the KISS prinicpal - It is almost intuitive to start the article in this way. I just wrote a fancy 'formula', but it is really the way almost every single article on wikipedia is started, it is simple, and it makes sense. I think that this simplistic introductory sentence structure should be used on every article, so that right off the bat, people know what the hell the article's subject IS. Not when it occurs, not what it stems from, but what it IS. --Paaerduag (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I know when 'instruction creep' occurs, but do I know what the hell it is? Nope.
What? The line you quoted explicitly defines instruction creep. I'm not sure what problem you're seeing here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
really? Ok, I'll explain by posting the sentence again:
Instruction creep occurs when instructions increase in size over time until they are unmanageable.
Simple question - What is instruction creep? Using ONLY that sentence as the basis for the answer, here goes: Instruction creep is... occurs "when instructions increase in size over time until they are unmanageable". See, I haven't answered the question of what instruction creep IS. I've only answered when it occurs - it occurs "when instructions increase in size over time until they are unmanageable". Sure, I know when it occurs now, but do I know what it is? No, that is answered in the second sentence of the instruction creep article:
It is an insidious disease, originating from ignorance of the KISS principle and resulting in overly complex procedures that are often misunderstood, followed with great irritation, or ignored.
Now I'll ask myself the same question again: what is instruction creep? Answer: Instruction creep is an insidious disease. There, now I know what it is: an insidious disease. How was I supposed to know what it was from the first sentence? Here's a better introductory sentence to the instruction creep article, conforming to my proposal:
Instruction creep is an insidious disease, which occurs when instructions increase in size over time until they are unmanageable.
Do you see where I'm coming from now?--Paaerduag (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Instruction creep is defined by when it occurs, much like saying a millenium is when 1000 years have passed. And, just to be pedantic, adding "insidious" to your example would be a weasel word. ;) — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 03:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the only reason I added "insidious" was because I was being faithful to the actual page, which used the word. Furthermore, as I have stated before, the instruction creep page isn't a proper article page (hence the use of 'insidious' for humorous effect), i merely used it to demonstrate a point. also, your argument that instruction creep is defined by when it occurs is confusing - so what, is instruction creep a unit of time now? Why don't we start the World War II article with: "World War II was 1939-1945."? as you can see, world war II most certainly wasn't 1939-1945, it OCCURED during this time, but you cannot define it as BEING this time. I don't understand where you're coming from.--Paaerduag (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems pointless from where I'm standing. WP:LEAD already explains you should properly define the article subject in the lead. Giving specific instructions won't make it easier, especially when most people haven't got a clue what a "definite article" and a "conjugated verb" are. - Mgm|(talk) 11:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
are you joking? that's Grade 3 knowledge. and as I have stated previously, that is just a 'fancy' representation of this basic formula: X is ______. Y was ______. I don't see what is so over the top, or 'difficult' about "X is _____". and honestly, people on wikipedia are generally quite intelligent, so I think that "X is _____", "Y are ______", "Z were ______" is an understandable structure to most. This is the 'structure' that I'd say 95% of articles start with, so the other 5% have vague, ambiguous openings, which are best avoided on wikipedia. --Paaerduag (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be surprised. While people may know how a sentence is supposed to be built intuitively the specific grammatical terms tend to be forgotten to older one gets. I'm just afraid it tends towards Wikipedia:Instruction creep. Articles with bad openings tend to be bad on a more global level. Wouldn't it be better than instead of turning good writing in a policy or a guideline, to make a project to directly address the issues in relevant articles. - Mgm|(talk) 10:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance your proposal looks good, I would suggest improving about a hundred ledes along this line, akin to what you did for the LaRouche trials lede above, then sit back and wait for responses. Modify, rinse and repeat. If it catches on, then it will become widespread practice and eventually new WP policy.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a terrible proposal. Rôte formulaic boilerplate is no substitute for writing that is the result of intelligent thought, and the latter most certainly should not be changed to the former. One size most definitely does not fit all in this particular instance. Uncle G (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Writing that is the result of intelligent thought"... perhaps too intelligent, if the introductory sentence doesn't even tell an uninformed reader what the hell the article is about? It's fine for academics to edit wikipedia (great even), but when they start assuming knowledge, and starting article with "X does ___" or "In Physics, X shows ___", people won't know what the hell is happening. I.E. what IS X? I think here you're arguing that vague, ambiguous introductory sentences which demand prior knowledge of the subject are better than clear, concise introductory sentences which inform the previously uninformed reader. I think yours is the terrible proposal.--Paaerduag (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That response is nothing but a giant straw man. No-one said anything about academics, for example. What I'm arguing in favour of is writing that is the result of intelligent thought, not straw men of your invention. And what I'm arguing against is your proposal of a one-size-fits all approach that uses rôte formulaic boilerplate, with no thought applied as how best to explain the topic at hand.

      Here's an example of actually putting intelligent thought into things: Qualifiers such as "In X," are necessary for some articles where the same name means different things in different fields, or where the field of knowledge has to be given to ensure that the terminology used in the rest of the introduction has enough context for it to make sense.

      Putting no thought into things, and just using boilerplate formulae for writing, to achieve the not even evidently desirable goal of consistency, is a terrible idea. It's akin to the idea of putting one-size-fits all infoboxes on every article in a given class, again in the name of nothing but consistency. If you want to read several article writers' views on that idea, also applied by rôte by editors who aren't thinking about the specific articles, or even the infoboxes at times, and who are placing consistency ahead of intelligent writing, see User:Geogre/Talk archive 24#Who OWNS what?, User:Geogre/Talk archive 24#Infobox discussion at Philosophy Wikiproject, and the various places linked from them. Uncle G (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree (obviously, I suppose) that specifying a particular formulation (a predicate nominative or predicate adjective) for the opening sentence isn't going to be any kind of aid. We all know what would happen next, don't we? A -bot would go through and change every article "per MoS" or some such (like the one designed to stop overlinking of dates and is now simply removing every link of every date, even if it's to 1696 in literature). The closer we get to -bot written articles, the worse we are as an encyclopedia. That said, I agree (obviously, too), that the proposal is grounded in a real need. We have endless editors who don't know what encyclopedic style is. The proper freedom we have is sometimes a mask for gushing by fans of bands and autobiographers. Therefore I suggest that this be a part of WP:LEDE as a suggestion and as a preference for basic articles. Leave it merely as a guide for the inexpert, but never let it rise to the level of standardizing human communication. Geogre (talk) 12:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; formula shouldn't be imposed on writing style, but it can be a useful aid. It must be clear that this is just one acceptable style, so editors never presume that it is required. —Michael Z. 2009-01-06 14:37 z

