Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roninbk (talk | contribs) at 18:34, 19 January 2011 (→‎Giant banner). 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

New ideas and proposals are discussed here. Before submitting:


Proposal to discourage "parent–child links" at WT:LINK

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (linking)#Parent–child links.

Article Blame -- a simpler WikiBlame tool

There is a simpler version of the WikiBlame tool, linked as "Revision history search" from a history page; this is called Article Blame, from toolserver.org: http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/blame/ It should be considered whether the simpler tool should also be included in the External Tools section of a history page.

Create articles about individual cables published by WikiLeaks

250,000 leaked "cables" are expected to be published in the next few years by WikiLeaks. Main story: United States diplomatic cables leak. I checked the whole discussion about the policy for linking to the leaks, discussing their contents etc. There's a huge work going on to keep Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak updated with summaries of the most relevant cables.

In my opinion, each of these cables is going to trigger important discussions worldwide and affect the future of world diplomacy. All mainstream media are giving frequent reports on the latest releases referring to individual items of the list.

Each cable has a unique ID (e.g. "10MADRID86") that follows a well-defined grammar (see Template:Cablegate). This is the way those cables are referred to in citations by secondary and tertiary sources. In my opinion, it makes sense to create an article for each cable with the ID as the article name. It is pretty unusual for me to google for an individual cable on the basis of its "official name" and not find a Wikipedia article explaining what it is!

I'm not proposing to cite any part of the leaks here, neither am I suggesting that we should state that those documents are genuine or that their content is a correct depiction of reality. I just believe that those documents exist, because I've seen them, and that they are encyclopedic enough because a lot of people is talking about them; therefore I think that we should mention them and say what each of them is and provide a link that proves our statements. The best source for the statement "10MADRID86 is a document published by WikiLeaks; WikiLeaks states that it is the leak of a classified US embassy cable" is a link to the WikiLeaks page for 10MADRID86. Notice that the legal team of WMF has declared that linking to WikiLeaks is not illegal in Florida - there are already loads of links to WikiLeaks in several articles of the English Wikipedia.

(This proposal was originally made in the Bot request page, because we can easily create those articles automatically by fetching the new cables on a daily basis from WikiLeaks - I was actually volunteering to create the bot; however, first we have to decide whether we need or not articles about individual cables.) --MauroVan (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does each of the 250K cables pass WP:N? Of course not. So there should be an article about all of them because...? Instead, create articles about the ones that pass WP:N and can be cited to news coverage, and leave the rest in the parent article. → ROUX ₪ 22:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this is that a lot of the news coverage is not really about the cables themselves, but their content. The cable is the source for the news article, not the subject. The content is mostly what's newsworthy and where most of the coverage is. The fact that the articles may mention the specific cables or even quote them may contribute to notability, but simply being used in a news article is not a guarantee of notability. I think if a cable is used in multiple reliable sources, then it may deserve an article – written by a human – but all 250k of them are certainly not inherently notable. We don't even know the content of 99% of them. For all we know, they're being released in order of most interesting and 200,000 of them will be so boring they'll barely get coverage. And the last thing we need on Wikipedia is a quarter million more bot-generated sub-stubs. Excluding the other future articles that will be created, that would make nearly 7% of Wikipedia into stubs about the cables. Mr.Z-man 23:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree—there's no way each of those 250,000 cables are notable enough for an article. Their text is probably better off in Wikisource, though, if OK legally with the whole confidentiality whatnot. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments.
I realise that it is objectionable whether each cable passes WP:N. It's a case similar to other sets of multiple items... the set itself is surely notable, perhaps not all individual items are; but in order to give a coherent presentation of a large collection of structured information, we can create a series of articles linked to each other. Silly examples: check how many detailed articles are linked from Outer Plane (RPG stuff) or List of Scrubs episodes (a TV series); what makes Githzerai or My Therapeutic Month notable enough to have their own article if not the need to give a thorough description of the knowledge domain that comprises them?
However, I agree that a series of lists (in table format) of the cables coming from each embassy would probably be more appropriate. Those cables that receive sufficient media coverage outside WikiLeaks (somebody could say that being published on WikiLeaks is a huge coverage in itself, but they are published uncommented) will then have their own article, maybe.
BTW, I never heard that the cables were released in order of importance. So far, this has not been the case. They are just clustered with unknown criteria (apparently, according to their subjects) and released cluster by cluster to avoid overwhelming the public with raw data and give time to the journalists to analyse them as soon as they pop out. This is also good for us.
Please let me know your opinion about the lists-of-cables-by-origin proposal too. --MauroVan (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of cables leaked might have some value on Wikipedia. Agree that putting them on wikisource would be better than putting them on wikipedia, however other threads on this subject have raised the question of whiter or not the leaked cables in the public domain. The pervaling opinion is "ask the WMF first" on account of the ambiguous nature of U.S. government copyright release. If the government releases it themselves it is clearly PD unless explicitly stated otherwise. However if the government creates something and it is released by others then the law is not at all clear. Therefore Support a list, but Strong Oppose articles on each cable, and just as importantly, Ask the WMF before coping the text into Wikipedia namespace. Linking to sites like the NYT that carry the text, however, is fine. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a hilariously bad idea. Unlike towns, these cables don't inherently represent anything of persistent interest (despite the importance of the overall leak and of a small fraction of the individual cables). So the very best way to sensibly ration the articles we have on the cables is to at minimum restrict them to those which a human cares enough about the cable to start an article. Creating 200k+ articles with a bot and waiting for a human to come by and update them is complete folly, even without the glaring notability, BLP and potential privacy issues. Protonk (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Edit: not to mention copyright concerns! Protonk (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your collaborative attitude, Protonk. Fortunately in a brief interval of sanity between my frequent phases of folly, I had already tried to address concerns like yours; please read the whole discussion above. BTW, notice that even during my hilarious deliria I have just asked whether it makes sense or not to have articles about individual cables; maybe they do not need to be about each individual cable and maybe they do not need to be created by a bot.
However, IMHO it is more reasonable and likely to attain a consensus to restrict the scope of the proposal to just creating lists of cables by origin. Please let me know your opinion about this.
PS: There are no copyright concerns, because nobody has ever proposed to cite any part of the text of the leaks (which would not be illegal in Florida, in any case). --MauroVan (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of cables by origin are already available at cablesearch.org (select "By Source" in the menu and choose a location). Each list entry seems to be that cable's subject, which is part of the text of the leaks. Quite apart from the legal and ethical issues, copying leaked primary sources doesn't sound like encyclopedia-building. Given that we wouldn't be adding any value to the lists, what encyclopedic purpose would republishing them serve? - Pointillist (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pointillist, I'm not sure I got your point. Of course this material has been already published elsewhere, actually it's been published in several places and this is precisely why it is encyclopedic. We never publish "new" stuff, we always republish information that can be found elsewhere. The "purpose" is the same as (re)publishing the List of sovereign states or the List of Nobel laureates, data that can be easily found elsewhere too. We want all (important) human knowledge to be accessible on one website.
About the titles, I have not proposed to use the titles: I have proposed to use the IDs, like 08BELGRADE1097, to identify the cables. However, citing the title of something is not copyright violation, of course, otherwise we'd not be allowed to mention any book or movie or whatever.
Finally, I (and Wikipedia's legal advisors) do not see any legal issue in providing links to the leaks or listing them. What do you mean? Etichal issues are more personal than legal ones, but I still do not believe that there is any ethical issue involved here, it's a fact that these leaks exist and we have to talk about them if we believe that they are notable enough, whatever our opinion on the leaking is. Also those who believe that WikiLeaks should not have leaked them should be interested in showing what the leaks' contents are and why spreading them was harmful (the leak already happened, we cannot stop it just by censoring information about it on Wikipedia! and the WikiLeaks critics never said that the problem with the leaks is that ordinary people can read them... They hold it that the problem is with political bodies and armed groups reading them, and they do not need Wikipedia to read them). --MauroVan (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean something like this? (I've included the timestamp because the IDs don't sort sequentially otherwise):
2006-10-17 06:06:00 #06BELGRADE1681
2008-10-22 14:02:00 #08BELGRADE1097
2009-07-29 13:01:00 #09BELGRADE765
2009-09-03 13:01:00 #09BELGRADE841
2009-10-22 15:03:00 #09BELGRADE1222
If the cable's subject is missing, a list like that isn't important human knowledge (is it?) and I'm still not clear how it would help our readers. By comparison, your List of Nobel laureates example adds value in that it links the names to the relevant wikipedia articles, which is not a task we would expect external sources to do reliably. I suppose List of sovereign states has some navigational use too, despite the issues about OR and weasel words. - Pointillist (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I could help. If you've eliminated the idea of creating the articles en masse with a bot then that still leaves the question of whether the articles should be created at all. In that case the question is really not one which can be solved via centralized discussion as the role of normal editing should suffice. As for the copyright issue, if you aren't even going to cite the cables themselves then the question becomes even more superfluous. If there is extant news coverage of a specific cable sufficient to meet WP:N and our other inclusion guidance then we can be doubly sure that normal editing will give us something approaching the "right" number of articles on cables. If you want to make a list of cables on some specific subject where the only real unifying characteristic is that the cables were A: leaked and B: cover the same basic subject, godspeed. I doubt that such a list will be terribly helpful, but it is a (relatively) free country. Protonk (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMO listing the IDs is informational because these IDs provide unique references to all cables, which can be searched online etc. It's like List of mantis genera and species (not "terribly helpful" either :-) ): the informational content is the names of the things. Moreover, it has navigational purposes, which also applies to the cables' list for those cables that may be regarded as notable. However, I do not suggest a mere list of IDs but a table with relevant information for each cable, like
  • Original date
  • Release date
  • Destination
  • Link to the cable content (outside Wikipedia)
  • Subjects (tags are already provided by WikiLeaks and other sources)
  • Links to articles on mainstream media about that individual cable
We can also include the title, which is not part of the text and whose citation does not violate any copyright, or we can not include it if there is a good reason not to. My opinion is to include it but it is not a key point of the proposal.
Besides this, I agree with the last contribution by Protonk. Let's use ordinary editing on a few significant cases and then if a pattern emerges a bot can help for the dirty work (of creating lists, not individual articles which clearly seems more controversial). --MauroVan (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New idea

