Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

New ideas and proposals are discussed here. Before submitting:

• Check to see whether your proposal is already described at Perennial proposals.
• Consider developing your proposal on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab).
• Proposed software changes that have gained consensus should be filed at Bugzilla.
• Proposed policy changes belong at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).
• Proposed WikiProjects or task forces may be submitted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals.
• Proposed new wikis belong at meta:Proposals for new projects.
• Proposed new articles belong at Wikipedia:Requested articles.

« Archives, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212

RfC complicated articles

(see Complicated articles)

Disregarding all the fighting that is going on, I believe it is quite clear what the main points are. 1) The question here is 'Is Wikipedia too complicated to be understood by most readers, and should something be done about it?'

Myself and Vanischenu are convinced that it is indeed the case; while J. Johnson (JJ) believes that it is not sufficient evidence yet to show that.

2) The other question to be addressed is 'What should be done about it?'

To this, my response has been very clearly to highlight the 'Simple English' wikipedia as a means to simplify matters and present article in a simple way. The counter-argument goes that most articles will be longer when they are in the Simple wiki, which may not necessarily simplify things. To which the counter-counter-argument goes that it shall happen only for a very specific section of technical articles, and the majority of the articles wil be much more readable that way.

3) Finally the last and the most clear cut question is 'How to highlight the Simple wikipedia, if at all?'

To this my personal stand is that there should be an infobox displaying the corresponding Simple Wiki articles [with the provision that the corresponding Simple wiki article be rated 'Good' or better]. [First proposal Withdrawn, seeing lack of support for the first proposal, and gravitation of support away from the other proposal] Inamos (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

An alternate solution, which other users have found much more acceptable, is to put 'Simple Wikipedia' at the top of the languages list, thus giving it some sort of highlight without being bothersome to the reader.

With this being said, I put the above question for a vote. Inamos (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• 1: No and no. 2: Nothing, because premise (#1) is not demonstrated. 3: Put at top of language links? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• I would answer the first question with a resounding No. To the second, logically, "nothing," and the third may be acceptable but having the language link position depend upon the article status (or quality) at another project seems a bad idea at the surface. --Nouniquenames 04:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose People who don't understand an article should do what I do when I encounter a technical article: read the lead and look at the pictures, if any. Pokajanje|Talk 23:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

  Why should we do so, if we have a better way (say, if there exists a good article in Simple). Also leads of most articles are not written in complete. Reading the lead of proposal for meta:Concise Wikipedia might be worthy; one of the reasons why it was proposed is that the leads of most of the articles are poorly written. And I don't think any Wikipedian would disagree with it. Then why should we force the readers to grasp information only from the lead and picts.···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 17:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose (I think). Wikipedia has articles accessible to the general reader and detailed technical articles. There is benefit in both, so we should have both - i.e. have "Introduction to ..." and "Outline of ...", etc, articles, with hatnotes linking the two versions. Simple English Wikipedia is for younger audiences, language learners, etc, not for articles accessible to lay adult native speakers and we should not force it to be something it is not. If any content should be moved off Wikipedia it is the detailed, complicated articles but not only is that not necessary (WP:NOTPAPER), but I think it would actually do a disservice. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, your presumption about what Simple English Wikipedia is for is incorrect. It's for everybody, including native speakers looking for easier-to-understand descriptions of complicated topics. Osiris (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• There are 4 million articles. Many of those are too complex, I agree, and should be simplified. I oppose to adding a link to the Simple English article. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

  I am assuming this means "other than the link we already have"? How about listing the simple English link at the top of the language list, instead of burying it alphabetically as is done today? Quantum mechanics is in 89 languages, plus simple English, but right now simple is listed number 68 on the list. Apteva (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support (as already said). Will help both the readers and simplewp.···Vanischenu (alt) 08:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Partial support. I am against advertising simple English (s.EN) inside or attached to the article. Moving it to the top of the langauge list is OK, but let's limit this pole position to a certain period of time (1 year). However, I already use s.EN a lot when I want to get a quick understanding about a topic - because I am used to it and I know where to find it. Others will do so as soon as they discover it's advantages. So, in addition, I favor other ways of promoting s.EN: By applying for a promo-box on the WP:Homepage, mentioning it in tutorials and in talk pages as a adequate solution for the conflict complexity vs simplicity, etc. --Jesus Presley (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: The Main Page already has the interwiki link for Simple English at the top via {{Main Page interwikis}}. Also Simple Wiktionary places English at the top of everything. (PB:I have already supported above using my alternate account from an open computer, please don't count me as another user)···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 16:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• No and no, Overview if necessary, SE link first

  (1) No and no. Articles reach a level of detail determined (both more and less) by the contributing editors, and we should not interfere with such development.

  (2) For individual articles which appear to be too complex, any editor can create an overview section in addition to the even-shorter lead, which could itself have a main-article link with the desired simpler contents. (This is basically the same as the Introduction to virus comment from the original discussion).

  (3) I think placing the Simple English interwiki link first in the list is a very good idea and would support doing that in any case. No other emphasis or dependence on any perceived (probably contentious) relative quality of the articles is necessary.

  --Mirokado (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I brought this up independently at the Village pump's idea lab Possible hatnote linkage to Simple English versions of some general reference WP articles. I think that all of us need to keep in mind that most people who access Wikipedia are not editors, they are readers looking for information, and that some of those readers are either younger students or people for whom English is a second language.ne ( What editors notice all the time, most of our readers never even see. If the whole point of this encyclopedia project is to get information into the hands of the people, then what is the harm of providing some way of easily-accessing the basic Simple English Wikipedia article on a subject? I have to wonder how many readers actually notice all the Wiki-linkage on an article-page... Can anyone here tell me from memory where the Simple English linkage is over there among all those languages? I'll tell you...it's between Sinhalese and Slovenian. As I said at the idea lab, I've been keeping an eye on the Article Feedback for my Watchlisted articles and I can tell you that some of our readers are unable to fully grasp some of our general-interest articles, like maybe the ones about US Presidents or about other history subjects. I did do up a Simple English hatnote for Thomas Jefferson and did have one up at George Washington which looked like this. I think at the very least that the Simple English link should be moved up to the top of the languages or that using a hatnote to provide a link should be an accepted way to deal with some of our stated Article Feedback, so here are my thoughts on the numbered aspects of this RfC:

(1) & (2) Not sure there is an answerable question here, but I do not think that Wikipedia articles, in general, are too complicated for our readership in general. I think that some of our articles are too complex/too long/too whatever for some of the readers that look up those subjects, for instance,ne ( the Wikipedia article on George Washington. I would think that some of our readership arriving at that article are early-elementary schoolchildren or people from non English-speaking backgrounds who are trying to learn more about the first US President. How about we put out some form of a Simple English welcome mat to easily introduce them to the subject? They can then come back to the Wikipedia article for a more in-depth look if they wish.

(3) No to the infobox, Yes to at least moving Simple English up to the top of the languages list.Shearonink (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

ne ( I take back my first two questions in an attempt to remove any biases against the question for the 3rd question [which the community takes very differently from the first two], which now stands as-

Should we have the Simple wikipedia at the top of the languages links?