Community something about ArbCom

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump/ACFeedback

I propose that rollback links show up next to edits in the recent changes list. Although we might not be able to determine exactly what every edit looks like simply by looking at the list, if we see something like "(←Replaced content with 'BITCH')", or large, red, bold negative numbers in size change with no edit summary, then, the recent changes patrollers with rollback rights can roll it back faster. -- IRP ☎ 17:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is bug 9305. Mr.Z-man 18:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably better not. It's all too easy to accidently click on a link, and unlike most other "adminny" tools, it works instantly. I don't think Special:Recentchanges is all that useful anyway, what with tools like Huggle all around us. Majorly talk 18:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This could be made an option in the preferences. We just have to determine which option should be used by default. Cenarium (Talk) 19:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Off is my preference :-) Majorly talk 19:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this can be something we can add to our monobook? -- IRP ☎ 21:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is enabled at all, it should be through a script, rather than a gadget. It's useful in blatant cases (←Replaced content with 'text'). However, a lot of vandalism isn't so blatant, and could lead to a rise in good-faith IP reverting. I agree with what Majorly said about RC-tools, and the speed of RC, as well. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all gadgets are scripts, Gadgets is just an easier way to turn them on. However, this could potentially be a pretty inefficient script. After the watchlist/rc loads, the script would have to load all the data again from the API to get the rollback token. Mr.Z-man 04:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Large, red, negative changes in page size may also represent the removal of vandalism, even in the absence of an edit summary. Sometimes it's also the result of substantial copyediting. Sometimes a novice editor will inadvertently duplicate a section of the article, and they (or someone else) later fix the error. Please don't rollback these edits on sight at Recentchanges — check the diff first.
Meanwhile, for the 'obvious' bad edits, the conscientious vandalism patroller will click through to the editor's contributions page to check for other, similar vandalism. All the vandal's recent, damaging changes can be rolled back from there, and the vandal can be reported (or blocked) if necessary. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the only place you should be rollbacking edits without checking the diff first is on a vandal's contribs page, after you've confirmed a pattern of abuse. On RC? No. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For myself, I tend to check diffs via popups. Pseudomonas(talk) 11:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Highlighting most sought disambig entries

This has been mildly bothering me for a while now, and I thought I'd mention it and see if others felt the same way. I often use Wikipedia to help solve crossword puzzles, and frequently face clues like "Pop singer Jones". This leads me to the disambiguation page, List_of_people_with_surname_Jones#Music where I see a list of everybody named Jones involved in music. That's fine of course, but obviously some of the people listed are going to be more prominent or famous that all of the others, and thus more likely to be who myself or other readers are looking for.

Another example is the disambiguation page for Buffalo#United States, which lists 29 different US cities named Buffalo. I know that one of them is a quite large city and home to the Buffalo Sabers, but I (as a Canadian) had no idea which one, and no way of finding out short of trying each link (or using Google—I've since added a "Largest US city name Buffalo" description).

It would be great if there was some clear way of highlighting those disambiguation entries on the list that a reader is most likely after, for example using bold face for the link. Obviously a danger here is creating arguments about whether borderline entry X is prominent enough to deserve highlighting or not, but Buffalo, Oklahoma with a population of 1200 is quite clearly less prominent than Buffalo, New York (apologies to any of the 1200 Oklahoma Buffalonians who may be reading this...)

I've cross-posted to Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Highlighting_most_sought_disambig_entries; please comment there if you're interested. --jwandersTalk 08:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about just expanding the description? Towns could have population added, plus if they're a state capital, home to a notable sports team or whatever. I think just bolding the 'most important' listings will just lead to a lot of arguments, or lists in which 2/3 are bold. --Helenalex (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This would be extremely complicated. Have you tried easier crosswords? -:) — Blue-Haired Lawyer 03:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality disputed - why?

Proposal: Add "reason", "bias" or "views" to Template:POV.

What it should look like: 

The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page. (February 2008)
Bias towards          |          Views not adequately represented
Keynesianism          |          Adamsians, Furries, Pastafarians
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

My shot at it as a HTML comment. Add some CSS, should be fine q: --Sigmundur (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale: Take Supply-side economics as an example, just saying that neutrality of a totally random article (from a casual viewer's point of view) has been accused as biased doesn't really say much. Is it too liberal/conservative? Rich north / poor south -bias, maybe? Adamsians enraged by the ridiculous claims of the Keynesians, or *gasp*, vice versa? No way to tell. To me, arguing about bias in an article about supply-side economics is like... well... claiming there exists a way in the first place to take a definite stance on such dictionary issues. Just check this list out. Can an article about Puzzle Bobble be biased, honestly?