It is a common practice to highlight stuff when we read. It increases productivity and is very helpful for future references. I myself feel great need of it whenever I reference wikipedia. I believe it will also be helpful to a lot of wikipedians. If you think this functionality is worth providing on wikipedia, pls support this proposal. To be clear, my idea is about one common highlighting of articles for all users. I read another proposal asking for personal highlighting functionality to users, I know its too complex to be implemented.

--59.162.23.4 (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this could be implemented. Highlighting is only helpful for the individual, because what's important to one person is useless to another. Plus, we deal with enough vandalism. I won't go into it (per WP:BEANS), but there's a ton of ways to abuse this. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You already can, but please don't. It doesn't really make the page easier to use and can look really shitty, especially after several people with differing ideas about what's important go through it. 69.208.12.211 (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only way I could see this happening is something like a Firefox extension installed on your browser that keeps your highlights in your computer's memory. In fact if you did it right, it wouldn't necessarily have to be specific to Wikipedia, but would work on whatever website you wanted to use it on. That way, there's no server-side changes that would have to be made, or any extra load on the servers. It sounds like a useful idea, and I hope you can find a programmer willing to do it, but it's not something we would want to implement here on the server side of Wikipedia. -- RoninBK T C 04:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For modern browsers, at least, it wouldn't be too hard to write something (using localStorage and JavaScript) client-side that would allow a user to make highlights on their own system and view them later. The biggest issue would be to come up with a way to identify what you wanted to highlight in a way that would be reasonably resistant to later article edits. - Jmabel | Talk 17:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal - Turn on RefTools gadget by default

