Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

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.

« Archives, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• "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)
  • 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)

• 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)

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

The suggestion is not a formula for writing style; merely a device to ensure that things are actually defined (at a high level) in the 1st sentence. There is scope for freedom of style in the qualifying clause and the defining text that come before and after the main verb (to be). Unless we're able to list other examples of acceptable 1st sentence constructs, then this one should be at least a strong recommendation. 87.114.146.27 (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Community something about ArbCom

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump/ACFeedback

Show rollback links in Recent changes

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)

This is bug 9305. Mr.Z-man 18:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Off is my preference :-) Majorly talk 19:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

For myself, I tend to check diffs via popups. Pseudomonas_(talk) 11:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Working on it. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 21:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Why would PNG be preferred? JPG is generally used for images of real things.... --MZMcBride (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

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 Talk^Contribs 22:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

'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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Nope, I think it just doesn't handle magic words. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

No file type accepted by WMF has the potential to contain malware, as far as I know. Dcoetzee 05:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In short, everything would get notice #4. --Carnildo (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

PDF has malware capability. — neuro^(talk) 08:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

So does JPEG, for users of Windows XP and older whose GDI+ library is unpatched. NeonMerlin 02:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• It's not neccesarily a bad idea as long as there's a clear explanation on how such sources should be done and if it's first established that old redirects are kept in place and such moves won't cause significant issues. How many pages would be affected? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind I am planning on listing these individually for renaming (unless there is overwhelming support here, which at this point seems unlikely), this is just a proposal about the idea, but to start with -

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
• Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard
• Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard
• Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
• Wikipedia:Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard

I'd also like to set one up a noticeboard for WP:CSD (or maybe just deletion?), which was suggested on the talk page a month or two ago, as people often have complaints about speedies. I have already moved a few inactive boards to subpages of WP:AN - WP:CSN and WP:PAIN (WP:PAIN doesn't have archives, that was just for cleanup). The searchbar at the top of WP:AN will now search those pages as well. I'd like to set up WP:Noticeboards as a directory, with search bars for the Village pumps, AN, and whatever else. The RNBs are tougher, because many aren't actually noticeboards, but those can be worried about later.

Here is an example that I posted on Technical, like the one at WP:AN -

~ JohnnyMrNinja 14:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• I don't think we need separate rules for lighthouses. We can apply current building guidelines and WP:V or WP:GNG to it. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

• "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)

---

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)

• Apples are also grown in other countries, including in Europe :)) reminds me of Cab Calloway introducing the Blues Brothers :)) NVO (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

==

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)

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. flaminglawyer^c 03:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. MrZaius^talk 08:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Until MediaWiki produces such an editor, you can use wikiED, which has pretty much all of the stuff you listed. flaminglawyer^c 06:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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. flaminglawyer^c 06:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Template talk: really is a keyboard-full, it's a good idea. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately TT:Foo doesn't go where you think it should... :( Happy‑melon 10:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want some of these, please go vote for Template:Bug, for P: and T: Happy‑melon 10:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

At DYK we solved this by making the redirect come from T:TDYK instead of TT:DYK. But why a new namespace, the whole thing already works. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Becuase one time in a million someone is going to click on Special:Random and 'fall out' of the mainspace through that redirect. Plus it (and the other hundred or so T: redirects) are screwing up the pages-in-mainspace stats, bulking out cross-namespace redirect reports like these, and are untidy relics for reusers of our content (people who copy the whole mainspace but only relevant parts of the other namespaces are now left with a hundred broken redirects in their supposedly clean content). Of course none of these issues are crippling, but nor are they inconsequential. It's cleaner, more convenient and generally the Right Thing To Do to separate these out of the mainspace. Happy‑melon 16:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have another suggestion: use Cat: for Catagory:, as it is shortened for many catagories. MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 05:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

the problem with this is that if the devs defined "CAT:" as a synonym for "Category:", then adding [[CAT:WPB]] would cause the page to be categorised into Category:WPB, not just adding a link there. There is currently no way to create an alias to the inline link version, which is what is really required. Happy‑melon 10:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

How about "CG:" for Category (or even just "C:"), and "CT:" for Category talk? Also, what about the MediaWiki and Help namespaces? --.:Alex:. 15:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

And not-as-relevant, meta:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English (2) Wiktionary. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It was on there, then it acquired an inactivity streak of 4 days. So it got taken off. flaminglawyer^c 00:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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). flaminglawyer^c 03:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