I see there is indeed a Template:POV-because. It's not documented though, it seems; also, use of "biased" without explanation should be discouraged in general. --Sigmundur (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing more annoying than having a bias template added to an article you've worked on, then having to chase up the person who added it to find out what they actually mean. Having said that, I'm not sure if this template will fully solve this problem. It's not always obvious how an article is biased, even if the direction of bias is stated. Is there any way that people adding this template could be made to add an explanation on the talk page? --Helenalex (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None that I can think of, which is why I remove such tags if an explanation isn't provided on the talk page within 24 hours, at most. If an editor doesn't have the courtesy to explain what they mean, I feel no obligation to waste time trying to mindread. - BanyanTree 06:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While we can't make editors add explanations of POV templates, we could enforce a "explain or delete" alternative. Specifically, we could have a bot check to see if an editor had posted to the article talk page within (say) 2 hours of posting a {{POV}} template to an article, and if not, the bot could (a) remove the template, and (b) post a note on the editor's user talk page, mentioning the deletion and saying that the editor is welcome to repost the template if he/she also posts an explanation. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would support such a bot task. - BanyanTree 10:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's background image

Hi guys! Just wondering, could we possibly improve on our background image (File:Headbg.jpg)? Firstly, would it not be better to have it as a png file, rather than a jpg? Secondly, it seems to have a mauve tinge; wouldn't it be better to have it in greyscale? Worst of all, it seems to have a large amount of square-like shapes, which are probably compression artefacts. For all the effort put into WP:FP, it seems sensible that our second-most visible picture shouldn't contain so many easily fixed faults? Anxietycello (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can tell you that it looks pretty awful on a widescreen monitor, so yes I would approve of some enhancements if possible. --.:Alex:. 20:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it. Dendodge TalkContribs 21:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would PNG be preferred? JPG is generally used for images of real things.... --MZMcBride (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - those JPG artefacts are hard to get out without getting rid of the 'pages' effect, and photoshop doesn't like me ATM, so I'll leave it to someone more skilled than myself. Dendodge TalkContribs 22:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Headbg on Wikipedia is a smooth, continuous-tone image, so I think JPEG makes sense, even if it's not a photo. I believe the colored tinge is intentional. The compression artifacts are probably more visible at low resolutions, but I think because it's "in the background" they prioritized filesize over appearance. But it loads once and gets cached, so I really think we could afford to up the quality a bit - I'd advise you to track down the person who has the original full-quality image. Dcoetzee 20:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Commons' tag on image pages

Another proposal: On our image pages, could we have a small tag at the top of the page saying 'commons', which, when clicked, would lead to the commons' image page (when existent)? Exactly like on commons, where there's a little tag 'en', which leads to the English Wikipedia's page describing the file.

It would act as a compliment to the template automatically generated beneath the image when commons holds the image but we don't (but isn't generated when both we and commons hold an identically named image). It would make it much easier to spot when {{ncd}} needs to be placed, and would save having to scroll to find the template below. - Anxietycello (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template is hardcoded at MediaWiki:Sharedupload. We could perhaps add an icon to the top right (say, the Commons icon) to allow faster acknowledgement that the image resides on Commons, not locally, but that does nothing for spotting when {{ncd}} is appropriate, as you have to scroll down to look at the licensing tag. Not sure what you mean by the "little en tag" that leads to Wikipedia, though... EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The more I considered it, the more I thought it was a good enough idea to just be bold and do it. You can see it at File:WTN EVula 187.jpg. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool that looks good, yeah. But it wasn't what I meant. I meant the labels above the window that, when logged out on commons, read "File, Discussion, Edit, History, check usage, find categories, log, purge, en" It was the last "en" tag and its functionality that I had my eyes on. But your way of doing it would work just as well, if you could get the File:Commons-logo.svg to link to the commons' image page (instead of the commons main page)? Anxietycello (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would love it if the icon was a link to the file's Commons page; however, I couldn't get the magic word to work properly. Adding that tab is outside my admittedly somewhat feeble skills with MediaWiki scripts, so I'll leave it to someone better... EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about replacing the line:
default [[commons:Main Page|This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons.]]
with
default [[commons:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}|This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons.]]
or
default [{{fullurl:commons:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}}} This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons.]
Not sure if either would work, my skills are probably even more feeble. Anxietycello (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first line is similar to what I was trying (PAGENAMEE, and no NAMESPACE), and got me a giant red "Error: invalid title in link at line 3". The second got me "Error: no valid link was found at the end of line 3". EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about:
default [[commons:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}|This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons.]]
If that doesn't work, I'm stumped. Anxietycello (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I think it just doesn't handle magic words. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To use the magic words, you need to switch to the {{#tag: … }} format for the ImageMap, as the <imagemap> tag form doesn't accept magic words or template inputs. I wrote a tutorial for ImageMap a while ago that might be useful. Better yet, use the |link= bit in ordinary image syntax that now exists. Oh, and while you're at it, would you please move the Commons-icon so that it doesn't screw with the featured image icon (e.g. as on File:1Mcolors.png)? {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 16:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Namespace drop-down list in Special:Log/delete

Sometimes I go through the deletion log to see if any recently-deleted articles have been recreated. It can get complicated when the log is a huge list of user talk pages or images that are not likely to be recreated. I propose adding a drop-down list to the deletion log page, as we have on other special pages such as watchlists, so that the reader can focus on an individual namespace. ... discospinster talk 14:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See bugzilla:14711 for details on why this isn't enabled. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom reform idea

I've started brainstorming on a reform idea for ArbCom at User:Kirill Lokshin/ArbCom 2.0; it's still in a very early stage, but any comments would be appreciated! Kirill 19:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency for naming character lists

Has there been any attempt to make a consistent naming scheme for the articles in Category:Lists of fictional characters by medium? I'm seeing everything from "List of ______ characters" to "List of characters in _________" with no consistency either way. I would like to see some sort of consensus form in one direction or the other, but don't know where to start. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual of Style? Naming conventions? I'd love to see this settled once and for all (in fact I'd like to see whether they constitute lists at all or not). --.:Alex:. 20:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disabling indexing of non-content namespaces

There's an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#NOINDEX of all non-content namespaces regarding disabling indexing of non-content namespaces. Comments would be appreciated. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting up some admin rights for bot use only