The modified toolbar
An example of a template dialog

People ask me all the time why adding and editing references isn't easier on Wikipedia considering how much we emphasize it (and revert editors who don't do it). So I always tell them about the RefTools gadget and they're like, "Wow, that's awesome!". So considering how incredibly useful it is to performing a task that has become fundamental to editing Wikipedia, why don't we turn it on for everyone by default? It isn't obtrusive to editors who don't want to use it (since it's just a small dropdown in the editing interface) and it's really great for editors that do. The way this would be implemented technically is that refRools would be removed from MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition and added to MediaWiki:Common.js/edit.js instead. Kaldari (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not positive on this, but some gadgets can tax the servers in certain ways, or have other subtly undesirable side effects, such that it may be bad for Wikipedia, or for some users, to enact them "across the board". I have no idea if this is one of those, but it may be. --Jayron32 03:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how this feature might put excessive load on the servers. There are indeed performance considerations with things like Popups, which have to get a lot of data from the servers, but RefTools pretty much just injects new HTML, with a couple of commons images; a drop in the ocean compared to normal server load. Happy‑melon 13:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No brainer, of course support (unless there really is a substantial server load issue).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentSupport. No opinion yet, but I saw this and installed and it looks really cool. I'll amend my comment (to support, I imagine) when I've tried it out a little. --FormerIP (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With the caveat others have expressed of "provided there are no major technical problems likely to be caused, I'm changing to "support". It's a fantastic (kudos is not a good enough word) tool and will increase the quality of our footnoting (it's already going to increase the quality of mine). I can see potential improvements to it, though (eg not have separate "pages" and "page" fields). If enough support comes together to implement it, there should be discussion with User:Mr.Z-man about timing and developing a launch version. --FormerIP (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless there's some kind of technical issue, this will be fantastic. sonia♫ 03:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just spent some time playing around with the tool. My comment above notwithstanding, if there are no technical problems with this feature, I would completely and wholeheartedly support the addition of this to the standard editing box. It really rules. --Jayron32 04:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Easy to use. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, iff there are no technical issues. The tool is a pretty cool thing. Wonder how possible is it to merge it into the default edit interface, and make it a global tool... Rehman 07:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm aware that there are issues about some cite templates affecting page load times, but I doubt that the editing tool would itself cause those problems. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Many styles of citation are acceptable in Wikipedia, and this tool only supports one of the styles. Editors are responsible to use the style that already exists in an article. Turning this tool on by default will give editors the impression that this is the official style and it is ok to barge into an article and change all the citations to the cite xxx style. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a fair point, but I think there's also a case for saying it was going that way anyway. --FormerIP (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Articles which are standardized to alternate citation styles are relatively rare these days on Wikipedia. I think the number of articles this change would positively affect (not to mention improving the newbie learning curve) would far outweigh the potential cost of correcting citation style in a handful of articles. Kaldari (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only significant technical issue that I know of is that it doesn't work correctly in IE. It functions, but it just inserts the ref in some random place. I was hoping this might just fix itself in IE9, but it still seems to do it in the current IE9 beta. I haven't had time to investigate it, so I don't know how difficult this would be to fix. Some of the error checks are buggy, but that shouldn't be too difficult to fix. As for multiple citation styles, that should be no problem as it can be customized for use with almost any template, though it won't work well with the Harvard templates at the moment, and it doesn't support plain text references. I'm currently working on a version that can autofill citation details given an ISBN, PMID, or DOI. Its basically done, I just haven't had the time to finish it. Mr.Z-man 04:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, on IE9 at least, it seems to depend on compatibility mode settings. With one setting, it inserts it in (almost) the correct spot. I can't tell whether compatibility mode is on or off though since the interface is too vague (its the one where the squiggly rectangular thing is blue). Mr.Z-man 21:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there is consensus for this change, I'd be happy to see if any front-end developers at the Foundation could help with bug-fixes and testing. Kaldari (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I personally use Wikicite most of the time to generate my citations, browser independent but Windows specific, (not tried it under Wine in Linux yet.) But this tends to illustrate my only problem with this proposal. It would seem to promote one tool at the exclusion of others. -- RoninBK T C 07:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No one is saying you have to stop using Wikicite. Pretty much every function of WikiEditor is also available through other tools, but that doesn't negate their usefulness or the fact that having them all in one place without having to install a lot of separate tools is quite convenient. Kaldari (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a nudge towards good practice (full, semantically coded citations) MartinPoulter (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't anyone else call it a "nudge", or I'll puke and withdraw my support. --FormerIP (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support You are more likely to get good referencing if you make it easy. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems like a great idea and it will hopefully help newcomers learn how to properly use citations. On a separate note, I tried to add the script to my monobook and then I reloaded my page (I have Google Chrome) like it told me to. However, it doesn't seem to have changed or added said toolbar to my editing page. What did I do wrong? SilverserenC 01:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Think maybe in needs to go in User:Silver seren/vector.js. --FormerIP (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tried, but no, still doesn't work. :/ SilverserenC 01:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you refreshed? Also have you installed the most up-to-date version Wikipedia:RefToolbar_2.0? --FormerIP (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have and i've been using the code for 2.0, yes. SilverserenC 02:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no more advice left in my pockets, then, sorry. --FormerIP (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's alright. Hey, once this proposal is enacted, it should end up working anyways, so no worries. SilverserenC 02:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You must use the Vector skin for it to work, methinks. Mono (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • <edit conflict>Support. Note that a discussion in Wikibooks regarding adding RefTools to the preferences resulted in no consensus, though, for the reason that Jc3s5h put forward. Kayau Voting IS evil HI AGAIN 02:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Good call. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, if tweaked to make it more user-friendly. Mono (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you think should be done? Kayau Voting IS evil 06:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • FWIW, I believe Mr.Z-man is currently working on a feature that would enable you to automatically generate a citation just by entering the ISBN number, which would be quite nice. Kaldari (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My personal experience is that the difficult of citing sources is one of the main reasons people say they don't edit wikipedia.--Banana (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unless there is any technical reason hindering this. 03:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support fully. Why have this as an opt-in when its one of our most useful tools? ThemFromSpace 03:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - using RefTools is a wonderful idea. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Support I can see only advantages. Yoenit (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support. The issues with IE need to be worked out before this is made standard for everyone. I hate IE with a passion, but it is a widely used browser.--Danaman5 (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. It shouldn't be too difficult to get this to work at least as well as the other WikiEditor components (for example, table insertion). I'll look into it further if Mr.Z-man doesn't get a chance to. Kaldari (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't use it, but I've tried it and think it would be great for most new editors instead of trying to figure it out by themselves. Experienced editors can disable if they want. -Atmoz (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Some people's computers are slow so pop up boxes makes it even slower. Maybe allow people to opt-in, not opt-out. Madrid 2020 (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Using RefTools would be completely optional and collapsed by default. The only way it would ever show up is if you uncollapse the Cite toolbar and select one of the citation templates to insert. You would still be free to write citations manually in the WikiEditor if you like (if for example you had an extremely slow computer). Kaldari (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support any step toward better referencing (in this case, by making it simpler/easier) is a step in the right direction in my book. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unless there are technical problems with implementation (e.g., bugs for certain browsers, very slow load times, etc.). Guoguo12--Talk--  02:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I was seriously concerned when it disappeared a while ago - until I saw that I was not logged in.  Sandstein  07:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional oppose Maybe I'm missing something, since I don't use RefTools, but I think there are some issues here. As much as I support the desperately needed improvement of our editing interface, including easier references, hard-coding a particular solution to a problem that currently has many competing solutions may not the best strategy. There's a number of different tools for this purpose: WikiCite, ProveIt, RefTools, Universal Reference Formatter, RefLinks,etc. These are all good attempts and each have different uses,strengths and weaknesses. Is Reftools that much better than the rest? Has it been bug-tested more than the others and in all situations? Is it compatible with all browsers, other userscripts, slow bandwidth, etc. Is it supported by the most actively coders or being developed by someone? I think those questions need to be ironed out before putting it on everyone's editing page.Ocaasi (talk) 11:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the developer of the script, I may be slightly biased, but I can answer some of the questions.
      • Of the tools you listed, only Reftools and Proveit are integrated into the editing interface. Universal Reference Formatter and RefLinks are Toolserver tools. Reflinks only expands plain URLs into citations, its not really the same type of tool. URF seems to mainly support journal citations. WikiCite is a standalone program that only works on Windows and does not appear to be actively developed. Reftools is the only tool that I know of where the available citation templates are not hardcoded into the script itself. I designed it so that users can add templates in their personal JS pages with a minimal amount of JavaScript knowledge required.
      • Its been tested on every major browser. Its currently only semi-compatible with Internet Explorer; it works, but not ideally so. Other than that, there are a few minor bugs that should be easily fixable. It should be compatible with all user scripts and should be no slower than the rest of the new "enhanced toolbar," for people who can't use the enhanced toolbar, there is also a version for the old toolbar, though it isn't customizable.
    • I'm currently the sole developer for the "main" version of the script (though help is always appreciated!). The version for the old toolbar is maintained by User:Apoc2400. Mr.Z-man 16:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've used ProveIt a little bit, but not a lot. My impression is that it is pretty functional, but a bit intrusive. It actually puts a panel outside of the editing box that scrolls with you when you move. Perhaps someone else who has used it more can chime in with a better comparison between RefTools and ProveIt.--Danaman5 (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've used both a little bit, prove-it is more "powerful" with its support for readding references and automatic detection of references on a page, but its much more of an "add-on" whereas reftools is smoothly integrated with the user interface and simpler. Prove-IT is also a lot newer and probably less polished than reftools (for example proveit doesn't play nice with wikied, whereas afaik reftools does). Adding reftools as a default option makes sense and would help a little bit towards simplfying one of the most damaging examples of complexity on wikipedia with no real cost, technical users who dislike it can always disable the functionality, while it is easy to see it being potentially helpfull to editors (new or less new) who have not yet explored the gadget options and features. Ajbpearce (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the thoughtful response Apoc, and for working on RefTools. My concerns are that we: 1) make sure the code plays nice with other browsers, userscripts, and add-ons; 2) don't discourage ProveIt's development, since it's a great thing too; 3) get some help for you (Apoc) to bolster the features and deal with support issues; 4) check with the Usability team to make sure we're not duplicating or missing better integration opportunities; 5) run this through Village Pump technical, the Foundation tech team, the Tech-mailing list, and either the Wikipedia-list or the Foundation-list (misplaced there, but would get worthwhile attention). If those things can be put in place then I think this is a great idea. Ocaasi (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — as long as the technical overload on the servers is not excessive. I think it is quite good now, but would also expect that the User Interface will be tweaked/improved in future releases. One very large problem in Wikipedia has been that, although verifiability and reliable source citations are required, it has been very user unfriendly for new editors to get over the learning curve where they regularly cite the claims they insert into articles. I think this is one more positive step in the emergent evolution of Wikipedia that will help in this regard. N2e (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Reftools clashes with Editools when running IE - see here - unless someone sorts this then this proposal would severely restrict the ability of anyone using IE from editing Wikipedia.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that this isn't the issue with IE that I noted above. That discussion is from June 2009, which means its referring to the version for the old toolbar. I can confirm that the new toolbar version does not cause any problems with the edittools. Mr.Z-man 20:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the "enhanced" editing toolbar is only in Beta, which editors have to select. And it still doesn't seem to work properly for me - with the reftools gadget selected and the enhanced toolbar selected, I don't get the cite button and both the edittools and "enhanced" toolbar don't work consistantly - for example - they appear to work as I am typing here and now, but if I edit another page then they don't. The default should be the option that works for everyone, all the time, not an option that doesn't work for some people.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The enhanced toolbar has been the default now for several months, it isn't considered a beta anymore. Without knowing more details, I can't say why it may not be working for you. Mr.Z-man 16:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the enhanced toolbar is the default - why is it in the beta section of the preferences page? In addition, has this proposal been implemented now?@ I ask this as I now sem to have no way to get rid of reftools - even when I un-select it in preferences, the cite buttons are still there and edittools doesn't work.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - long overdue, makes life easier for almost everyone here. Of course it should be possible to turn it off for people that use other tools that may potentially clash, but it's too useful not to have it by default (I thought it was already this way!) --Cyclopiatalk 19:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Absolutely. Considering that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and references, a tool for creating them should be front and center—not just an option that is invisible to newer editors. First Light (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Integration and continue to improve the editor. Would be nice to see diberri's tool combined into it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes just noticed them. Well done. Will definately speed up my editing... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving forward to implement this as soon as possible. --AerobicFox (talk) 05:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but disable in IE per the problems documented above, at least until they are fixed. RC patrol doesn't need refs in random places messing up good-faith edits. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - The IE ref insertion bug should be fixed now. Mr.Z-man 21:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will IE users need to reinstall? --FormerIP (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support implementing Reftools asap. The new autofill option makes it the perfection companion for everyday editing (together with Zotero). Keep on the good work. One suggestion though: trim automatically white spaces before and after the ISBN. Zotero-like reference sharing within a Wikiproject or between wikipedias is the next step. --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I love refTools and can't imagine living without it. New editors will find it much easier to add references if this is available.--SPhilbrickT 01:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've been using it for so long that I was recently shocked to realize that it was a gadget that new users had to enable. Lack of references is one of the biggest issues I see on Wikipedia today. Anything we can do to point new and inexperienced editors in the right direction is an enormous help in tackling this problem. Citing sources is one of our most basic values, but it's a ridiculously complicated and non-discoverable procedure without RefTools. Zachlipton (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.--WS (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of: Sources Considered Unreliable for wikipedia citing