Inamos (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

If only you had gone straight to that at the beginning! "Taking back" a question in the course of a poll really complicates matters (are the rest of us to "take back" our answers?). I suspect that having Simple English at the top of the language links is innocuous enough that there is no great objection (despite the spurious bases which were presented), though at this point I am not certain how to best determine consensus on that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I agree that the Simple Wikipedia should be more prominently displayed and I mentioned that myself recently there. I'm not quite sure how the best way to do that would be though. I also think that the inverse should apply at simple. If we create a more direct route there, then simple should create a more direct route here. That way if the reader wanted to see a more complete article (which presumably we would have) then they could come here. At minimum I think putting the Simple WP icon on the top of the interwiki links would be a good start. A couple additional possibilities:
  • A new tab that says simple if the editor chooses it under gadgets. It could display in Red if the article applies or a Blue link if not.
  • Another option could be to add an Icon or something similar yo how we do for FA's and GA's. I was thinking an S but that's just one possibility. Kumioko (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2012

• Support for the SEWP interwiki to be sorted at the top. Not doing anything in response to all the article feedback is just not productive. To readers of this wiki, the link to SEWP is the most valuable link in the list. If they're reading this wiki, chances are good they can understand a bit of English -- if they want to read the topic described in clearer terms, they'll be able to see the link more easily. Nothing wrong with sorting it at the top at all. Osiris (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support for the SEWP interwiki to be sorted at the top. That's both simple (!) and relevant. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• If I look at my current layout, I have "toolboxes" (navigation,search,interaction,other languages) down the left-hand side of the article. I have some "Tabs" at the top, in addition I can scroll, and I see some titles scroll by. If an article is "featured", there will be a small icon (one of two, I think) on the right hand side at the top. Logically, if I want to attract the attention of the reader, I must place something at the top of the article. This is because the "in other languages" is at the left, all at the bottom. For a longer article (that's what we are talking about here, no), it will only become visible after scrolling. In my opinion there are several options how to handle it (WP-wide):
  • We have another box "related languguages". This will list Simple English, as well as perhaps Scots, for the English WP. (2-3 links). Users can parametrize the box using theming, if they are logged in; but for anonymous readers, it will simply "show", Simple English amongst others. SEWP will use a similar theme, where the regular English is shown.
  • We can provide some hoverbox ("This article in Simple English") if the article exists.
  • We can highlight and perhaps reposition the "Simple English" language link. Note that none of these will solve the fundamental problem of "getting a simpler version of the article". If it is always possible to "fall back to the EnWP version", this will also provide no incentive for the few editors working at SimpleWP to improve article quality. --Eptalon (talk) 11:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support having Simple English iw link at the top. Its definitely a useful resource and should be highlighted. Agreeing with others on this matter. Kennedy ^(talk) 17:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support having link at the top. I've often wondered why it wasn't already at the top of the interwiki links since that seems to be the most appropriate place to me. -DJSasso (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A bot to implement this

Sine it appears that there is some support for this change, if its implemented, I recommend a bot be set loose on the articles to implement this new change. Rather than just leave the articles as is this will set a baseline order so that it can be done going forward. Otherwise many of these will not have the new order for a very long time if ever. A couple of other things that will need to be done:

1. AWB will need to be updated.
2. The bots that currently work with interwiki's will need to be adjusted. Kumioko (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Given the fact that this wiki will soon stop hosting interwikis (most likely sometime early next year), the easiest option is to simply wait for Wikidata to take over. I'm not exactly sure, but I doubt that a customised sorting for individual wikis has been added to the extension's code. That will have to be brought up with the developers. Osiris (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

A bot looks good to implement it. The other idea may also be implemented when that code comes out, but right now we might as well design a few bots and get the Simple Wiki some coverage. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Editor recruitment with TAFI

From User talk:Jimbo Wales:

We should use the Main Page for editor recruitment. There were only 12,633 new English Wikipedia editor registrations in September 2012, the least since 2005.

Jimbo, this went to the archives before you weighed in on it: Will you please support an experiment to place {{Today's article for improvement}} on the Main Page temporarily in order to judge the extent to which it may be an effective tool for editor recruitment? Please see WP:TAFI for more information. Fake Timestamp for RFCbot --Chris 07:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Paum89 (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I support this experiment. I'm back at work full-time on Monday, so I'll try to get involved a bit.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Paum89... why don't you propose this at a relevant village pump and see if there is community support for such an addition? Resolute 19:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. Paum89 (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment The articles would have to be of fair quality already. We already have our best articles showcased, and you propose we add our worst. Pokajanje|Talk 00:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; please see the history and nomination and voting for WP:TAFI nominees while it's been in the Community Portal. Paum89 (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Not the very worst, by the way, just something well-suited for improvement by the median new editor. Paum89 (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In that case, my vote would be support. Pokajanje|Talk 23:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Support: This isn't about adding our "worst" articles so everyone can see how bad we are at what we do. This is to help combat the widely held view that everything that could possibly be written about already has been, and show that it is completely false. We are bringing to light the many "comment sense" articles that anyone on the world would have been able to write a stub (even a start article) for without much thought. We are giving people that rare chance that they havent had in a while - editing bad articles on a major topic that they know really well. These articles are out there, but noone ever thinks about them, or know that are in such a bad state. Often I want to edit an article but I have no idea what to edit... so I start researching for something that I might be interested in, and usually that takes so much effort out of me I just give up in the end. This proposal allows us to plonk the articles on the main page, and say "guess what? this is an awesome article that i'm sure you know lots about and may be interested in. an article which is need of a lot of help, and you probably didn't even know. Wanna work on it with awesome editors within our beloved wiki-community, just like you?" I can only see a win-win here. Stop thinking about the main page in terms of "ooo looky at all the awesome stuff us editors have done, read and be in awe".... we should always try to reinforce the fact that we are all a part of one big community who are working together to achieve something great. The dichotomy between editor and reader really has to be stopped, and i can see no better way than this to start us on the journey to a better Wikipedia.--Coin945 (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Support: Wikipedia is by no means a complete source of information for every possible topic. Nor are Wikipedia articles completely unstratified. Making it easier and more obvious to improve Wikipedia would be a quantum leap for this encyclopedia, reducing our reputation in academia as a turd magnet in favor of greater fairness.

• Comment - the main page is very heavily trafficked and even an hour of exposure could generate far more views than are needed. As this is rolled out this is something to consider - using random exposure of a dozen TAFI pages on the main page, instead of one a day. By the way if you want to encourage more editors you could display it opened in a special tiny preview window that showed the code and the rendered and invited them to improve the article. Apteva (talk) 05:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: How can we give this experiment more visibility? I for one really want to see the project on the main page.....--Coin945 (talk) 09:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
• 'support perfect replacement for ITN which needs oto go a as its highly subjective an d encourages recentism artiles to be created. Also give a bigger profile to the objective DYKLihaas (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support I wish I would have known about this earlier. Back when I was trying to get the project opened, I probably would have hoped for more by now, but given how long it took to even get started, I guess something is better than nothing. It would be nice to see the project really take off and people actually start improving the articles chosen. AutomaticStrikeout 03:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Ideally, articles for TAFI would be C-class; that way they're of a sufficient quality to be seen, but it's easy enough for a newbie to find something to improve. I wholeheartedly support both this, and "spinoff" TAFIs in various project areas (e.g., an NFL TAFI where the NFL Wiki-Project dedicates its resources and energy to a specified article or a Music TAFI where the Music Wiki-Project dedicates its resources and energy to a specified article, etc.) Go Phightins! 03:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Before this discussion gets wiped off the face of the earth and never seen or heard from again, once the bot comes along and removes it, should we take this to the main page talk page, or just get someone who has authority to edit the main page on it ASAP?--Coin945 (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support: a lot of our concerns about Wikipedia focus on retention... but a far bigger problem is outreach. We've gotten most of the tech savvy nerds (myself included). Now we need to do more to reach out to other smart people who might not have considered how they could contribute. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Yes, yes, and once again yes. Great idea to help show people that there are still some "low-hanging fruit". Buggie111 (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Perfect way to get new editors to come together to give a helping hand to articles.
• Support Great way to get editors to collaborate on a page. We shouldn't hide the fact that there is a lot of work to be done, to the contrary actually. C6541 (T↔C) 02:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Query: Wouldn't that create a large number of edit conflicts?···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 21:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe, but I think we can all agree that the good outweighs any possible bad.--Coin945 (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • The problem would be that only minor edits get saved. And almost all of the major contributions will go wasted and the newcomers, who would be slow, will not get a chance. Good faith new comers will get frightened or will hate to edit ever again. At least the appearance and the word "edit conflict" is terrifying, very much.···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 18:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I think that says more about how Wikipedia handles edit conflicts than it does about this proposal....--Coin945 (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
        • To avoid edit conflicts, a clever rotation system for which article to feature should be introduced - e.g., by time & region. Also, when an featured article has a high editing frequency, it probably should be locked for a while. That might scare away some people, too. Jesus Presley (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
          • • That turns it into a project that requires substantial editor overhead. Ironholds (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
          • The feeling of being unable to edit an article can no way be compared to that of losing great works done in good faith. The latter causes desperation. Even experienced editors can get frustrated by the edit conflict-effect. This is going to make the long term happy readers hate wp all at once.···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 12:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
            • There's a way to avoid the edit conflict problem. Protect or semi-protect the page and put the new feedback tool to good use, so that most contributions will be done as feedback suggestions instead of edits. Diego (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
              • Thanks for the valuable suggestion. But the proposal is not for improving any article, it is for recruiting more members.···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 13:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Jesus Presley (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support If this pushes us to find mechanisms for coping with edit conflicts, all the better. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  Is "predict problem with $thing, solve problem with $thing, deploy thing" not a far superior process to "predict problem with $thing, deploy $thing, hope someone comes along and fixes problem"? Ironholds (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Other than the subtitle, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," there is really nothing on the main page that encourages editing the encyclopedia. This would be a good start. -—Kvng 22:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment It appears that the consensus is in favor of mentioning TAFI on the main page. The next step is probably to determine how this shall be done. Would somebody care to get the ball rolling on this? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I think someone should make a new section for a proposal at Talk:Main Page#General discussion with a link to this VPR thread for others to check that there is a consensus for implementing this. (No, I am not going to do it, as I retired from editing =)). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Talk:Main_Page#WP:TAFI_proposal -—Kvng 14:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Main page is for readers, not for editors. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