Now, as nearly everyone knows, splitting up the admin rights has been debated to death and deserves its spot on WP:PEREN (if its not there already), but I feel we need to revisit it one last time, from an angle I don't believe has been discussed before; splitting up some rights for bot use only. As many people are aware, getting an admin bot its userrights can run into a whole bunch of comunity issues, from fears that the bot's password can be found out (and thus compromising an admin account) and concerns that the bot will be the next Skynet, blocking all the users or protecting all the pages. My idea would be to split up some of the rights that adminbots use (delete and editprotected I think are the main ones) and allow crats to assign only the relevant rights to the bot's accounts. This has various advantages over giving a bot an admin account:

  1. The bot does not have access to rights outside of it's specific area (i.e. DYKadminBot can only edit protected pages and can't go on a rampage blocking all the editors or protecting all the pages, if a bug was present or if its owner wished to utilise the bot's bot flag to do some damage)
  2. A compromised bot account would not allow the compromiser access to the whole set of admin tools, only a small portion, limiting damage if this were to happen (i.e. If RedirectCleanupBot were to have its account compromised, the compromiser can only delete pages, he/she cannot block people)
  3. Currently, a bot with admin rights are generally only run by an administrator, the problem with that is that many gifted bot writers do not wish to be an admin and/or do not want to write a bot and have an admin constantly checking the code and not revealing the bot's credentials to the coder (It could be potentially very frustrating to the coder). With this, if DYKadminBot's owner was not an admin and went on a rampage, what can they do? Edit protected pages. Hardly as damaging as being able to delete this page or blocking that guy.

We would, of couse, in classic Wikipedian style, need to debate over all the little bits of policy that need to be created, but I believe that this has some great potential. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 00:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really an issue. A bot is much more reliable than a human, in that, as long as it's programmed properly, it will only do what it's told. Adminbots get enough scrutiny at BAG to avoid any of these errors. Splitting the flag is solving a problem that isn't really there. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou Peter for your input, although I must point out that your point only addresses advantage #1, do you have any views on the other advantages? Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How likely is it that the bot would be compromised? About as likely as you or I were to be. That is, not very likely at all. Ability to edit protected pages can be very damaging. Consider MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Sitenotice, as two examples. Majorly talk 01:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both of which cannot be edited with editprotected, you need editinterface to change Mediawiki: pages. Administrators have the protect (which includes editprotected) and editinterface which can cause some confusion. Also, editing people's .css and .js files is another seperate userright (I think its editusercssjs or something like that) Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: Also, it should be noted that only pages protected manually are editable via editprotected Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting them would be nice, but you can't split them in useful ways. For example, it would be nice for ImageRemovalBot to be able to edit protected pages, but the risk from giving it admin rights there isn't that ImageRemovalBot will go on a rampage and block people, but that it will remove an image from the main page or something similarly inappropriate. There's no "Edit any protected page except the Main Page and pages transcluded on it" right that you can give it. --Carnildo (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, do you think that security (regarding compromises) and non-admin ability to run these bots are useful advantages? Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Compromising of any account is bad. In addition, even if the operator is not an admin, it would probably still not be accepted by the community, as the bot has higher rights than the operator. I oppose this request due to that, and the point last given by Carnildo. Xclamation point 01:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But still if an image needs to be removed, the being on the main page should not would not make it a special case. — CharlotteWebb 20:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, for that particular example there is: The editprotected right does not grant the ability to edit cascade-protected pages, which includes Main Page and everything transcluded in it. Anomie⚔ 03:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a nice proposal, but a lot of it hinges on the what-if of "compromised account oh noes!" In actuality, however, it isn't a particularly high-risk scenario, so I can't quite get behind it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • An adminbot programmed to edit a protected template is very, very, very highly unlikely to go a blocking spree. I have a higher chance of deleting the Main Page again than DYKAdminBot going on a blocking spree. butterfly (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, this is probably a waste of time/not cost-effective:
  • While 1 and 2 are good computing practices, I'm not sure we'd gain much.
  • Re: #1: How many times has a runaway admin bot done damage in the last, say, 3 years? How many times would a runaway non-admin-bot wrecked havoc had it been an admin bot? If all the runaway bots were admin bots, what would the overall cleanup cost have been?
  • Re: #2: Now many times in the last 3 years has an administrative account been compromised? How many times has a bot account been compromised? How much overall damage was done? What was the time and effort needed to repair that damage?
  • Now compare those cleanup costs with the time and effort needed to adopt this proposal.
  • Regarding #3, how often do non-admin bot writers have to get the assistance of admins, and how many times are they discouraged because they don't have admin rights to test their bots? Oh, and as for blocking Jimbo Wales, everyone above the level of Admin should have their account blocked for an hour a month just to remind them of what it feels like to be blocked. Admins should be blocked for 5 minutes a month for the same reason. OK just kidding there. Remind me never to delete the main page between March 33rd and March 31st of the next year.
  • davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely put david. As Peter says above, there is really no need for such splitting, compromised accounts are always bad and some admin using an admin bot to run havoc is not worse than the admin running havoc themselves. And as said, why would we give someone's bot more trust than we give them? If they are not trusted to be admins, I don't see why they should be able to code a bot that is trusted to be (part-)admin. So nice idea but it fixes a problem that does not really exist, so why bother? Regards SoWhy 09:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the main benefit of doing this proposed splitting for bots would be increasing people's trust and faith in adminbots. I am known to not be a big fan of adminbots; I like to know that people are in charge and not machines (I don't even trust my car's cruise control when driving 14 hours on the freeway). However, if adminbots lost the capability to block, I would trust them a lot more. Useight (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally find blocking more damaging than deleting, just because I find it more "personal". I was once blocked because I was too new to know the importance of using edit summaries and edited a page that several vandals were editing. I got blocked with the crowd. When I got blocked I was thinking, "Oh man, how do I fix this?" and my mind was racing. I've also had articles deleted and it was far more of a "shrug that off" or "chalk that up to a learning experience". Basically, I think a good editor would be much more prone to walk away from Wikipedia if he was temporarily blocked than if his page was deleted. Whether this is accurate or not is a matter of opinion, but that's the way I see it. And since vandals are a dime a dozen while good editors are like gold, I'd rather have the bot in charge of the item I personally deem less likely to cause good editors to leave. Also, sorry for the delayed response; I'm enjoying the final week of my vacation. Useight (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'm not against it, I just see it as pointless. A bot runs from a code, so if the code had no mention of Special:BlockIP at all, then there's no way that the bot could possibly block anyone. Despite Skynet, bots on WP genuinely can't think for themselves, so an adminbot will run the scripts it's programmed to follow. With the recent Lustiger Seth RfA, he passed despite there being no technical way of splitting his administrative rights. If one fear adminbots, one might as well fear any admin; but a human administrator is a lot more likely to go nuts than a bot. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adminbot group