 – -- œ™ 08:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such sources would include atleast media organizations that serve as mouth piece for a totalitarian regime, articles, published books, and websites promoted or created as a means for inciting hatred and propaganda. (for example persecution campaigns in Communist china) Scientists who are also politicians, publishing works supporting a claim because they have an incentive or motive, OR they could be inflicted (e.g: life risking or jail risking situation) if they refuse to - as stated above in a totalitarian controlled country.

the guidelines in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS show some other examples. I suggest to create a list, so that lies and false "facts", would not pollute wikipedia so much.

Sometimes there are true facts even when a source is in a conflict of interest, however banned sources would be those that repeatedly post content that would be considered defamation in western societies, or repeat as "facts" that which have already been disputed by well respected organizations (think: United Nations, the US congress, etc.)

That's my proposal. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.150.174.178 (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Would determining which sources are 'reliable' in this manner a POV in itself? After all, NPOV does not mean adhering to the POV of well-respected organisations. Kayau Voting IS evil 11:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I can forsee an epic edit war about the inclusion or exclusion of Fox News alone... -- RoninBK T C 05:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have begun a user essay to list some of the sources that may not be reliable, see User:Fences and windows/Unreliable sources. Fences&Windows 01:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Information needs more than just a reliable source to be considered reliable, and should be handled on a case-by-case basis. Including MSNBC next to Fox News would at least remove the appearance of partisanship. Saying that Fox news isn't mainstream though, and not including MSNBC is just neglectful. The Chinese and Russian news sources should be trusted for a variety of facts, not necessarily on opinions of national matters or for accurate estimates, but they can be trusted for a variety of non self-serving material. A basic reference list for what a source is and who publishes would be better than a list of who is partisan and therefore can't be trusted which will only waste time by generating long, non-consensus gaining discussions. --AerobicFox (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, it's not so much a matter of saying a source is outright unreliable as indicating what biases to look out for, though of course there are exceptions. Yes, there are extreme cases - satire venues that play at looking legitimate, such as the Onion or fiction in the shape of a tabloid, such as Weekly World News - but (for example) Al-Ahram is a perfectly good source on the official views of the Egyptian government, though not on those of the opposition. Also, for example, in the U.S. both The Nation and National Review are near their respective ends of the political spectrum, but both try to be rather scrupulous with the facts. On the other hand, the publications put out by the followers of Lyndon LaRouche are minefields: independent of the opinions expressed, they are liable to be 90% factual, with a few outright, often borderline libelous, fabrications thrown in, which makes them useless as a source. - Jmabel | Talk 17:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Album release date search by date

Wikipedia has a huge database of album release dates, however, at this time they are only searchable by music year. This is a very time consuming way of searching for albums released on a specific date. Would it be possible to implement an album release date search by date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinat (talk • contribs) 16:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment on this; if there was a way to search across table cells, a search string like "2010 albums" "released 14 December 2010" would actually have worked quite well. However, since the word Released and the actual release date are placed in different table cells in the album info box, it simply doesn't at the moment. The closest I could get while actually hitting any decent results at all was by stripping out the released in the search string, as such; "2010 albums" "14 December 2010", which of course doesn't really work as intended, since the date could be anywhere on the page. I suppose something could be done with the infobox album-template to facilitate this, but I'm clueless as to exactly how (if it is indeed possible). Omnomymous (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-Unverified Death?