• If Wikipedia makes money to hosting or advertising, they probably wouldn't have to ask for donations anymore, but the idea that they should do it implies that asking for donations is a problem which is a false premise.- Mgm|^(talk) 13:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

I think it has to do with copyright issues — chandler — 04:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

We can certainly quote short sections of the lyrics a non-free song as long as there is related content, but we cannot present them in their entirety. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Add user links for IP editors

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)

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

IIRC, the pages shown to IP editors are uniform so that they may be cached by the Squids. Flatscan (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Phantom links

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)

This is a googlebomb waiting to happen, if vandals can come up with an unobtrusive way to get a load of articles to link using <phantom>[[George W Bush|Penis]]</phantom>, that would prompt the result http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W_Bush to shoot up the rankings of google searches for "penis". It wouldn't be obvious why this was the case, and hiding links from whatlinkshere only clouds the issue further. More generally, comprehensive backlink tables like WhatLinksHere are absolutely integral to the way a wiki works as a cohesive whole: when an article is deleted all backlinks will become redlinks, so they need to be hunted down and delinked or retargetted; this can only be done if there is a complete list available. We could perhaps implement a method to segregate 'maintenance' links from 'real' links, but what distinguishes one from the other? One man's clutter is another's treasure. Happy‑melon 15:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy-melon, your critique is sound. Perhaps we could have a way whereby links within particular constructs (e.g., project templates or alerts) don't show up in "What links here", and implementing this would require some kind of protection device that only an admin can set up. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Another thought that just occurred to me is that we could have these phantom/maintenance links not show up in the default "What links here", but add a feature to WLH that says "Show phantom links". Therefore, they're not truly hidden, and googlebombs and the like can be defused. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Unfortunately, Wikiblame is not currently working. DuncanHill (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

You could use Luca de Alfaro's trustwiki - it shows the origin and approximate 'trust' of the segments of articles added by different people. Avruch ^T 17:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

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.

This notion comes up here every so often, and I have yet to find a single example (save perhaps a few one-sentence stubs). Can you please provide an example of a page on mathematics which can only be understood by people who already understand the concept? Algebraist 01:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes- this is at least the third time I have seen this. If any article is incomprehesible or full of jargon, then it should be tagged and discussed on the article page. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Cat: and Catagory: headings

Is it possible to incorporate Cat: and Catagory: headings so when you type Cat:, Catagory: shows up? This would be very useful as many extra pages would be unneccessary. If so, then can someone do this? Thanks! MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 03:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you consolidate this with #new shortcut namespaces above. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Comprhensive list of symbols

I have long thought that we all need a comprehensive list of symbols and their explanations. This is a feature that is missing from nearly all dictionaries, which generally exclude anything that does not begin with an alphabetical character. As a result, many people have no idea what most symbols are called, even though they may have a rich vocabulary and know the meanings of the most abstruse and uncommon words. It seems odd to me that someone can know the meaning of words such as oreochiette, strangury, apophatic, scrim, proleptically, and nosology but have no idea what “&” is called, through there being no readily available reference which explains that this squiggle is called an ampersand and is short for “and”.

I have a theory that a big part of the reason that many people are frightened of math and can’t begin to understand it is simply because they cannot “read” the equations, which are full of what appears to them to be squiggles and weird Masonic-type signs. When people can READ signs they can talk about them (even if just to themselves) and they start to get an intellectual grip on what is involved. If you don’t know HOW the Greek symbols and other math signs are pronounced, then you can’t begin to understand the subject; it becomes completely opaque. For example, most readers would have seen those accents which frequently appear above the letter e in French. But many don’t know what they are called (acute and grave), and fewer know what it is they do. This is directly because one never sees them when flipping through a dictionary.

I would urge that WP gather and organize a comprehensive and easily accessed list of all such signs, arranged by language and function (e.g. logical, chemical, mathematical and so on). How would you know in what order these signs should be listed? Well, how do the Chinese organize THEIR dictionaries and phone books. You use the simplest elements first and then the more complex. And of course their should be a REVERSE alphabetical listing, so that you can access the signs by their proper names. An article like this would could become a valuable resource. This is one of my many hobby horses, so discussion is warmly invitedMyles325a (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There are many symbol pages on Wikipedia. Agreed, if one doesn't know what a symbol means, then it's kind of hard to search. I think this discussion should be moved to List of symbols. Leon math (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Right Click Option - OPEN IN WIKIPEDIA

It would be good if when I was reading a website or document even if when I came across a word or phrase I didn't full understand I could just put my curser on it then Right Click on it and they'd be an OPEN IN WIKIPEDIA option.