  I think the idea is to use the main page to recruit readers that might become editors. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support for potential to recruit and encourage new editors. Setting up some sort of rotation system per Jesus Presley is an excellent idea. CtP (t • c) 22:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per anon above. I'd like to keep the main page as the place where we display our sausages [articles], not where we show them being made. Λυδαcιτγ 22:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose on both principle and procedural grounds. There is a long-standing consensus that the Main Page carries material of interest to readers, not editors, and with good reason. The MP is not the place for recruitment. Furthermore, you can't add content to the MP with a short discussion on VPP - at the very least you need an RFC on T:MP, advertised through WP:CENT. Compare with the amount of discussion there was about adding featured lists. Also, why do people start policy discussions on Jimbo's talk page, as if it's up to him? Modest Genius ^talk 23:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Your reason for opposing is longstanding consensus? What's the reasoning behind the longstanding consensus? -—Kvng 01:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A discussion here to gauge consensus for the idea and concerns about the implementation, followed by coding and then a final, formal proposal on Talk:Main Page is similar to the sort of gauntlet that TFL faced. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 09:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

So longstanding consensus is a euphemism for maintaining a gauntlet? -—Kvng 19:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• VERY strong support This has been something people have been discussing for some time. The project seems to have really imporved over the last few months or more. It is a very interesting idea and I bleive its time has come. Wikipedia is not, and never has been JUST for readers and gearing the mainpage in a manner for just readers is VERY disapointing in from a collaboration stand point. Why doesn't the mainpage have more about editing and collaborating if this is a site everyone can edit and contribute to. Why aren't there actual editing tips on the mainpage and even an Editor of the day to spotlight the real work some contributors have made. This may be a part of the reason people are falling off Wikipedia or, at the very least, could be a way to start bringing the main page in line with the rest of Wikipedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support if it replaces DYK or OTD. We have enough text on the main page. Otherwise I oppose. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 05:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. - Great idea and great timing. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipedia's editor base is declining in part due to the belief that there is little more to add. Constantly pointing to presumed, longstanding consensus, and/or defending the way that we've always done things – is largely to blame for our failure to show the world that now is as good a time as ever to get involved. This proposal is a proportionate change of course, and one that I think could really work.

  A way of reducing the potential for edit conflicts would be to have a small pool of TAFIs, perhaps five articles and a list at any one time, with a random one of those six being displayed to the user when they load the Main Page? Anyone doubting the potential of lists under this format should look no further than the recent history of List of food preparation utensils. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 09:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good idea to me, at least as a trial.  Sandstein  09:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support but with provisos I'm broadly in support of WP:TAFI, but I have a few concerns:
  1. I'm not at all happy that the discussion at WP:TAFI#Human body invoked unexplained "moral concerns" about listing Human body for improvement because (gasp!) human bodies are all nekkid!
  2. If we are going to put a suggested article for improvement on the homepage everyday, we need to have a process which actually does select a reasonable thing every day. Currently, TAFI seems to be not so much today's article for improvement but this week's article for improvement. We need to reach a point where we have an article selected every day to put on the homepage.
  3. We should consider putting pending changes on any BLP articles we select.

  Otherwise, rock on. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I agree with Tom's provisos...they are sensible solutions to some problems that have occasionally arisen with TWAFI as it stands currently. Go Phightins! 11:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree with the last two provisos (and one article a day was the original idea), but not the first one. I'm going to follow my beliefs, popular or not, on Wikipedia as well as in real life. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 15:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
      • My problem isn't with your beliefs but the lack of public reason: "I have moral objections" isn't actually a reason, it's a statement of a conclusion. In deletion debates or featured content processes, we don't just vote, we provide actual reasons. The way we select articles for improvement needs to be done on the basis of reason, not on the basis of what people just state they find immoral or distasteful. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
        • • My !vote is based off of my beliefs. What is unreasonable about that? I did provide a reason. It might not be a popular reason, but that does not mean it is not a reason. It looks to me like you are calling my beliefs unreasonable. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
            • Tom seems to be describing your position as unreasoned more than unreasonable. You surely have some reason why you don't want to see naked bodies in an article other than "I believe it shouldn't be done"? For example, Ryan Vesey gave some at that discussion. Diego (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
              • Here, I think you'll find this article to be a pretty good expression of my reasoning. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
                • Clarification I honestly didn't read Tom's first proviso; I just saw the second two...I agree with ASO on the first one. Go Phightins! 04:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, because I seriously doubt it will help much. Giving people an article and saying "you might want to tweak this!" isn't helpful: you're not giving them a concrete task, just wikisyntax. It's definitely not helpful if everyone is seeing it simultaneously, because we have no mechanism to deal with edit conflicts; we're going to frustrate a lot more people than it attracts. Ironholds (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• We have a mechanism; the new feedback tool at the bottom of pages is not affected by edit conflicts. Diego (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I know. I helped build it. But "more people will use the article feedback tool" does not justify putting something on the main page, nor does it resolve the issue. People are not going to magically predict in advance that "oh, if I edit there will be an edit conflict!" and go to AFT5; they will try to edit, and fail, and get frustrated, and we will have deliberately created that situation. Ironholds (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose There are too many unanswered questions to make this a permanent resident of the home page. But we should support trying new things, so if a one-month (or so) trial were proposed, with an end date followed by an RfC on whether to make it permanent, I would support. First Light (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• This request is not for a permanent placement, but for a temporary one - precisely to help answer those questions. Diego (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• How long is "temporary"? Does it have an end date (I think it would have to have that, if were really "temporary")? First Light (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Sounds like a good way to encourage new editors to edit pages. It would also be a good way to help me find pages that I could improve; something I would like to do more of. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support if there are a number of pages at a time, randomized, to avoid edit conflicts - which turn off newbies like that. -- ypnypn (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support - seems logical to try this. --Nouniquenames 04:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose while the idea might be a good one for ER, the anon at the top makes a good point: the main page is for readers, not editors. Legoktm (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Will someone please explain this readers vs. editors thing to me. Aren't all readers potential editors? -—Kvng 07:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's my train of thought, not sure if it's what other people are thinking about. Wikipedia's main goal is to be a free source of knowledge. Our main goal as editors should be to fulfill that goal. The main page exemplifies that goal, by showing off some of our best info (FA/FP/FLs), info related to current events (ITN), and new interesting articles (DYK?). Adding something like TAFI, while a great idea for improving the 'pedia, is counter to our goals of providing that information. One could make the argument that adding TAFI, we're improving the pedia faster for readers to use, however I don't believe that would be the case. Legoktm (talk) 08:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, our main goal is actually to create a free and reusable source of knowledge. Core to that goal is the idea that this is not a closed work, but one where anyone can participate in their creation and tweak it to their needs. Encouraging user involvement and participation advances this second aspect of the knowledge corpus by giving it more visibility. Diego (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