Having watched yesterdays Gabrielle Giffords mess and todays Richard Winters mess at ANI. I am convinced a single level warning template ( simliar to Template:uw-biog4im ) would be advisable. Any one agree? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest only in the case of really obvious stuff (vandalism). In the case of the first example,, I believe it actually was reported that she had died for a short period and then it turned out she was alive and in the case of the second, there's a good chance it's legitimate, but we don't have any reliable sources. It's sort of bitey, otherwise. HalfShadow 23:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ABC news still reports that she (Giffords) is still alive. I believe that we should not say that she is dead until it is confirmed, and the news says that she is following simple commands. I no longer visit A.N.I., so I had no idea of the existence of the apparent piles of horse apples that are/were sitting over there. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 00:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed Gabrielle Giffords may not be the best example. But its serious thing and we should treat it as such and may be add link to encourage discussion on the article talk page? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the spirit of this, but think a talkpage template would just be a way of underlining the drama. I think we probably need clearer guidelines about current events. The problem is nothing more than editors wanting to be too close to the cutting edge. If that could be reigned in even a fairly small amount, that would solve things. --FormerIP (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a novel, untested idea. You could, you know, try to maybe communicate with editors and ask them questions, direct them to policies and guidelines, and attempt to converse with them. You know what advantage that has? They learn more about how Wikipedia works. You know what disadvantage that has? None. If they refuse to listen you, they get the same block as if you left a template, but for those users that don't deserve a block, they get the impression that Wikipedia is populated by real people who care about them rather than mindless bots that drop incomprehensible form letters on their talk page. --Jayron32 00:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to that, a relevant editnotice template might be helpful. Rd232 talk 13:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Jayron. They probably think they're being helpful, a warning template is an overly aggressive response. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to question the usefulness of such a template as far as AGF is concerned. I mean, the former was caused by a media gaffe, while the latter by a very good effort by the family to keep everything quiet. I mean, it's hard to blame individual editors for something that was outside of their control. –MuZemike 15:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Pat Burns was another case where the media incorrectly reported someone as dead. Several people, myself included, updated the article trusting that the media was correct. To through a L4 warning template at good faith editors is not advisable. In most cases, there will be no remarkable drama about the death of an individual, and for those that do attempt false reports, I'd just classify it as vandalism. Resolute 15:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giant banner

I understand the giant banner during the fund raising drive, but it's over, do we really need it to advertise wikiquote or the 10th anniversary? My specific objections are:

  1. It's gigantic and in the way
  2. My P4 1.8 hangs for a second while doing the ajax magic. On every page it's very annoying

My proposed solution:

  • Main page only

Before someone suggests it, no I don't want to create an account, hack it out of my personal monobook, and login every time I visit the site. --72.144.177.129 (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded Shabidoo | Talk 01:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@72.144.177.129: So basically, even though there is an easy fix, you refuse to do so just to stand on "principle". Good luck with that. --Jayron32 03:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
↑ This. If you don't want to see banners, a login is a simple solution. Choosing to not have a login means you can't remove items like this. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron that's not exactly an easy fix. Sure, it's doable, but presumably other readers will have the same problem as the OP, and we can't expect them all to register accounts and change their settings, just to get rid of the banner. There are arguments for the banner, but the effect on readers with slow loadtimes and small screens deserves consideration.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Physics. Even if I did go the register route, I would have to login on all the different devices I use every time I visit the site. It's very annoying. A text only banner would be better, or main page only, but regardless it seems the giant java script powered banner is here forever. --65.3.255.75 (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bothers me, too; started a section in the miscellaneous VP (since we don't have a central [real] village pump anymore). ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like the giant banners gone too, from every page and they should not come back for any reason less than the end of the world. - Denimadept (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 72.144.177.129 - the banner is annoying and slow on old computers. Main page only would be the best solution --Nat682 (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to add that as of this morning, more than 50% of the main page is banners and ads and toolbars. giant banners main. Content pages luckily only have the giant coloured banner. I have a P4 1.8 GHz Toshiba with a 15" 4:3 LCD. Do I need to get the "gigant-tech billion trillion pixel 500 inch rockin awesome HD charged plasma time traveling super screen" to view wikipedia now?? :( --65.3.255.75 (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can click the [x] button to dismiss the banner. --Dorsal Axe 13:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It keeps coming back. --72.153.214.200 (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It stays away for me, when I'm not logged in. When I delete cookies, then it comes back. Are you not allowing cookies, perhaps? First Light (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe noscript or ABP or TACO are preventing it. I'm not a fan of cookies and only allow for my webmail to work. --72.153.214.200 (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No Cookies=Banner    Cookies=No Banner   It looks like you'll have to choose your lesser poison. First Light (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or wikipedia could stop spamming people with a gigantic AJAX banner.... I know, it's crazy, but it just might work! --72.153.214.200 (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or, you could make an exception to your filter. The world doesn't revolve around your needs. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it revolves around the need for Jimmy to plaster his face all over the 4th busiest site on the internet. I never expected this to go anywhere, WP is far too mired in it's hateful bureaucracy to ever respond to the needs of it's individual citizens. You're right, of course, "HandThatFeeds", I should just suck it up and like it. --72.153.214.200 (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never said you had to like it. But, yeah, several options were offered and you rejected all of them. So "suck it up" would be the best response. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it revolves around the need for the 4th busiest site on the internet to continue to exist... -- RoninBK T C 18:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested new feature in RC

I want RC to be able to show edits with any tag or hide non-tagged edits. That would make it easier to fight vandalism.T3h 1337 b0y 03:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already been done - User:Lupin/Anti-vandal tool --Nat682 (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we strip the Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians (1909, UK) for articles?

I was looking for some info on some obscure music topics, and found a good full article in Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians on GoogleBooks. The thought occurred to me: it's a 1909 UK publication, much of the material is technical enough that being dated or having old-school tone isn't a huge problem. Is there some way, similar to with the 1911 Britannica, that we can just strip entire articles wholesale, slap up a {{Groves1909}} template, and call it good? Further, since it has good OCR with limited typos, is there any way we can automate such rather than start a new article and cut-paste for each individual topic? MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to rain on your parade, but why not write your own text and just cite the source? Most of the text dumbs from Britannica 1911 and other PD works date from the VERY early days of Wikipedia to give the encyclopedia some content. This isn't much of a problem anymore, so I don't see the pressing need to wholesale copy text from other sources, even IF they are PD... --Jayron32 03:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what your topic is, but using the 1909 Grove can be very risky -- musicology and music theory have come a long way since then, and it's easy to incorporate errors that were corrected half a century ago. I strongly suggest finding a more recent source, for example the equivalent article in the current New Grove, and writing about it in your own words. For example, in the early days of my involvement here, 2004-2005, I spent a lot of time correcting some outrageous musicological errors imported from the hundred-year-old Catholic Encyclopedia and 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, and often wished we'd never imported those articles. You can still find traces of them, or maybe even wholesale dumps in out-of-the-way places. Antandrus (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, my primary interest would be to cover topics that are no longer covered in modern published sources. That is, things still of long-term notability, but "obsolete" enough to not be prioritised in modern printed sources. As an example, I recently did the article stock-and-horn for an extinct Scottish peasant musical instrument. I could also see covering musicians and groups (opera companies, etc) of interest in the period. I'll look to comb through the OCR of 1909 Groves and see if I can wholesale pluck a few articles that are specific enough that they are unlikely to have become obsolete over time. Is there any way to get a tag such as {{Groves1909}}, similar to the 1911 tag? I'll still be footnoting it as per usual, but a more visual representation of "pretty much came straight from an old book" might be helpful. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest looking if the dictionary is already available somewhere online already (The Internet Archive perhaps?), not copying from it but writing your own articles (those could be much shorter), and link or reference the dictionary in the Further Reading section. —Ruud 23:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not available online yet (and really in the public domain), I would suggest doing this on Wikisource instead of on Wikipedia. —Ruud 23:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 1900 version is up on WikiSource, I might just stick to using that: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Grove%27s_Dict._of_Music . Is there some way to find out if the 1909 is kosher too? Also, I'm thinking I might try to make this a little more refined than simple copy-paste, at least some trimming, and then all the wikilinking and whatnot. So still think it'd be better on WP vs. WS. I did also note there's a general "taken from a work out of copyright" template with a crossed-out-© logo at the bottom, so I can use that instead of making a new Grove's template. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't just strip it: improve it. Something written that long ago will need substantive and stylistic updating in a major way. Tony (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename "Categories" to "Tags"

Though there's a fine line between them, Wikipedia should probably follow the general internet practice of calling these things "tags" instead of "categories".