<email removed to prevent spam>

And what do you propose we do about this? This page is for proposals to change Wikipedia, not to change your web browser. Algebraist 15:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You have to admit, however, that it's a damn good idea ;-) Tan | 39 15:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like something that could be made into a FireFox addon. But that's something to suggest over there. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Already done - if the search box is set to search wikipedia then the context menu offers that option. Pseudomonas_(talk) 12:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's true. A minor extra step, but it's there. (I usually keep mine to Google so I forget it changes like that)♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In Opera, there's a "Dictionary" option and a "Encyclopedia" option in the context menu, which can easily be configured (instructions here). -- Jao (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a Greasemonkey script called "QuickiWiki" that does something like this. It's available at http://UserScripts.org. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

For any Mac users, I highly recommend iSeek. Very handy application, and with a quick key command, you can search any site you want; I've got mine pretty much permanently set to Wikipedia, and in five actions (select, copy, activate, paste, return) bring up any topic on Wikipedia. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Random article function

Portals could have their own "Random article" functions. So I get a random Arts article, a random Technology article, etc.

See [1].

Franciscrot (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Some portals already do, such as Portal:Middle Earth and this tool which doesn't seem to be linked from Portal:Mathematics for some reason. The difficulty is in creating and maintaining a list of articles falling under the auspices of a given portal. Algebraist 15:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Watched page scoring

While this proposal is related to the FAQ entry Wikipedia:PEREN#Create a counter of people watching a page, don't reject it out of hand. Hopefully implementation of this idea would be more useful for improving the quality of articles on Wikipedia.

I'm imagining a new special page that displays a rank-order list of articles that have been scored according to a ratio of editing frequency divided by the number of people watching a page. Articles having 1 or less editors could be excluded, as these are likely to be either unwatched pages or new articles under development by one author.

This would show a higher rank for high-activity pages that have few editors. A special page showing such a list would tell me what articles are likely to require attention. High-ranked articles would be watched by 2 or more editors and have sufficient activity to indicate the article is of interest and could use participation from others.

Ideally, such a special page would ultimately accomplish the flattening of the distribution of pages that have few watchers. Any thoughts? ~Amatulić (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the vandalism argument listed on PEREN, I think enabling this would be a big performance hit, much the same as the hitcounter feature which is also disabled. Also, just because the software returns that a number of people have a page on their watchlist does not mean those editors are active, thus the data offers very little value. ~ TheIntersect 01:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The vandalism argument is irrelevant for this proposal. The score indicates actively edited pages that have few watchers. The active editing is either a protection against vandalism — or an indication of vandalism. There is nothing here to encourage vandalism.

Some special pages are updated periodically, not continuously. If that was the case with this special page, the performance hit would be so minimal that it would not be noticed.

I disagree that the data offers little value. Even if the editors watching the page are inactive, such a ranked list would indicate pages that could use more watchers, without revealing the number of people watching them. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Protection

Flagged protection (WP:FLP) is currently being proposed, if you have time please comment on this proposal, and make changes to it as you see fit. The page also needs some copy-editing as well. Please fill in any missing part in this proposal if you can. Thank you. Y. Ichiro (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Save Function

I think that It would be great if Wikipedia added a save function to the user accounts where users would be able to create a list of their favorite articles. They fould be able to create and name folders much like an e-mail account, and then save links to the articles in the folders. This would allow you to come back to an interesting article you come accross when you have more time to read it, or allow you to keep track of articles you want to use as sources for a research project.

For Example I just came accross a really great article on the Dominicans that I would really like to read, but it is quite long and it is 1:30 AM and I don't have the time now. I will never remember to come back to it myself, but If Wikipedia allowed me to "flag" it in my account the next time I log in I could see it and remember that I want to read it.

Thanks for considering this suggestion.