So even if we agree that the goal is to offer a "free source of knowledge", you're apparently using a passive definition of knowledge - knowledge is something you read in an article. Editing Wikipedia has taught me that knowledge is interactive - it doesn't just lie there on the page, you need to get up and dance with it. -—Kvng 15:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support as long as something is done about edit conflicts. Personally I like the suggestion that there be a whole bunch "lined up" for a given time period (probably closer to a month than a day), and then during that time, when the Main Page is loaded then a random one of them is displayed. ∴ ZX95 ^[discuss] 07:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support wholeheartedly, I've been hoping something like this would happen for a long time, now. Neglected Vital Articles seems like the best source of material. Perhaps it should be randomized somewhat to help avoid edit conflicts. PhnomPencil (✉) 12:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support, sound and sensible idea to encourage positive collaboration and quality improvement. — Cirt (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support and let's make it articles for improvement — one from the hard sciences, one from the social sciences, one from biography, each day. Carrite (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

  I would agree with this. I think part of the reason that the project has not seen results is that while one article may interest one person, it may not interest others. If there was a specific article selected for specific groups, we'd probably start to see progress. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Yes, sounds like it would increase editor recruitment and quality improvement. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support but what will happen to the original Main page sections? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Make it clear to the reader that someone has to actually write all the content, and that includes everyone. Nageh (talk) 11:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support we need to do a better job of editor recruitment, and this is a good first step. I've been lobbying for something like this for what seems like forever! Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. It's actually a great way to treat readers with respect: we would welcome your help. It's all about improving content, and the negatives that have been discussed are all surmountable. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Seeing the amount of support we have here, it might be prudent to vote upon other relevant questions too -

How to add TAFI to the main page?

1. Keep everyting else intact, add new section for TAFI
2. Remove one or more existing sections from main page [Specify in your vote which section]

(add any more options as necessary) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• How about... as a small one-line under DYK? Like this. (That's just a one minute mockup to show location. Obviously, wording and layout wouldn't be like that.) —Tom Morris (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe that one line should be in the TFA box, or between TFA and DYK? Nageh (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Between TFA and DYK seems to make sense. —Theopolisme 14:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. That looks good in the mockup. Go Phightins! 20:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I like the location that Tom Morris shows. As far as design, it should be in a box of a different color, because each of the sections (FA, DYK, etc.) on the home page are in a different colored box. First Light (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with First Light that it should have its own box. Go Phightins! 20:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, how about this:

(I managed to very carefully not press 'save page'. One of these days, I shall make a big fuckup and I'll be summarily desysopped pending castration. Today is not one of those days.) —Tom Morris (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Lovely. Go Phightins! 23:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Very nice. It may be too early to decide, but I suggest reducing the text to cut to the chase, something like: "Help Wikipedia improve: Article" since the title already explains what it's about. First Light (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This looks good. However, I agree with First Light about the text. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW, Tom, experiments can be made on Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox. No need to risk pressing the save page button. I tried to re-create your proposed layout Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Tom's layout Well I envisioned a bright attractive banner in the space between the "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. 4,115,057 articles in English" and "Arts, Biography, Geography etc." text. Plus, no matter where the banner gets put, remember that it has to be inviting and interactively written. It has to persuade people to get excited and motivated. "Help build Wikipedia by improving Today's Article For Improvement: ___" does none of those things. It is bland, boring, and quite frankly patronising.

Anything would be more effective than that. Oh I don't know.... something like: "Why not give the rest of our wikipedia community a hand by helping out ______ - Today's Article For Improvement? :)"

Can you see how this would be better?--Coin945 (talk) 09:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Addendum I really like PhnomPencil's suggestion of "Join fellow new editors in building:".--Coin945 (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I think most people would agree that we need to serve the users by leading with our best content. That's why Featured Article is in first place of prominence. I'm guessing that In the News is also above the fold because it changes frequently. Did You Know? also changes regularly and is typically quite interesting to the reader. If anything should get moved up, in my opinion it should be the Featured Picture, because it highlights some exceptional photos, and many readers mistakenly think that Wikipedia is just about the written word. All of those things serve the needs of the reader, not those of us who edit. While there might be some short term gain in always leading with the fundraising banner and this new "help us improve wikipedia" (both of which are asking the reader to do something for us), one reason Wikipedia is so widely used is because so many of these type of decisions put the reader's needs first, rather than "us" or "me" as editors. A brighter color would be nice, but in the end some of these types of decisions will probably have to include those who have been designing the main page, so that this new feature appears in context. First Light (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

"All of those things serve the needs of the reader, not those of us who edit". Wrong. Unfortunately there is a huge misconception that there is some kind of discrete divide between editors and readers, which is simply not the case. We are one in the same... something that i like to dub "edi-readers". All readers are potential editors, and all editors are potential readers. Our primary objective is to build a free encyclopedia. Everything else (as someone said in this discussion) is a side-effect. Why are we making it so hard for newbies to get stuck in? With attitudes such as yours, no wonder they're all getting scared off... What they need is encouragement and the feeling that they are entering a loving community full of friendly people who have the same goals as them and the same drive. Not the gut-wrenching feeling of stepping into a pool of darkness that stretches on into forever... a pool which (i might add) is filled with crocodiles who won't hesitate to bite at the slightest movement in the water... :/--Coin945 (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree (at least I will) on whose approach is more supportive and welcoming. Mine is colored by having some experience in web design and usability. Obviously we all come here from different experiences, personalities, and cultures, along with clearly different understandings of who is biting whom here. First Light (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Tom's layout. Looks so naturally placed, and less likely to attract vandals below the DYK spot than higher up on the page. I also agree with First Light that we shouldn't use "Improvement" twice. But we should make people feel at ease and "Help Wikipedia Improve:" may be too terse? "Join fellow new editors in building:" may help people understand that they needn't fear looking like a fool with simple mistakes. Cheers. PhnomPencil (✉) 10:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Tom's layout with possible changes to the wording to avoid redundancy. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• How about putting it between the DYK and the TFA, rather than below DYK? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Tom's layout. Looks good; only problem is that it's a bit small, IMO. Shouldn't be a big problem, though, and it doesn't require taking anything else out. dci | TALK 00:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Tom's layout With some tweaking of color and text, but the location and setting are good. First Light (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Tom's layout (1), taking in suggestions for alternative wording : "Help Wikipedia and join fellow new editors in building Name - today's Article for Improvement.". Jesus Presley (talk) 10:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Tom's layout, but like Jesus Presley's proposed text, excepting "new". - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

What should be the actual wording of the TAFI?

1. Help build Wikipedia by improving Today's Article For Improvement: ___
2. Why not give the rest of our wikipedia community a hand by helping out ______ - Today's Article For Improvement
3. Join fellow new editors in building _______
4. Help Wikipedia and join fellow new editors in building _______ - today's Article for Improvement

(add options and alternate wordings as necessary to the list above; and signify your support to a proposal below) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• 2, 4, 3, 1 are my choices ranked by preference, but I would disagree with the word "new" being placed in #s 4 & 3. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

How many articles will be displayed on the main page each day?

1. One article, displayed in a similar system to Featured article.
2. One article, displayed in a single line system, like Did you know
3. Multiple articles (specify number), displayed like DYK
4. Per above comments Have an article out of the multiple chosen being displayed randomly to the user.
5. Per above comments Have several articles out of the ones chosen being displayed randomly to the user.