As a practical bonus I think it might help steer development of organization and search functions in the right direction, ie. doing more of the things other websites generally do with tags. I don't have examples on hand smartass. I think you get the idea. Equazcion (talk) 14:58, 12 Jan 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused why you decided to call no one (and everyone?) a smartass despite there being not a single response to your proposal. --Golbez (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pure make-work. Next bright idea? Fences&Windows 23:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing: Next one would be to institute some sort of rule regarding a required level of usefulness and demonstrated thought in proposal responses, rather than allowing "sux, next"-type answers. Equazcion (talk) 23:48, 12 Jan 2011 (UTC)
Rule zero: Don't insult the people you're proposing to. --Golbez (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, putting the relatively bad proposing method aside, I think this is reasonable. The purpose of "categories" is much more widely known as "tags" on the internet. But yeah, the change would be very very very difficult to adapt to, not to mention how difficult it would be to implement... Rehman 14:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I get the impression that "tags" are seen as more informal than "categories"—you don't hear people talking about "tag hierarchies"—but I don't think the way we name the metadata is preventing us from thinking about the possibilities. If you're talking about being able to search using combinations of metadata, then we already have that to a limited extent (e.g. incategory:1954 births incategory:Evolutionary Psychologists) but that only works if you already know the exact categories. The missing link is being able to search using supercategories (e.g. look for "Psychologists" AND "1950s births" and find Steven Pinker in the results because he belongs to sub-categories of both Category:Psychologists and Category:1950s births). According to Wikipedia:Category intersection this has been "a desired feature for quite some time". I'd like to go even further, so we could publish list articles that are constructed dynamically from metadata searches, rather than (for example) maintaining List of Nobel laureates and List of Jewish Nobel laureates separately. But I'm not holding my breath for any of this. We can't even attach a citation to a category on an article page, which is the most basic starting point for having a verifiable semantic web. - Pointillist (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I should have mentioned that Magnus Manske has written a powerful category search called CatScan2 that runs on toolserver. - Pointillist (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The problem is not only that at this site we use the name "categories", but also that the word "tag" is already used for something else (maintenance and copyright licence templates, informally known as "tags"). To change the words would be highly chaotic, and I'm not sure if the trivial benefits really compensate that. Regardless of this "usual meaning", it's also usual that each major web site has its own interface, which may or may not be similar to others. I think that web surfers should be already aware that they shouldn't take functions or namings for granted, and categories are already enough intuitive so that the casual web surfer can understand or at least suspect whaat are they about. I mean: Barack Obama has, at the end of his entry, the links "Categories: 1961 births, 21-st century presidents of the United States, African american academics", and so on. What else can someone understand those links to be for, other than for the purpose we give them? --MBelgrano (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not forget that we also already have "tags" as applied to revisions by the EditFilter extension. Happy‑melon 15:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's true but I don't think it is irrevocable: it would be just as effective to call them "flags" (e.g. Flag: possible vandalism, Flag: references removed). - Pointillist (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think "category" would be more widely understood by non-native speakers of english: tag is quite a recent, technobabble word.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Not only do I agree with the last comment, I would go further. Not only would "categories" be easier to understand by non-native speakers - it would be easier to understand by native speakers of English, especially those new to the world wide web. After all, Wikipedia already has many "tags" - such as the recent deaths tag - so calling categories tags would only confuse people. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Today's Featured Picture" should be more active

"Today's Featured Picture" is usually flowers, insects, or a panoramic view of a town. I suggest more active images. One of my favorites was of a jet plane breaking the sound barrier.

Today's Featured Picture is selected from Featured Pictures. These are nominated and discussed at Featured Picture Candidates. We have a number of excellent photographers who specialize in the subjects you mentioned, so that's why you're always seeing them on the Main Page. If there's an image you think deserves to be a Featured Picture, feel free to nominate it. You'll want to check the Featured Picture criteria first, though, and possibly ask for input at Picture peer review. Cheers. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the overly anthropocentric focus of some anatomical articles

I've been looking over various articles on anatomy, and noticed that there are quite a few inconsistencies amongst them. For instance, the articles Nose, Eye, Penis, Bone, Teeth, Jaw, and to some degree Brain and Heart, all have a rather general, non-anthropocentric view on the subjects they are explaining. However, other articles, like Mouth, Intestine, Foot, just about every single article related to the female reproductive system (vagina and clitoris to mention a couple), and to some extent Hair, Ear and Tongue, in my opinion, do not.

My proposal is that we (continue to) move everything specific to any single species to its own page (specified with the species' name in parenthesis), unless it consists of only a few lines of text, as to achieve a more neutral representation of each subject. This has already been done for nearly all of the articles I mentioned at the start of this post (see Human nose, Horse teeth and Human eye for examples on this), but there are still a number of glaring exceptions.

(I wrote a few replies earlier to posts pertaining to the issue on this discussion page and this one as well, but I thought it would probably be more appropriate to bring it up here... sitting around waiting for someone to reply to those could take a while, after all.) Omnomymous (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha. I have also noticed this and would love it to be addressed, I've bought it up at the countering systematic bias wikiproject and at biology wikiproject, but people weren't tremendously interested. I obviously completely agree, but I think one problem we face is that relatively few sources address these topics from a non-human perspective which can make it difficult to create articles that give an overview. I guess it's really a case of WP:SOFIXIT if you can, I for one would support any changes like these. SmartSE (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting to see that this issue has been presented several times before, albeit met with such mixed opinions. I suppose you're right about the sources detailing non-human anatomy being somewhat sparse(r), which, if we move mostly everything specific to humans into their own articles, could result in leaving some of the main articles rather desolate (obviously not something we want). Also, since I'm neither a biologist/doctor/veterinarian/etc. nor having English as my first language, writing articles on highly technical matters such as anatomy can prove to be both quite challenging and time-consuming, but I'll probably give it a go anyway. I guess I'll just have to rely on people correcting my mistakes as they are spotted.
Oh, and many thanks for the welcome, by the way (didn't want to cause any clutter on your talk page) :) Omnomymous (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that Wikipedia should be anthropocentric. It is read, so far, exclusively by anthropoi. So basically I think your whole project is misguided. --Trovatore (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So just because you're a human means you don't want to know about other organisms? A counter to your point, is that I know exactly what the human penis looks like and how it works, but there are a great variety of different penis forms, which our article barely touches on at the moment. Why deny a reader of finding out more about the anatomy of other animals, just because we're human? SmartSE (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, the anatomy of animals should be covered. I just think there's nothing at all wrong with a so-called "bias" to humans.
Specifically, I think that, say, kidney should treat the human kidney first and primarily. Kidneys in general should be perhaps a separate article. Not sure what the title should be. --Trovatore (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely agree with OP - seen this problem a lot. Some anatomical articles deal exclusively with human anatomy, some throw in a mixture of human and comparative, some are primarily written in the general perspective with a little mention of human thrown in. It's that inconsistency that's the problem, not the anthropocentricity. The obvious solution would be to emphasise the distinction (e.g. as is done with Human brain vs Brain, Human heart vs Heart). TheGrappler (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My own suggestions on how to improve on this matter can now be found here, if anyone's interested (probably not). Input is of course welcome. Omnomymous (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems rather redundant to me. Most people will be coming here to read up on how their own body works, with how animals' variations work being secondary. In fact, if an animal's organ varies significantly, that should be covered in the article about the animal. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pending Changes on talk pages