It may be useful to create a unified 'adminbot' usergroup, which has all user rights that current 'bot' and 'sysop' usergroups have (possibly, except 'block'). Accounts can be assigned to this group and removed from it by 'bureaucrats'. Creation of such a group will streamline bot's management. Currently it is rather complicated: a bureaucrat needs to add a bot to both 'bot' and 'sysop' groups. And only a 'steward' can desysop a bot. Ruslik (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As above, why is this necessary? Do we have a situation where the stewards are being inundated with desysop requests for rogue admin bots? No. Do we have a situation where we're being innundated with rogue adminbots using the block function? No. Solution in search of a problem. Happy‑melon 19:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is ironic because the first earliest recognized adminbots specialized in blocking. I think the only appeal here is the inherent scariness of the word . — CharlotteWebb 20:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah; I don't really see any need for this. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing about the idea of an adminbot group that I like is that it would be entirely in the hands of the local bureaucrats. But I'm still at a bit of a loss as to why it's necessary... EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scan uploaded files for malware

I propose that, to decrease the risk of Wikipedia being used to spread malware and getting bad press as a result, all uploaded files in potentially vulnerable formats be scanned for malware (not necessarily at the time of upload) and, though not deleted, tagged if they test positive. MediaWiki could give each file one of the following four notices:

  1. This version of this file last tested negative for malware on {date}. It is of a format that can contain malware, and the scan may not have detected malware that was new on that date.
  2. This version of this file tested positive for malware on {date}. {program} detected the following malware in it: {bulleted list, with links to descriptions}
  3. This version of this file is awaiting a scan for malware. It is of a format that can contain malware.
  4. This file will not be scanned for malware. It is believed to be of a safe format.

A client bot could do this, but it would leave open the possibility of vandalism changing a positive to negative or vice-versa.

NeonMerlin 04:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia does not permit uploading executable files. Files are already automatically screened to make sure that their file type matches their extension. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No file type accepted by WMF has the potential to contain malware, as far as I know. Dcoetzee 05:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In short, everything would get notice #4. --Carnildo (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PDF has malware capability. — neuro(talk) 08:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So does JPEG, for users of Windows XP and older whose GDI+ library is unpatched. NeonMerlin 02:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scanning uploads for known exploits for render-engine holes &c. - fine, but we shouldn't tell downloaders that we've scanned - it's too much like a guarantee and we should let them make their own arrangements as well. Pseudomonas(talk) 11:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic edit summary without AES arrow

How come all automatic edit summaries have AES arrows except for the automatic edit summary for reverting an edit? I propose that "Reverted edits by Vandal (talk) to last version by Editor" be changed to "←Reverted edits by Vandal (talk) to last version by Editor". -- IRP ☎ 16:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll on 'trial' implementation of FlaggedRevisions

The discussion on the implementation of a 'trial' configuration of FlaggedRevisions on en.wiki has now reached the 'straw poll' stage. All editors are invited to read the proposal and discussion and to participate in the straw poll. Happy‑melon 17:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Community announcements

Hi, let me be clear, I do not have any sort of annoucements for the Wikipedia community but Wikipedia has loads. Fund-raising, FlaggedRevs, Wikipedia 1.0, 10 Million articles, et cetera. I searched through the Pump archives and found nothing on this. Users do not sign up because they are not interested. When are you guys going to insist to us users/editors how interesting Wikipedia is by sending some messages to our talk pages. I am aware of Signpost but that is a hefty item. Some stuff such as what I mentioned above obviously transcends asking for a weekly digest. I think you guys who make announcements on the community portal page should collaborate with Arbcom and announce anything of signifigance on a mini barnstar type template with a nice big Community Portal signature. People will edit lots of stuff and rarely if ever look at the portal page and yet some irregular stuff would be nice to hear. Some people will look through half the wiki without even looking at half the main page. If I sign up for a specific project I will get announcements occasionally as applys. I like it and would welcome any announcements from the Community Project as well just because it is interesting. ~ R.T.G 02:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move all noticeboards to consistent subpages

There has been an update to inputbox that makes searching subpages much more streamlined (see here). I'd like to propose that most (if not all) noticeboards be moved to subpages (or pages with similar prefixes) of a few pages. All of the village pumps and their archives begin with Wikipedia:Village pump, so there's no problem there, and several others are already subpages of WP:AN. I'd like to move the rest to either Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/ or Wikipedia:Noticeboard/. So, for example, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard would be Wikipedia:Noticeboard/Biographies of living persons. The naming is just reversed, but it makes searching for previous problems worlds-simpler. The idea is that if you encounter an issue with an editor or article (or any noun), you can easily search multiple noticeboards and archives at once to see if there is a previous point of reference. This would be especially useful for the WP:RNBs, the names of which are all over the place. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, take a look at Template:Editabuselinks. And this would only really be helpful for the ones that contain discussions and/or archives. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So either nobody cares or nobody has any clue what I'm talking about? Both? I don't need a response, I just wanted to make sure that the idea won't make the 'pedia explode. I'm still going to go the normal route as far as proposing renaming, as I have already proposed with the Community sanction noticeboard and its archives. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthouse notability