(add any more options as necessary) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Option two seems best to me. There's no point providing much context, because the content isn't being featured... —Tom Morris (talk) 10:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• Option two, per Tom Morris. Nageh (talk) 12:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• I would be in favor of showing one TAFI in each of the categories we decide to create (e.g., arts, sciences, sports, BLP, and places or whatever categories we decide to feature as the TAFI). (e.g., Today's article for improvement relating to sports is Jim Thome
  Today's article for improvement related to sciences is Hydrogen
  Today's article for improvement related to arts is John Philip Sousa,
  Today's article for improvement relating to BLP is Winston Churchill
  Today's article for improvement related to places is The Eiffel Tower
  If we're going to designate multiple articles as TAFI, all should be shown on the main page. Go Phightins! 20:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• The proposal was for a trial. So one article, on the main page but kept short and not particularly prominent, would make sense. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• Option two. If we have several at a time, or per day, I think we would see less real improvement in articles. In other words, let's go for improvement in article quality rather than quantity. First Light (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• I too have option two as my favorite. It fits in best with the current content. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Option four, in line with my above comments, as this is a variant of option two designed to minimise the possibility of edit conflicts. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 07:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Option four, same as WFC. Edit conflicts could potentially cause exactly the opposite of what we want: turn new editors off. They don't know about that kind of thing... imagine someone thinking "Yes! Today is the day I begin editing," clicking "edit" and spending the next six hours improving the article, only to get an EC at the end... I consider randomization a necessity. PhnomPencil (✉) 10:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Option 4--makes the most sense. —Theopolisme 17:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Option 3- I like the idea of someone choosing an article to improve based on the portal they are interested in. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Option 2 is probably the best option, at least to begin with. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Valid point by AutomaticStrikeout there. For starters, it makes a lot more sense to have just one article to be chosen. Supporting Option 4, weak support to Option 2. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Option 3 will make it easier for newbies to edit an article they know something about, rather than be invited to write an essay about oxidative phosphorylation, which will probably just annoy them. (My apologies to any chemistry fans here.) My second choice is 4. -- ypnypn (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Option 2 for now at least. I think we should be concentrating our effort to see if we get results, and if it's working, it could be expanded. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I completely agree with this line of thinking (if one works, one is fine), I just disagree with the method of reaching the ideal number of articles. I would rather that we start off with too many selections, and whittle it down to just the one article if there are few edit conflicts, than start off with one article and risk a hellish experience for the very people we are trying to attract. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 11:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to ask, is there any way to know when or how many edit conflicts occur on an article (and if possible what those conflicts would be)? An edit conflict counter would do well to help us figure out whether we are creating way too many conflicts or not. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

How will articles be chosen?

Above I wrote that I support randomization, but even if that doesn't pass I think we should all discuss how articles are chosen. There are four levels of Vital Articles in the encyclopaedia: 1 is the "Top ten" and 4 is the "Top ten thousand". I think we should use level 3, the "Top Thousand Vital Articles", specifically those classified as Stubs, Start Class, and C Class. If randomization is chosen this will be easy enough; if not we'd just go through the list, one by one I suppose. But I'm sure there are other options out there I haven't even considered. Any ideas? PhnomPencil (✉) 10:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Question What are your thoughts on the current process used by TAFI? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

While the current process works more-or-less well enough for the current requirements, puting it o the main page is another matter entirely. I support having a general guideline for the article to be allowed to be selected [Vital Article or High (or greater)importance in any of the WikiProjects AND C or lower in quality] first. Anybody can nominate an article, and 2 supports shall directly place it into the "Pool of TAFI candidates" [Any Oppose vote shall force a longer discussion of the same]. Every day, the required number of candidates are randomly chosen from the pool TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• AS: I like the way they operate, though I've never taken part. I proposed "VA 1000 Stub/Start/C Class" because I see it as A) a clean, streamlined way of choosing articles without expanding bureaucracy and B) with randomization covering all broad topics, a good way to avoid any potential WP:DRAMA, which I consider the main reason we see the dismal stats on the graph above. But if there's a way to expand TAFI as it currently stands to a high profile Main Page project, then I'd be fully behind it; they're a great community. I'm just throwing ideas out there. PhnomPencil (✉) 04:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting to note - 1 out of top 10 vital articles is featured. 3 featured and 5 good articles in top 100 vital articles. Seeing the state of articles that are most important to wiki, I believe that PhnomPencil's suggestion makes the most sense [Vital level 3 or above; Start/Stub/C class or lower] TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopaedic value is a big thing. But the starting quality of the article/list and potential for improvement have surely got to be the overriding factors. Drinking water is an extremely important article, but would be a crap TAFI. The potential to improve List of geometric shapes is far more obvious, and the latter is still of high encyclopaedic value. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 11:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'd prefer using Level 4, because Level 3 is quite limiting in the options to choose from IMO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment "Vital articles" (meaning level 3 mostly) is mostly a place to argue about why what's important to me is more important than what's important to you. It's a disgraceful thing and ought to be MfD'd. That isn't going to happen because it has a built-in constituency, who are the people that like to argue about why what's important to them is the most important. But it should never be used for anything else; it should be left as a stagnant backwater. I have fewer objections to level 4. --Trovatore (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Even level four appears to ignore lists entirely, and I think to do so would be a mistake. For disclosure I have a degree of interest in statistics and the like, but let's look at this objectively. List of food preparation utensils was proof that undeveloped lists on broad subjects are well suited to the TAFI format. Provided that a similar level of prep were done for, say, List of geometric shapes, that would surely represent a far better collab than start-class maths articles like Cauchy's integral formula. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 11:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• How about creating an initial list of around 50 articles which will be vital, interesting as well as in need of clean up. That list can be prepared in quite a short time by editors round here, and we can then put them up for a quick vote to remove any bad apples. And the TAFI chooses randomly from this list. Once we see how it works out, we can always refine the system used. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Helping new editors productively edit TAFI

Could we create a to-do type template (something like {{To do}}) for the article page during the TAFI period? I think most new editors will click through and be like, uh, so what am I supposed to do here? Having a discrete list of tasks would take more time on the backend (and would obviously make the article uglier for the day it's up), but I think it would really help actually convert readers to editors. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

IMO, that would be a very helpful plan. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support This proposal would make it more inviting to all editors. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• That will be a brilliant idea. We can even have regular editors supervising the changes, or something and provide real time direction, advice and encouragement to new editors who just edited the article. We can even have the supervisors strike off things from the to do list once they are done; and have the main page auto-switch to the next article on TAFI once a page successfully completes its 'To Do' list. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A set of guidelines to be presented to each new editor

I think it will be good if every new editor who clicks on the TAFI link is first redirected to a crash-course style page; which will give all the basic tips required (Also linking to the longer tutorials for the same) and the most important things to be kept in mind before one can edit the page. We might do well to keep it no longer than 2-3 pages to note bore the new editor off. We could explain what problems they might face (not saving; preview; edit conflict etc), and how to avoid them (Do not keep edit window open for an hour, remember to save; etc...)

How does this idea sound? If there are any takers for this idea, we might try to move ahead with trying to create the basic layout of such a page; and seeing what should be included in it. Any suggestions as to what can be introduced? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd be wary of this as it could be construed as misleading the editors. If we have a link that says "Click here to do X!" and then we redirect them to a page that says "Before you do X, read A,B,C,D,E... then you can do X!". I'd suggest that, instead of redirecting them, a banner at the top of the page indicating that that page is the current article for improvement should be included with a few links to guides. Such as "Never contributed to Wikipedia before? Take the some sort of wikipedia crash course" and/or "New to Wikipedia? Have a look at this more something with more detail than the crash course" Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Support that. Sounds like a perfect idea to me. CharmlessCoin (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Support Cabe6403. Just keep it short and easy to read. Since they're editing a pre-chosen article, we can skip many of the guidelines about notability, conflict of interest, etc. Don't overwhelm the newbies! (By the way, that should be a guideline.)