How can we implement pending changes on talk pages? Mine is continually vandalized by a sock IP, so I don't want them removing stuff, but I do want legit IPs to be able to leave queries. I was directed here from Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Pending_Changes_on_talk_pages CTJF83 chat 00:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't help you. You would still see it, you would still need to revert it. The only difference pending changes would make is that IP users wouldn't see the comments if they visited your talk page (at least not by default). Amalthea 16:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well good, then the vandal IP/new user wouldn't see the removal of content. Is it possible to do, or no? CTJF83 chat 04:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, yes, an IP would see the removal. If anything, an IP would sometimes not see the vandalism, that's what it was designed for.
It's technically possible to put your talk page under PC protection, yes. But I wouldn't do it since it doesn't really help you. If your talk page is regularly vandalized by non-autoconfirmed accounts then I'd just go straight to semi-protection, I would think that with the history of your talk page it should never be a problem. Amalthea 13:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IP would see the removal? I thought PC was designed to not show any edits to IPs/new users until confirmed by an experienced user. CTJF83 chat 21:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous users are by default presented the last revision marked as reviewed. Revisions are marked as "reviewed" either a) manually by a WP:REVIEWER reviewing a pending revision or b) automatically if an (auto)confirmed user makes an edit based on a reviewed revision (like when he reverts).
Any anonymous user still has a link to show the most recent revision, which is also shown directly after he edits the page. Amalthea 12:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal : Deprecate specifc CSD for older images, and amend others

Fairly simple proposal, given that AFAIK the number of images without a license is shrinking.

Proposal is to amend the CSD criteria so that a CSD for no-license or no-source cannot be applied to an image uploaded prior to January 1st 2011. This means that images without a license or source posted before this date would have to go via PUF or FFD to ensure an 'appropriate' discussion took place. Images may of course still get deleted, but at least there would be a documented disscussion (and possible attempt to find sourcing/correct license)

Further to this, it would be appreciated if F2 and F8 which relate to images on Commons were reworked.

F2 is currently used for both 'blank'/missing or damaged images AND for images that are Commons ones with local details, These are different issues, and thus should be on different tags.. The issue of local details should be F8(b) whereas the current F8 should F8(a). Tools like TWINKLE should also be updated to make the distinction.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm not sure why such images would get a free pass; what happened to Wikipedia policy on January 1, 2011 that changed how such images are treated by policy? --Jayron32 18:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose CSD: It can be a good idea to take old files to PUF or FfD instead of tagging them with a CSD. But I see no reason why we should make it a rule always to do so. No matter what gets tagged admins should always check files before they delete them so if a file is tagged by a mistake an admin will fix the problem.

F2/F8: F2 is used for deleting file pages where there is no image on enwiki. I see no reason to change that. --MGA73 (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Jayron32. The existing framework has worked well for getting reducing the number of no-source/no-license images. I don't see why we suddenly need to start having a discussion for each of them that nobody had happened to notice before this month. DMacks (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support One possible reason for doing something like this is for older images where the original uploader may no longer be active, and the file itself may not be being watched. Taking the file to IFD rather than speedying it may give more chance for problems with the file to be resolved rather than the file because more people will be aware of the problem. I would think, however, that the proposed cut-off date is too recent - maybe something like a couple of years.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mission to Find the Most Supported Alternative to RfA

I am trying to find the most supported alternative method to RfA at User:A930913/RfA. Input is appreciated. 930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 20:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The previous incarnation of this process is still on this page with hat templates, and there is no reason for this incarnation to behave any differently, except that the userspace page will just be ignored rather than archived. The meta-process that you're working with is fundamentally juxtaposed to the accepted methods of researching community consensus. Jumping straight to "what do people want to replace RfA with" is skipping too many stages and is certain to result in no conclusive outcome. You want to be a lot more methodical in asking first what people feel is wrong with RfA, a discussion which is best suited to an RfC format. Happy‑melon 21:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

move link to disclaimers to top of page

The link to Wikipedia's disclaimers is currently at the bottom of every page, which, in my opinion, is the worst possible place to put it. It should be at the top or in the bar on the side of the page so that people can click on it and look at the disclaimers without being forced to scroll through the entire page. Does anyone else agree? --Nat682 (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Peter jackson (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. The use of disclaimers at the bottom is an internet standard. That's where anyone would seek it. Besides, once someone has read it and accepted it, there's no longer any reason to read it again, that's why they are always left at some remote and unobstrusive section of the page.
And more: the fact that "Wikipedia must say this" does not equal "All readers must read this". Some people is already aware of what can be expected from a web page or not, and what risks may be in their usage. I don't need a wikipedia disclaimer (or any web page disclaimer, for that matter) to know that if I had health problems I should consult a real doctor. MBelgrano (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion: Wikipedia talk:Spoiler#RFC: Change prominence of site disclaimer link in default skin. Anomie⚔ 00:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change to the main page - Wikipedia in the news feature

Can I suggest that the main page has a "Wikipedia in the news" feature? On January 14, 2011, Wikipedia was covered on the Radio Four news, and also on the PM programme that precedes it - it would be nice to think these features got prominent coverage in Wikipedia.ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Wikipedia is in the news often enough to justify such a section --Nat682 (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Special logo for the tenth anniversary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Result: Implemented. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 00:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that this is short notice, but I propose that we use this site logo from 00:00 UTC until the tenth anniversary ends in all time zones. Opinions? —David Levy 22:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no licensing constraints, I support it. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much of the same opinion as Titoxd. --Dorsal Axe 22:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it :D [stwalkerster|talk] 22:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The puzzle piece and numerals are from the Wikimedia Foundation's official Wikipedia tenth anniversary artwork. The word "years" is rendered in a free typeface. —David Levy 22:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with it, but ultimately this had better move quick if you want it up in time. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this move. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the proposed logo is of the same dimensions as the current logo, it is much easier to do a swap. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is. It can simply be uploaded over the normal file at 00:00 UTC. —David Levy 23:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely it can't be that simple? :S Happy‑melon 23:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great idea. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest we try to knock up something based more closely around the globe, a-la File:Wikipedia-logo-vi balloons.png, but I definitely support doing something to celebrate. Enwiki has an awfully stiff upper lip about giving undue prominence to any culture-specific event, but I think we can all agree that this anniversary is exactly as global as the project itself. Shame that it's been the 15th for half a day in Fiji already... Happy‑melon 23:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, the black "10" puzzle piece is the Wikimedia Foundation's official Wikipedia tenth anniversary logo. I simply tweaked it to include the word "years." —David Levy 23:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
how about this?
Mumble mumble meh. It just seems a bit more Google-esque to keep the globe and add 'bells and whistles' to it, rather than changing it altogether. But I definitely support doing something. Happy‑melon 23:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggested graphic is nice, but it has the wrong dimensions and doesn't indicate the celebration's nature. I also think that we should use the official artwork. —David Levy 23:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's also using the old globe... :( It's the same height but stretched so that there's space for the balloons without pushing the globe off-centre (the image is centred in the sidebar, don't want it to be out of line). Incidentally, <folorn hope> can we please use this for St Patrick's day? </folorn hope> Happy‑melon 23:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the width more important? —David Levy 23:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't stay logged in at the moment, but this is BarkingFish - you can CU me if you need proof :) I personally don't support the idea, to me the puzzle piece says we're completing the ball, as it were. The logo with the missing pieces says we're not finished, this to me looks wrong. Sorry. I guess if the rest of you want it, go ahead. Just my opinion. BarkingFish 23:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about using the original Wikipedia logo (the one after the american flag)? --Church of emacs (Talk) 23:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be cool for those of us who recognize it, but most people wouldn't understand the reference. —David Levy 23:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever we decide to do (I personally prefer David's 10 jigsaw piece, since it makes sense what we are celebrating, and the original logo is sort of obscure), sysadmins have changed the site's configuration so that we can upload over File:Wiki.png and locally override the logo. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)
    • (ec) The new puzzle piece logo I think is more suitable - it's more descriptive of the event. IMHO, it's not saying we're finishing the puzzle either, as it's a single piece, and there are clearly more missing. If anything, it's showing we're adding another piece to the puzzle. It's suitable for the event, more so than the balloons logo. The original logo I think will just confuse people even more. [stwalkerster|talk] 23:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the image posted here, if we can use it. - Denimadept (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's different dimensions, which will completely mess stuff up as I understand it. [stwalkerster|talk] 23:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a huge fan of David's puzzle piece logo—clean, informative and celebratory. Let's get it on here in time! I certainly see no reason not to. -CapitalQ (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what's the word on this logo? There's only ten minutes to go. Is the logo going ahead? --Dorsal Axe 23:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it. \O/ Happy‑melon 23:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -- Cobi(t|c|b) 00:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lol, look at the file history of File:Wiki.png... :D Happy‑melon 00:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I lol'd Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I noticed that too. I also lol'd. --Dorsal Axe 00:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I noticed the 10 Years logo and came here to say "Great Idea!" and very well implemented. Thank you all. First Light (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to get rid of the new logo, should you wish to