We have hundreds of articles on lighthouses, but there is no notability guideline for them. The current policy seems to be that simply being a lighthouse makes it notable. There's obviously some hobbyist niche that absolutely adores lighthouses, but do we really believe that every lighthouse in the world in inherently notable enough for an article? Most of these lighthouse articles look good, but only consist of technical information and a section on its (local) history. Your grandfather's barn is not notable just because you know its history and dimensions. --Remurmur (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to think that a functioning manned lighthouse, one that was functioning as a manned lighthouse until the late 20th century, or a lighthouse that has been maintained or restored as a museum or tourist attraction rather than left to rot or be dismantled, very likely meets general notability requirements, even if it's only because there are likely to be significant-sized blurbs about them multiple in tourist-oriented books. If they were decommissioned or automated in the very late-20th century or 21st century, then there was very likely significant press coverage when they were decommissioned or automated. Others might meet notability requirements, either as lighthouses, as landmarks, or for one or more events that happened near there. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a proposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (buildings, structures, and landmarks) that would cover lighthouses. I would also consider any lighthouse that is a registered historical place to be notable. The key here is that notability must be shown outside of the local area. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 23:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If notability must be shown outside of the local area then the formal criterion of registered historic place will only apply to jurisdictions where designations are awarded on the national (federal) level. Anyway, national practices differ, one government or municipality will issue a hundred of landmark certificates where another would issue none. NVO (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They don't need any special treatment (what current policy did you refer to? they just don't attract as much attention as Japanese cartoons). If it ain't broke... and if it is, either fix or AFD, one at a time. A special policy extension might be justified for high-traffic, high-exposure topics, but here it's not called for. The sad story of failed guidelines on buildings, transportation etc. has shown that they aren't needed (compare page traffic on the guideline cited above with, for example, WP:ATHLETE). NVO (talk) 08:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Introductions

Wikipedia should be easy to use, and contain clear definitions of each topic.

The introduction of each article should be the clear definition of each topic.


It should be clear, concise, and able to be freestanding. It should be neutral in tone, and give an simple, complete, gramatically positive definition of the topic.


It should answer the 7 journalistic base questions in a clear manner-

who, what, why, when, where, which, how

In a clear, simple, understandable way.


==
It should not include expository or derivative elements, including:
trivia, heavy statistics, overly tedious detail, loaded adjectives, criticism, opinion, negation definitions, or quotes from secondary sources or media,

and ideally be easily interpreted, and able to stand free of derivative definitions, including obscure references, excessive internal linking, or external references.


==

The elements of a concise encyclopedia definition should be clear in the introduction.

Any expository or elaborating elements kept in the body of the article.


It should be more of a light, illuminating the subject,

than a pile of trivial or redundant information crowding the subject.


The introduction should also be topographically flat, user-friendly, easy to grasp, and clear, and not requiring extra foreknowledge about the topic.

In this way, all entries are accessible and understandable to all readers.


To have comprehensiveness of entries is fine, but it should also be user friendly, accessible and lightweight for users who want a definition, not to be intimidated by a mass of information on each topic.

Wikipedia should still be able to function as an encyclopedia, rather than theses on each topic.


==

The proposal is for standard guidelines for Clear Introductions for each topic, functioning as free-standing encyclopedia definitions.


Any expository elements should be relegated to the body of the articles.


In this way, people can use to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, rather than only a set of theses on each topic.


-AthenaO (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "topographically flat" - that's, indeed, "simple, understandable way" :)). Suggestion: take an existing featured article that, in your opinion, has a faulty lead, and present your version. Show how your "topographically flat" approach improves it (or not). NVO (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]




Clear Introductions

Examples


Apple

New Clear Introduction:

The apple is the fruit of the apple tree. It is one of the most widely cultivated tree fruits in the world. It grows mainly in temperate regions, in moderate climates.

The tree originated from Central Asia, where the wild ancestor of all modern apples, the wild crab apple, is still found today. The fruit was consumed by humans since the Stone Age, and cultivated in large scale in about 2500 BCE. It is one of the first fruits cultivated for human consumption. There are more than 7,500 known types of apples cultivated in the world today.

Apples are grown mainly in orchards, on the continents of Asia and North America as the main sources of supply. At least 55 million tonnes of apples were grown worldwide in 2005, with a value of about $10 billion. About 35% of this total was produced in China, the leading producer, and 7.5% in the United States, as the second leading worldwide producer. Apples are also grown in other countries, including in Europe.

The common apple (M. sylvestris) is the best known and is commercially the most important temperate fruit in the world today.

==

Original:

The apple is the pomaceous fruit of the apple tree, species Malus domestica in the rose family Rosaceae. It is one of the most widely cultivated tree fruits. The tree is small and deciduous, reaching 3 to 12 metres (9.8 to 39 ft) tall, with a broad, often densely twiggy crown.[1] The leaves are alternately arranged simple ovals 5 to 12 cm long and 3–6 centimetres (1.2–2.4 in) broad on a 2 to 5 centimetres (0.79 to 2.0 in) petiole with an acute tip, serrated margin and a slightly downy underside. Blossoms are produced in spring simultaneously with the budding of the leaves. The flowers are white with a pink tinge that gradually fades, five petaled, and 2.5 to 3.5 centimetres (0.98 to 1.4 in) in diameter. The fruit matures in autumn, and is typically 5 to 9 centimetres (2.0 to 3.5 in) diameter. The center of the fruit contains five carpels arranged in a five-point star, each carpel containing one to three seeds.[1]

The tree originated from Central Asia, where its wild ancestor is still found today. There are more than 7,500 known cultivars of apples resulting in range of desired characteristics. Cultivars vary in their yield and the ultimate size of the tree, even when grown on the same rootstock.[2]

At least 55 million tonnes of apples were grown worldwide in 2005, with a value of about $10 billion. China produced about 35% of this total.[3] The United States is the second leading producer, with more than 7.5% of the world production. Turkey, France, Italy and Iran are among the leading apple exporters.

==

From- too much information, to- just enough

==

Gala Apple

New Clear Introduction:

Gala is a type of apple. It originated in New Zealand in the 1920s. It is a cross between two types of apple, the Golden Delicious and Kidd's Orange Red apple. It is now grown in many parts of the world, and is often available year-round in supermarkets.