Also, we should suggest editing sections, instead of editing the whole page. -- YPNYPN 18:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I also like the banner at the top of the TAFI article with some editing suggestions, rather than a head fake first. And it should include a friendly note about the need for reliable sources. If we're really interested in not just getting, but keeping new editors, it would do more harm than good to have to tag or delete all of the not uncommon first person sourcing that new editors often provide ("I learned something about this in freshman chemistry, I think I'll add that...."). I say "friendly" because we want to help the new editor learning process, without discouraging. First Light (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Languages on sidebar

On the left hand side of any Wikipedia page, on the toolbar, there is a section devoted to interwiki links to other language versions of an article. I want to propose a small change to the mediawiki software wording here. At current it is simply named "Languages", which is rather ambiguous and vague name. I think that when somebody less experienced at Wikipedia, usually a reader or newbie, sees that and the links below it, that if they click it they can get the whole of Wikipedia translated into that language. I propose it is changed to something short but similar to "View this page in other languages". This clears up any confusion to what you may consider to be a very minor thing but could be very hard to get their head round for readers. Rcsprinter (talkin' to me?) @ 11:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"In other languages" would probably fit. But your solution does not solve the stated problem. I'm as likely to think I'll see a trasnslation of the EN page if we say "View this page in other languages" ... the operative problem being "this page". The interwiki link allows us to view the treatment of this subject in other languages. "Other language versions" might work. "Articles on other languages" also. But we're swapping brevity for perceived accuracy, which still might not be parsed by the user. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not "Other languages"? Tony (talk) 12:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Funny, in my toolbar it shows as "in other languages". Lectonar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you using any custom code that might be overriding the default? —David Levy 12:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of; but still, it shows "In other languages", even on this page here. Lectonar (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess you have selected "en-GB - British English" as language at Special:Preferences. Then you see MediaWiki:Otherlanguages/en-gb instead of MediaWiki:Otherlanguages. en-gb is not recommended at the English Wikipedia. See Help:Preferences. The page history of MediaWiki:Otherlanguages shows some variation years ago but not since 2007. David Levy used the Simple English Wikipedia as reason for not saying "In other languages".[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that; I guess I must have chosen it when I started may account, some 7 years ago. Never had any problems, though. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I just harmonized MediaWiki:Otherlanguages/en-gb and MediaWiki:Otherlanguages/en-ca with MediaWiki:Otherlanguages.

If the British English and Canadian English options are to remain available, we should apply the various customizations (with changes in spelling/wording where appropriate). For the messages in which no English variety issues exist (presumably most), we could use redirects. —David Levy 17:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

One of the Wikipedias is written in simple English. —David Levy 12:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep "Languages". Apart from linking to this subject in another language, it also links to the whole Wikipedia in that language (with "whole" admittedly being smaller than English). You stay in that language if you follow wikilinks there, use the search box, click the logo, and so on. "Languages" is brief and about as clear or open to misunderstanding as alternatives that are not ridiculously long. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep "Languages". Agree with PrimeHunter - it is ambiguous, but it's short and it won't take the reader long to find out what is meant once he actually follows the link... --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

We will have a huge language button on top right.

The WMF is developing a huge button that says "English" on the right corner, so readers will find the articles in other languages easily. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Note to keep archiving bot away. Rcsprinter (yak) @ 21:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Why not have it say "On Other Wikipedias"? Then it encompasses, say, Simple English, while avoiding the implication of translations. ∴ ZX95 ^[discuss] 01:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

My preference is languages because that is more explanatory than other wp's. Technically simple is a subset of English. Apteva (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The issue was raised, however, that "Languages" is likely to make some people think that the linked articles are translations of the English one; that was why I suggested "On Other Wikipedias", which is much less ambiguous. ∴ ZX95 ^[discuss] 15:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Admin tenure

I know this has been said before, but to propose to that effect, instead of having unlimited admins without acountability, its best to give accountability to the transparent process of having admins orotated ever so many years. One such idea I would like to propose is a three-year tenure-ship with 1/3 of admins up for re-election every year. Its as transparent as the oft-quoted "benevolence" of [western] democracy. Keeps people more transparent knowing they have a constituency to report to and an election to face so as to prevent abuses of power. Perhaps 150-300 admins with 1/3 rotated. Other options are very welcome.Lihaas (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I support this, with the full knowledge that it will never happen. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Any idea how to put it to a wider vote?Lihaas (talk) 08:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll make it an RfC. AutomaticStrikeout 18:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

An admirable goal. But it seems likely to raise logistical issues that you may want to address (if 1/3 are to be elected each time, how many admins would there be altogether? if the re-election is going to be meaningful, there would have to be lots of RfAs going on all the time, but isn't that process not seen as... super efficient?) AgnosticAphid talk 08:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Edit: Somehow I missed your suggestion of 150-300 admins. But right now there are 1,451 of them (WP:Admins). AgnosticAphid talk 08:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Didnt know how many there were. Perhaps we can keep it thereabout. For the first cycle, the oldest third can be elected and then move on for the first three year cycle. Alternatively a handful of active admins (active in admin work, not just active with edits here and there) can be longer/permanent with the rest in a regular electoral process as any nationalelection. The admin holds his views and questions at some page and then others can ask/read/see achievements/criticisms.Lihaas (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Switched to Support below. because I am not convinced that this will work. I believe this would create a way too complicated process for a volunteer project like Wikipedia. I've seen a number of experienced editors leave the project because of failed RfAs. Increasing the risk to lose more such editors through this process isn't something I am comfortable with. Also, it's not clear to me what problem this proposal is trying to fix. Is there really so much abuse of admin powers lately? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 09:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It gives admin authority uniaterally and is not accountable. ive seen numerous admins who take decisions without any consensus discussions (some of which are uncontroversial, but nevertheless a bad precedent). I dont think its harder than any election. As proposed above, even the RFA's would go and be more streamlined. This would have to happen since its rotated and not permanent. (hence the RFA's are arduous because the process for that permanent job has to be harder to weed out others). Knowing you have a set tenure will make one MORE accountable and open the process more.

Alternatively, we dont have to have a set number of, say, 500 to vote for each year. We could do more or less. And even have some 150 every 5 months or 50 a month (just throwing out ideas)Lihaas (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support The principal idea. Now how is this process intended to work exactly? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be per above and below. But any specific questions?Lihaas (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

So does that mean any admin has his or her admin rights automatically removed after 3 years or am I misunderstanding this? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 19:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment While I support the idea and the 3 year term for that matter, this is one of those perennial ideas that has yet to get support. See Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Reconfirm_administrators. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

  As as an admin, any idea how to get this wider discussion? We can refine certain aspects through discussion too.Lihaas (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I rather think a monthly election for 10-20 admins for 3-year terms will be fine. With terms less permanent, admin hopefuls will not require as stringent conditions, opening up the chances for newer hopefuls. Opposing the idea of having permanent admins. Even a permanent admin may not stay active after 3 years. If he does, then we can easily re-elect him. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Question - Is there already a system for de-admining rogue/bad admins? This might help do something of that sort, and even in making the process better and easier TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is WP:AOR which is voluntary (at the time of adminship) and WP:Desysopping which is reserved for extreme cases. AgnosticAphid talk 17:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, but its, as said above, on extreme circumstances and doesnt yield to much change (or accountability). We dont need to have term limits either as that could harm good admins staying on.Lihaas (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Why not? Good admins would still be good, and would have to ask for re-election every 3 years at the most. How would that be a major issue? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – It's just too likely that admins would face backlash for admin actions that they had taken during their term. This could result in admins being afraid to intervene in controversial situation because they know it would hurt their chance at re-election. AutomaticStrikeout 18:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - For a few reasons: (1) many admins are inactive, and they should be purged from the admin roles; (2) some admins are not really suited for the job, yet they were given the role back in the 2004-2006 heyday when the RfA process was less stringent; (3) a "admin for life" role is not consistent with WP philosophy. One third every three years? Or maybe 1/4 every four years? The exact period is not too important. --Noleander (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Wikipedia needs admins who will firmly reject nonsense, but such admins accummulate a group of haters. Fixed tenure would guarantee that we lose the admins that are needed most since no sane person wants to waste time periodically rehashing settled cases with a group of disgruntled users. When challenged, supporters of previous proposals have been unable to show a case where periodically hazing admins would be beneficial—if an admin has made bad calls, raise the matter with evidence at a suitable noticeboard. It's possible there won't be much comment here since many people know that it is rarely productive to discuss rejected perennial proposals. Johnuniq (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it just me or is 3 years actually a very short period of time in Wikipedia years? I think it is quite a long amount of time for any admin to be hazed or anything. [Ifyou feel otherwise, please do say].