Thanks to Guandalug and myself on freenode, you can get rid of the new logo (guandalug) and have a "normal" one for the day, and also ditch the orange banner on the front page (me). Simply add this line: 

#p-logo a { background-image: url("http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Wikipedia-logo-en.png") !important; }

to your .css file for your skin (monobook.css, vector.css, whatever) and do a deep reload (see the instructions there).

To remove the orange jigsaw banner thingy, add this to your .css file: 

#mp-banner { display: none; }

save the content, deep reload, and enjoy.

Not everyone likes the new choice, and people should be given an opportunity to know how to remove it.

BarkingFish 12:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expiry of watchlist items

I would like an additional feature whereby watchlist items have an expiry time. I.e. when adding an item to the watchlist, I would like to be able to specify that it expires (be removed from my watchlist) in x days. Of course the default for expiry would be infinite, and therefore not function differently to the current system. I edit many articles, and feel responsible to address concerns on a talk page soon after my edits, however after a decent interval, other edits will make my having to respond less important. I'm finding it impossible to keep track of pages when too many get placed on my watchlist, so I have to delete articles manually from time-to-time anyway. This proposal would help to automate that manual process. I suspect people running bots and scripts will also benefit from an expiry feature.  GFHandel.   07:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it would be feasible to install such a feature then I would be sure to use it often as I also will make a minor edit, and then watchlist the page to see if I get any comments about it, but never return to the page again, and after awhile have to manually remove it anyways, but can't keep track of what pages I edited when. --AerobicFox (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Handel's proposal sounds good. But in the meantime, it would be such an advantage in tending to one's watchlist to have a little button adjacent to each item to unwatch it, without having to go through the contortions of visiting the editable list, ticking boxes, scrolling and saving, or alternatively of going to the target, unclicking the blue star and returning. Tony (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. See user:js/watchlist. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, would be good. In the mean time, WP:POPUP has an Unwatch item that saves clicks. Rd232 talk 10:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another way of doing something similar would be to have a device to incude the pages of your last 50/100/whatever contributions included in your watchlist. Peter jackson (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A slight tweak on this proposal that I would find useful, would be a facility to easily de-watchlist any items that have not been updated in x days. That is, you display the watchlist, you specify the number of days and click - articles where my edits were definitely uncontroversial i.e. no-one has changed or commented on the article for x days since my edits - are gone from the list. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would find it a big DISadvantage to have instant unwatching on the watchlist, myself. An optional timeout sounds like a very good idea, though. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. I just recently took a weed whacker to my Watchlist, removing all the stuff I only reverted vandalism on or PRODded or whatever. This feature would be a godsend. -- RoninBK T C 16:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, thanks heaps for that little x button function for the ongoing weeding of one's wl garden. At some stage, we should push for it to be a permanent feature (or at least optional via prefs; but I can't see what the objection would be to permanence—the little x adds almost no bulk to each item). Tony (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea. Now I have to figure out why it doesn't work on my watchlist any more. Probably one of the multitude of scripts I have loading. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 01:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Display thumbnail images of article editors on page

When editing an article you should have the option to include a thumbnail image of you from your profile in a section of each article e.g. 'People who have contributed to this article'. Clicking on the thumbnail will display the public parts of that user's profile and what other articles they have edited. The idea is to help give people a sense of reward and recognition if they want it as well as allowing users to more easily see who's behind the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SquareRootofBlue (talk • contribs)

If you go to the history tab of any article, you will see the contributors, each with a link to their contributions. Adding images would simply be gaudy and akin to a messageboard, and imo, is not necessary. Resolute 23:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No offense to anyone, but after meeting some of the people here at one of the tenth birthday meetups, I'm not sure I want to see photos of everybody. I know I'm definitely not a visual treat for the eyes. -- RoninBK T C 19:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too much added strain on the server to make up for added benefits, IMO. --AerobicFox (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Developing the format for the future

The problem is that often users can be overwhelmed by the vast oceans of information now available on most topics. Experts in the various fields can apprecaite the amount of high quality information you can find, but casual users, younger users, or non-native speakers might find certain articles rather unapproachable. For example, I have a degree in physics, but I'm not always looking for the maximum amount of scientific data on each topic I look up. Sometimes I'd like to see a summary version. Also, we home school our daughter and would like to let her do some research on different topics, but most articles are a bit beyond the capabilities of an eight year old, but given how ubiquitous Internet use is even for users her age, I think this issue needs to be addressed for the future.

A short-term solution to this would be to have two versions of each article, basic and pro / expert. The basic article would be a general overview of various topics for the casual / younger user, the pro / expert article would include all information given on a topic. The basic article could be the default with a link to switch to expert, or users could choose to browse basic or expert when they first connect.

A longer-term possibility would be to label each entry section according to the level of education required to understand it and have the users create profiles listing their levels of education (primary, secondary, undergrad, grad) in various areas (ie. chemistry, physics, history, linguistics, etc) and then show them (or highlight) the sections that would most likely appeal to them specifically and either hide or minimize sections that contain information that would probably not concern them.

An interesting proposal; have you taken a look at the Simple English Wikipedia? Airplaneman ✈ 23:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing media bot

Just a random idea that I came across, It would not be that hard to write a bot that searches inter-language links for media/files that are free and being used on other languages, but our article is missing images, and then leave a talk page note about the possible inclusion of said media. Thoughts? ΔT The only constant 17:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&oldid=408824649"