The gala apple typically has red skin, with light yellow stripes, sometimes with shades of yellow and green, and has a mild and sweet flavor.

It is one of the most widely grown apple varieties in the world, in part because of its uniformity of flavor, durability, and availability year-round. It needs a warm temperate climate to grow best, and can be supplied from growers in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres. The United States, New Zealand, and Australia are the currently the major producers and exporters of the fruit.

==

Original:

Gala is a cultivar of apple with a mild and sweet flavor.

==

From- too little information, to- just enough

==

Standards for Clear Introductions

The introductions should have uniformity, of information, length, and completeness.

The subject of the article should be able to be understood completely in the introduction only.


One model is a standard encyclopedic definition, which is generally clear and simple, and can be read and understood in less than a minute.

A second standard model is the standard essay, which contains a clear, broad, easy to understand introductory paragraph, which covers the breadth of the topic discussed in the rest of the essay in a complete manner.

Another model for covering a lengthy subject is the standard 250 word abstracts in standard medical and scientific articles, which contain a standard set of information. and the most important and main points of the article. The subject can be completely understood by the abstract only.


There should be a clear set of information in the introduction of each article, so that users can reliably read a complete definition of the subject in the introduction.

The exposition is supplementary, and should not need to be searched in order to get the basic information and comprehension of the topic.


So, the introduction is to be clear and definitive.

All of the information following, in the body of the article, is supplementary and expository.


-AthenaO (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


==


The point being

that the introductions need to have a clear format.

They should reliably communicate a complete set of information about the topic.


Too many articles resemble a black hole of expository and elaborated information

and Wikipedia cannot function as a lightweight encyclopedia in this way.


The format needs to be cleaned up so that the introduction can function as a complete definition.

The exposition should be separated into the body of the articles.

This would probably go under the Manual of Style for Introduction or lead formatting.


-AthenaO (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... sounds like you're looking for something like the Simple English Wikipedia, which might be getting closed. Go here to voice your opinion on whether it should be closed or not. flaminglawyerc 03:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


No, it's not Simple English Wiki. The introductions of the standard Wikipedia should have a reliable set of information about the topic.


This is to standardize the introductions,

in a clear, understandable way.


Right now, there is too much variation between introductions of articles, and there is not a clear set of information that can be found about each topic in the introduction.

Some are 1 sentence. Some are 8 paragraphs, containing excess elements. Some articles do not have introductions at all.

Many of the articles on Wikipedia are becoming very elaborative, and while it's ok to elaborate on topics, there should still be a clear encyclopedic definition for each topic.


The proposal is to have the introduction of each article, contain a clear, definite set of information about the topic.


-AthenaO (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Editing Format

The editing function should be true-to form,

including having the same format, font, spacing, linking, and elements as the posted article.

HTML and code is too obscure and not user friendly for many users.

It should be formatted as closer to word processing and normal true-to form text-editing, requiring fewer steps and abstraction in formatting for editing.

==

Also, the toolbar should include: lists, and other functions in edit and formatting, all the way to the end of the bar.

The 'internal link' should allow for specificity, possibly by including a drop-down list of the articles in disambiguation for the term.

==

Other formatting of the editing page can be simplified for ease of use, trueness to form, and versatility in editing.


-AthenaO (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with doing this is that hosting a Wordpress-style WYSIWYG AJAX editing window like the one that you describe would be substantially more costly than the present one (I assume that's what you're getting at). While there is work in progress to implement just that, it's a long way from completion and would require implementation elsewhere before it gets rolled out here. That said, the language used here is far, far simpler than HTML and implementing what you're asking for would also carry with it substantial drawbacks. The pages at present are, syntactically-speakin', clean, consistent, and relatively simple due to the artificial constraints imposed by requiring manual editing of the internal MediaWiki syntax. Going away from that will result in far more frequent deviations in terms of style and formatting and might undermine the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. MrZaiustalk 08:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Until MediaWiki produces such an editor, you can use wikiED, which has pretty much all of the stuff you listed. flaminglawyerc 06:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


That looks closer, although still not true-to form. It looks like mostly programmer or abstract creation types would be comfortable with the current editing format. It would be nice to have a clear and more user-friendly editing format in the future.

-AthenaO (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

new shortcut namespaces

Wouldn't it be nice to have more shortcut namespaces like WP: and WT:? Currently, the WP: namespace is amazing because it shortens how much you type by just that little bit. It's so much easier to type [[WP:OR]] than to type [[Wikipedia:OR]], just because it's 7 characters shorter. So I propose to make a U: shortcut for the current User: namespace, T: for Talk:, UT: for User talk:, TP: for Template:, TT: for Template talk:, I: / F: for Image: / File:, IT: / FT: for Image talk: / File talk:, etc. (I can't think of any more namespaces; add any more suggestions below) Note that this would also free up some space in signatures (← Look at that! I just used a WP: shortcut! That was so easy!) and pretty much everything else you can think of. flaminglawyerc 06:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk: really is a keyboard-full, it's a good idea. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately TT:Foo doesn't go where you think it should... :( Happy‑melon 10:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want some of these, please go vote for Template:Bug, for P: and T: Happy‑melon 10:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, how often do any of those other namespaces need to be linked? For Template, {{tl}} is normally used instead, and "TT" is already taken for Template talk. Any shortcut for categories would really only be useful if it did not require the leading colon. The rest in my experience are so short or need links so infrequently that typing the extra characters is not particularly onerous. Anomie⚔ 15:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been wanting this for awhile now, actually. It just makes getting to these pages just that little bit easier. It's annoying have shortcuts for project pages, but not related templates too. It would definitely help though. --.:Alex:. 16:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to close Simple English Wikipedia

I don't know if this is old news to everyone, but there is currently (and for a while now) a discussion about closing the Simple English Wikipedia at Meta (meta:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English (2) Wikipedia). Would this be inappropriate to add to Template:Cent, as it isn't directly about EN and it doesn't link to our project? I think it would impact EN were it to close, as it impacts EN being open. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And not-as-relevant, meta:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English (2) Wiktionary. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was on there, then it acquired an inactivity streak of 4 days. So it got taken off. flaminglawyerc 00:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that makes sense. That must have been where I saw it in the first place. BTW, on an only slightly-related note, there is a proposal to de-sysop Jimbo on Meta. Meta is one crazy-wacky place. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 16:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should become a paid web host

Wikipedia should become a paid web host. This means wikipedia won't have to ask for donations anymore. The wikipedia.org site should not promote your own webhost to keep things neutral and you should have a seperate domain name that doesn't sound like wikipedia and doesn't have the word wiki in it.