I really doubt the validity of your statement that there have not been bad admins [If thats what you meant to say]. I am pretty sure they are plenty of cases of admins not being removed due to weak deAdmin policies. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This proposal is orthogonal to the real fix, which is to implement Jimbo's original idea that adminship "shouldn't be a big deal", but should be just normal for editors who've been around a while, understand what they're doing with the tools and when they shouldn't, and appear to be trustworthy. Instead RfA has become this huge deal about how many featured articles you've been involved in (it has never been clearly explained what that has to do with, say, evaluating the outcome of deletion discussions, or keeping one's personal feelings out of the choice to block an editor). How we get there from here, though, I have no idea. --Trovatore (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is not trying to resemble a democracy, and if we elect them once, we elect them to make good decisions without deadline. If an abuse arises, let the community do the appropriate action, not suck every sysop into this system that will just reduce the number of good sysops. ~~Ebe123~~ on the go! 01:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Just because Wikipedia is not trying to be a democracy doesnt mean we try not to be a democracy. Thats very fallacious as a line of reasoning, as it implies we boycott anything that looks like democracy.

The main point of contention here is that wikipedia already elects admins [So its like a democracy already!] But admins can change [I am sure this question of tenure would not have arisen had almost all admins been as good or just or fair as they appeared to be when elected]. Sometimes they fail to have enough time to devote; and at other times the regulations surpass them [Reference to Noleander's comment there]. Plus, having a tenure and a stronger De-Adminship regulation implies Nobody is above the law- Admins will learn to be more responsible seeing the fact that they can be removed too. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Dennis Brown and AutomaticStrikeout. This is not ArbCom; and also, if admins would have to be re-elected, they would face fear of performing their job as they must. This is not the right solution for bad admins, and will harm good ones more that giving them a bit of benefit. — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per AutomaticStrikeout. And frankly, there is no chance I would waste the time going through RFA again. Aside from creating a culture where admins may be afraid to act in the best interest of Wikipedia, you're only going to cause a large decrease in the number of admins available to complete the tasks. Hell, given the general tone at RFA these days, I suspect this proposal would create one of the most effective ways to drive editors away from Wikipedia entirely. Resolute 16:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support It requires a rather large amount of bias to be a useful administrator. Some decisions are supper hard to make. I believe the spirit of the project wants dynamic rather than static admin bias. The only static bias should be the bias in the sources. This is the only type of opinion we should enforce indefinitely. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. We have enough trouble recruiting administrators in the first place due to the mangled mess that RFA has become. Added to that, the only reason for removing administrative capability is abuse of the tools or other egregiously bad behavior. Arbitrarily doing so after a set period of time will do nothing for "accountability" that our existing processes do not already do. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm overly ambitious but does that really work? Can you really argue that adminship should be permanent because Wikipedia can not recruit new administrators? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per AutomaticStrikeout. (Disclaimer; I am an admin.) And, to the anon: This would create a "world" where admins would want to do what is popular among those who shout their opinions, rather than trying to do what is right, or even what is popular among editors. It might be reasonable if it would require a 2/3 !vote to desysop, with those who have been in direct conflict with the admin restricted from voting. I'd still lean against, but that would allow some protection from WP:GANG warfare. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose this specific proposal per AutomaticStrikeout, but am not fundamentally opposed to the concept of some sort of admin accountability. Go Phightins! 03:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Like those before me, AutomaticStrikeout raises the exact point I believe is the killer in this. While I like the idea of limited terms, why not instigate something based on a period of inactivity. I.e. If an admin hasn't been active for ~12 months then they'll go through a process to keep the mop Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 16:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - The Administrative approval process is often a mean-spirited, dysfunctional circus. What's needed aren't mass numbers of re-elections using the same nearly broken process but a more reliable method for the removal of the handful of "bad apples" from the Administrative barrel. Carrite (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Support (I've not read all the material above) - I like the idea of removing the "lifetime appointment" for administrators (I am an admin myself). Maybe a middle ground could be something along the lines of this:

  a) Admins who have been inactive for 3 years would need to go through a re-vesting process if they want to become active administratively again.

  b) 1/3 of all admins would be "inspected" on a rotating 3 year cycle; that "inspection" would cover the a) point and would lead to a "suggested for re-vesting" set of admins. In other words, someone(s) could indicate that they think Admin XYZ should go through re-vesting -- I think a good number would be 5 'yeas' for re-vesting -- which would keep the number being formally reviewed low enough to be manageable and would cover those who might have been among the worst admins (whatever that really means) over the past 3 years.

  Maybe what should be done at this point is to start the looking now as year 1, but don't do anything until the next cycle - year 4; use year 1 only for observation, but start the real process in year 4. Year 1-3 would be the "calibration sprint" with things beginning for real Year 4. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I think we should have a better way to deal with problem admins, and that having such a process would lessen the problems at RFA. That said, AutomaticStrikeout's point must be addressed by any process I would support, and this proposal does not. The self selection of RFA participants, and the rate of participation, means that a vocal minority would be able to have a disproportionate impact if they show up to get revenge on an admin they disagree with or that had taken action against them. Monty₈₄₅ 16:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

COMMENT The point of this is exactly to cull the arduous and silly RFA process. It would be as such because its nota ligfelong thing. Itd be far more straightforward. And if somoene on the fring has an issue it would easily be undone (as does ANYI, ETC) . Why is that hard to understand? WP is local government? Sems that way. Stick to the high horse and oppose all and any change.Lihaas (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I think your statement "WP is a local government" pretty much sums up the entire thing. That being said, we should also see what we can do to change RFA to make it a lot better and less 'arduous' TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Alternative addition to proposal - Any outgoing Admins seeking re-election shall be allowed to continue their tenure following a 'scrutiny'. This scrutiny shall be a discussion of past actions of the admin, both positive and negative; and cumulate in a vote by the community. The admin shall be asked to step down only if 2/3rds [Maybe 2/3rd is too high; 1/2 may be better?] of the votes are against him. Otherwise he gets an extended tenure. Only the seats that fall vacant shall be open to election, with the top x successful candidates making the cut. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

This way, we make sure a handful of people with a vengeance cannot go after an admin. All the same, if more than 2/3rd of the voters vote against him, we cannot really can them a handful. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Alternative addition to addition to proposal - We can have a clause that only if the majority of a jury of 12 experienced admins find that the scrutiny is correct in asking for an admin to step down will the admin be asked to step down TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