One of the nice things about editing a wiki is that this kind of feature comes for free. If you want a list of articles to read, just make one on your user page. Algebraist 06:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A javascript widget that does the bookmarking with one click would be easier. Not private, though. Del.icio.us might do this better, and not just for Wikipedia. Pseudomonas_(talk) 12:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a web site; you can just bookmark the article and do any organizing you want within your browser. Karanacs (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You could just use your watchlist if you're not interested in editing--Jac16888 (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You could either bookmark it, add it to your watchlist, or just leave it up in your browser. It's been more than once that I've emailed myself wiki links to check out (either to read or to do work on). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading this post reminded me that I once hoped for this functionality as well. I whipped up a little user script to do just that. Take a look at User:Twinzor/Wikimark. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 04:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If the computer you are working from is not your own, you can add the article to your watchlist (and I can't see why that isn't an ideal solution in all cases) or you can email it to yourself, or if you have are using a portable storage device like a memory stick, you can use (say) MSWord to keep links to all your favourite sites. Then you can use these in Internet cafes and so on. Myles325a (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can admit that my watchlist is quite large, and if I find interesting articles I'll want to read later I'd rather add them to a separate page, since browsing through my whole watchlist would be quite a chore. Oh well, I guess it's different for people who know how to keep their watchlists at a reasonable size. :) The script I posted above should make the whole thing a lot simpler though (if you don't mind having everybody be able to read your favourites list). — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 06:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have 2,920 items on my watchlist; adding an article to my watchlist isn't especially helpful. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Time for a Content Committee?

Well, happy new year y'all, and since I'm here anyway, allow me to bounce an idea off a few heads.

The Ireland ArbCom case recently came to my attention. This strikes me as a dispute that is extremely important to 1% of our userbase, who are more-or-less evenly divided between the two sides, and mostly irrelevant to the remaining 99%. It also strikes me that we have a whole gallery of this kind of disputes, and that they tend to rage on for months and cause serious burnout in involved people.

We need a way for resolving these issues. Based on the recent ArbCom case, there is now an effort to try and decide it by headcount, but that strikes me as counterproductive, as it rehashes all arguments again, repeatedly, and will probably end up near a 50-50 split between two options.

So I'm thinking, perhaps it's time we make a Content Committee? Basically, a small panel of uninvolved users that makes lasting decisions in this kind of cases. It strikes me as a far better idea to decide that "yes, we will call the article Gdańsk for now", than to keep edit warring over it for a lengthy period of time. It goes without saying that such a committee could not go against WP:NPOV and WP:RS and so forth. But when there are two equally viable answers, it's good to be able to stick with one and stop arguing.

Thoughts please? Should I draw up a solid proposal page or is this too wishful thinking? >Radiant< 22:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There have been several proposals in the past year about the same basic idea. So far as I remember, none of them received consensus, which was a bloody shame really. I agree that we would be much better served if there were some body in addition to ArbCom and MedCom which could be called in for such instances, and wholeheartedly support the idea of creating such a group. I can see a few problems in selecting people for it and other things, but maybe this time they can be worked out. John Carter (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the idea of putting a committee in place to rule on content matters. Firstly and basically it goes completely against the way wikipedia has successfully worked till now, by consensus (with polls sometimes unfortunately necessary to determine that consensus). This would increase bureaucracy by setting up another committee and processes for that committee to work with. People would be chosen/supported for the committee based on whether people feel they will support their view (e.g.do you support SPOV? could become a litmus test) - as some sort of election would be necessary if such a committee is to be at all responsive to the community. I also think there would inevitably be creep - the reach of the committee (and the instructions for that committee) would keep expanding as editors keep trying to get them involved in their disagreement. I have no problem with making lasting decisions where necessary such as Gdansk but the community should make those decisions not a committee. Impose a method for the community to make the decision, lay out the arguments for and against the options and bring in the wider community by wide advertising of the discussion but let the community make that decision itself. Davewild (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I could imagine a committee that played some role in really horrible, long-running content disputes. Such a committee should probably have *elected* members, and they should not make the final decisions. They would merely be trusted to frame the issue correctly so that it could be forwarded to some very wide method of getting input from regular editors, as wide as an Arbcom election, or at least a site notice directing people to a central discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is correct that there is an attempt to solve the particular dispute that prompted this message by "headcount". I think it unnecessarily distorts the problem by describing it as such: instead, ArbCom instructed us to start discussions on a new page and come up with a process to decide the matter which they would oversee if no result was forthcoming within a certain time-frame. The dicussions have re-started on Talk:Ireland (see the end sections), and you will see that headcounts are not a feature of all the proposed processes.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

A streamlining committee?

I was reading some of Wikipedia's articles to find the flow to be awkward at times. As Wikipedia is the conglomerate of the knowledge of many, it has also become of the style of many. I think we should have some sort of project to help with streamlining articles; i.e., they simply rewrite the current facts such that the flow of the articles is smoother.

--Heero Kirashami (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors? Strike that, I meant Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 19:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)