You should offer dedicated servers and dedicated servers in a cluster using private racks(one or more servers connected together running as one) and shared servers.

The difference between your web host could be that every server has unlimited monthly bandwidth, because wikipedia knows how expensive bandwidth is, so you could maybe build your own underground/underwater cables so you can offer unlimited bandwidth. Danielspencer2 (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wha...? I'm not understanding what you're saying. Are you saying that Wikipedia should start a web hosting company as a side-business to make money? If so, then Wikipedia wouldn't be a non-profit, which would probably repel visitors. And think about it - if Wikipedia started a hosting company, it wouldn't be any different than any of the others out there. It wouldn't make very much money (not as much as they get from donations, anyway). flaminglawyerc 03:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are aware about the profits hosting companies make. a simple google search shows they make millions each year. Danielspencer2 (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something makes money doesn't mean that the Wikimedia Foundation should do it. By that logic, they should also open up McDonald's franchises.
Personally, I'd rather they implement op-in ads so that those of us that don't mind seeing them can help bring in more cash. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding lyrics to song articles

I think that lyrics should be added to songs to help people understand references to lyrics and so that they can understand what the song is about (though the lyrics). I have wondered why this has not already happened, it would be very helpful to many people. (Edit: Which part of that WP:NONFREE does it fall under? And what about if it is an interpretation of the lyrics and is not copied from any website? --Somebody You Do Not Know (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)) (Edit: Well then at least adding under external links a link to a copy of the lyrics?) --Somebody You Do Not Know (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC) --Somebody You Do Not Know (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has to do with copyright issues — chandler — 04:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, see WP:NONFREE. A lot of public domain songs DO have lyrics, and a lot of songs have part of the lyrics is they are commented on. But asking this is like asking for a recording of it...which obviously isn't going to happen in most cases. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the section of NONFREE that is applicable, see "Unacceptable uses" for text - lyrics are copyrighted so full or significant duplication of them are not allowed. You can use interpretation of lyrics from reliable sources as long as you source them, but you cannot write your own interpretation per original research --MASEM 05:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In respect to your later question, you can link them if the site that you are linking is legally licensed to display the lyrics. Sometimes official band websites host lyrics. Sometimes sites like MTV host lyrics. You can't link to the sites that host them illegally per WP:LINKVIO. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases I have added a brief description (say one or two sentences) of the lyrics to a song article; as long as your description is manifestly obvious it's not likely to violate Wikipedia:No original research. Any real analysis has to be cited to a reliable source. Dcoetzee 20:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed on a couple other Wikipedias, IP editors have links at the top right corner of the page, similar to those that logged in users have (see nl:Main Page). These include links to the IP's userpage, talk page, contributions, and the standard login link. I'd like to see this adopted here. 68.220.210.50 (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. Rgoodermote  16:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there's a way to do this currently... I'd like for there to be a way to specify a link so that the page that includes the link doesn't show up on the "What links here" page for the page that is linked to. This would be useful for the production of content (e.g. project-level alerts) that could show up in multiple places (e.g., project banners) that contain links to articles, users and other pages. I request this to avoid potential "What links here" clutter.

A couple ideas off the top of my head for how this might work:

  1. Allow a symbol specified at the beginning of a link to turn it into a phantom link, like so: [[&Abraham Lincoln]].
  2. Create an enclosing tag that would render all links within to be phantom, like so: <phantom>[[Abraham Lincoln]] was a U.S. [[President of the United States|President]]</phantom>.

I'm open to other approaches on this, but I think we could eventually have too much "What links here" clutter in some articles at some point if we don't do something. Also I think this would be a useful approach for user pages, sandboxes and the like. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tool to find when (and by whom) specific text was added to an article

I had asked this question at WP:Helpdesk on April 15, 2008:

Is there an easier way to find when a particular phrase was added to an article? I currently look through the history and the only way I know of is to continue clicking "older edit" until I find what I am looking for. Searching the FAQ Archives, I came across the freeware called WhodunitQuery, but I was hoping Wikipedia had its own tool to do this already built in. Any ideas? Thomprod (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothning built in. I sometimes do a manual (approximate) binary search. For example, if there are 100 edits in the history then first click on number 50 and see if the text is there. If it's there then try the older edit 25 next time, otherwise try the newer edit 75 to narrow it down. And so on, approximately halving the interval of edits each time. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, PrimeHunter. That will speed the process up. Is there somewhere on Wikipedia to suggest future improvements? Thomprod (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiblame is a tool made for just this purpose, though the method Primehunter describes really works quite well and doesn't take very long if the article history is not huge. You can suggest improvements at the village pump proposals.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Wikiblame is not currently working. DuncanHill (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And so here I am. Such a tool could be a time-saver in trying to determine when (and by whom) specific text was added. Could this be added as a future feature? --Thomprod (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I use PrimeHunter's primeval method and understand nothing about tools, but I've noticed User:Franamax/wpW5 and thought to myself how useful it sounded, if only I wasn't such a technophobe. I'm certain Franamax would be willing to help you. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics Article comprehension fix

I've noticed that many articles on mathematics seem to be poorly written, and as a result, the only people who understand the article are the people who already understood the concept.

I propose that there be a project to overhaul sections about mathematical topics so that anyone could understand them, no matter their prior knowledge.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&oldid=262428651"