A high threshold for removing the bit, as opposed the the default 1/3rd at RFA does help address the vocal minority problem, it may also be worthwhile to consider a minimum participation level. If I knew that at least 100 editors and admins would participate in a discussion, I think a 50% threshold would be fine. However, if I thought that only 30 editors were going to show up, a 2/3rds in favor of removal would be more important. As for admin juries, I think there will rightfully be objections both to having the foxes guarding the henhouse, as well as to giving admins another role where they are special and above other experienced editors, which we should avoid whenever possible. Monty₈₄₅ 19:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The answer then looks easier. No vote can be decided on a non-Speedy closure without a minimum number of people voting in. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - A) Such a system would, as pointed out above, increase the likelihood of Wikipedia losing admins because they made difficult but correct choices which angered people; B) Inactive admins are already removed regularly so there is no reason to force the active ones to reconfirm; C) ArbCom can handle problematic admins far better than any elections; D) Having to face elections might tempt some admins to make popular but incorrect choices for the sake of remaining an admin. If you think that old, inactive admins who return after 3+ years should be re-scrutinized, then that's something that should be discussed as a chance to WP:INACTIVITY. Regards SoWhy 19:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. To the extent that any of the problems outlined by the proposer exist, this proposal wouldn't solve them. It would just cause more bureaucracy and more drama. Is an admin "controversial" because she edits in volatile topic areas, or because she genuinely abuses her powers? An admin could lose the tools in both instances under this proposal. Can we name one admin who was once good but started taking abusive actions because he served too long and thus started getting cocky? Such an admin would lose the tools, but so would many, many others who were still good admins. szyslak (t) 07:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral Comment with Different Proposal. I originally read the proposal and supported it, but now I'm leaning opposed per AutomaticStrikeout's argument. As we also see in western democracy, politicians are scared of making major (and often necessary) decisions because they are concerned about their backlash in the next election, as many Americans know as we head towards this so-called "fiscal cliff" as a result. However, we need some sort of method for admin accountability beyond desysopping in voluntary or "extreme" cases, especially with how the RfA process has changed and will continue to change. I'd support an annual(?) opportunity for "proposed desysopping" by any user who wishes to desysop an admin (or admins willing to enter themselves). If it is clear the proposer of a desysopping is basing his claim on a legitimate admin action, then this proposal, by its nature, will be killed in the discussion and closed with the admin kept. The only questions now are who would be allowed to close such discussions, how often do we allow for "proposed desysoppings" (annually? quarterly? any time?), and, if they are not allowed at any time, for how long do proposers have to open a proposal (one week? two weeks? one month?) RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Anything that's likely to be another deterrent to new candidates is best not implemented. If our admins are performing reasonably well and not demonstrating any need to be sanctioned, why force them through another week of hell? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Though I mostly agree with the premises, this is not a solution, as I see it. We have some 600+ active admins. To keep such a number in a 4 year rotation election, we would elect 150 per year. Well.. it is hard to check some 20 candidates to the current ArbCom election, who would and how would we check some 300 candidates for 150 spots? Making it a continuous process would require starting a reconfirmation election about every 2 days. Double, or halve, the numbers accordingly if you consider that there are ~1400 admins (including inactive ones). not a pratical solution. I disagree with the seemingly main oppose argument: that admins would be pressed by the fear to dissatisfy the masses, aiming for re-election. Well... I agree they (we) probably would feel that pressure but the opposite possibility is worse: if you can keep a position of 'power' indefinitely even the mildest and better kind of human being is tempted to abuse. It happens in 'outside' world, it is even easier to happen in a 'virtual' world. I think accountability is surely very much important, I never looked much into Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct#Use of administrator privileges, but the concept is good. Does it work? - Nabla (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose We need admins to block vandals, delete attack pages and several other things. We have a declining number of admins and this proposal would lose us many of them - including hundreds of uncontentious admins who use the tools too rarely to bother with reconfirmation but who collectively make a very important contribution. Also it would inevitably make RFA even harder for new candidates as the fewer admins we have the bigger a deal adminship becomes. There are problems with arrogance in the admin cadre - but the solution to that is to expand the admin cadre not to up its exclusivity factor. A longer version of this is at User:WereSpielChequers/RFA_reform#Periodic_reconfirmation. ϢereSpielChequers 16:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Adminship already is the sort of thing where you do a lot of work for free and virtually the only feedback you get are complaints. More abuse? I'll pass, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. And, as noted by many others above, re-appointing an admin daily would be a ridiculous increase in an already bloated bureaucracy. I'm not opposed in principle to a streamlined way to deal with actually incompetent/inactive admins (preferably something that doesn't have to go through the ArbCom bottleneck), but this is not a solution to that problem. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 19:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose the lack of practical math skills. We have 855 admins right now. Re-confirming each of them every three years means nine or ten RFAs per week, which is many time what we're doing now. That's way more time than the community can afford to spend on this subject. Additionally, we don't want admins to be "accountable" in the sense that re-elections make politicians "accountable" to their constituencies. We want admins to be more like appointed judges, who are willing to deal with difficult situations and to use their best judgment to make the occasional unpopular decision, without fear that refusing to apply page protection, or deleting an article, or whatever choice they make, is going to be punished at their next "election". (Unimportant question: Why does nearly everyone who proposes this choose three-year cycles? The math works for a ten-year cycle.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I shall break with the usual veil of modesty and say this: as an admin, I'm fairly uncontroversial. I occasionally slip up and get shouted at, but I try very hard to avoid drama and silliness and just plod away at improving the wiki. My RfA wasn't too stressful. But the thought of doing it over and over again in perpetuity is not something that would be too appealing to anybody who isn't either a masochist or a process fanatic. Ah, that's just an admin trying to sneak away from accountability!, you say. I think we do currently have a problem with desysopping people who abuse the tools. Forcing uncontentious admins who just toil away keeping the sausage factory running to jump through hoops to keep doing the work they do for free is a waste of time. Address the actual issue: make desysopping problematic admins easier. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose As every admin knows, any admin work besides the most routine and uncontroversial is going to eventually piss someone off. What admin would close a contentious and difficult discussion, knowing that no matter what call they make, they've just racked up a bunch more oppose votes for their upcoming re-RfA? And how many admins are going to stay active for 3 years, knowing they have to go through the RfA circus again? (And again, and...). Rather, we need an ArbCom that is willing to take the tools away from those who blatantly and routinely misuse them. Those are, however, a very small fraction of our admins, and I see no reason to punish the many admins who do excellent volunteer work for a few bad apples. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Limited terms is the most unmanageable of the alternatives, and the least promising. Much more sensible approaches include e.g. (i) a community-elected adminship committee, which would combine community control with strongly reduced drama, especially for the admin candidates, or (ii) a continually open "RfA", where any registered user can give or withdraw their support/opposition at any given moment. I envision a system where people only get a bare vote, without any additional commentary. Such a variant would of course not work with a threshold of 70%+. It would probably have to be closer to 50%, considering the typical (and likely, normal) number of enemies any active admin makes. This second idea would introduce continual accountability, without having to resort to extraordinary drama at AN/RfC/RfAr/recall. I regard both of these alternatives vastly superior to a proposal based on limited terms. Alas, none of these will ever be adopted. --87.79.111.177 (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• I would be willing to support this if the re-adminship threshold were significantly lower...probably at 50%. I'd also want to consider limiting the voting membership to nominally established editors (say...1000 edits?). This would keep out, for instance, the new editors who just got their page speedily deleted by the admin in question. Finally, I would recommend that it be set up as basically a vote, with discussion occurring on a separate page; I don't think that a full RfA style "consensus-building discussion" would be plausible, simply given the number of participants. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Where's the tweet button?

Copied from Talk:Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships -mattbuck (Talk) 22:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

This is one of those things I would link to on Twitter, therefore displaying Wikipedia's need for a tweet button.67.142.179.23 (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Use Twitter's official Share Bookmarklet to share any webpage, removing the need for code on every website. (see bookmarklet for more info) —Quiddity (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Sharebox is a script that reorders your toolbox. It adds new buttons that make it easier to mail, print or share an article on Facebook, Twitter or another linksharing service. You must have an account to add Sharebox to the sidebar. See User:TheDJ/Sharebox for more information. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Worth noting that there's a rabid anti-Twitter anti-Facebook link button sentiment among a good number of people in the community. The Sharebox is as close as you're going to get, the community simply won't tolerate anything further. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

But, don't ALL of those 8 communities have users that want to add links directly into the toolbox, and probably the 54 other links in the sublink, too....? (Sharebox uses code from addthis.com which offers 325 services from a single button!)

Also, why does every website that someone uses, need to independently implement these custom buttons, when a bookmarklet provides equal functionality but without the need for distracting-icons/additional-javascript/tracking-cookies...? Are people just unfamiliar with bookmarklets? You never need to scan a page, looking for the "share button"! It's always in your browser! Sincerely curious, —Quiddity (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Because a lot of people are not technically savvy enough to use bookmarklets. They may seem easy to you, but that's from your perspective as a computer user with advanced skills. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Rabid? Care to rethink that word? Some people simply recognize the damage that power tools for gossip can do, both to Wikipedia and to real living people. Hence wp:ELNO #10. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Putting links to posts on social media into articles is not the same thing as having a link to post articles to social media. Also, describing Twitter as a "power tool for gossip" is a gross underestimation of one of the most powerful information-sharing tools ever invented. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You can get closer than share box. By rebuilding sharebox as an open sharing platform. That just takes a lot of time to develop. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

NO, for the same reason you wont see youtube videos. There cant be any promotion of multinationals on Wikipedia. Not even if they would pay the 100 million such a deal would be worth. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This is again a misunderstanding. There can't be an exclusive promotion of a multinational. See also the landing pages for ISBN and coordinates, which provide multiple options for these identifiers, including a.o. multiple multinationals. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• There's no need for a tweet button. Almost every browser has an add-on function to give users one-touch Twitter services. Or you can copy and paste the URL to Twitter yourself. Or you could use an App on your phone to send the article to Twitter. There's no need for a Wikipedia button doktorb _words^deeds 11:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

As the Doktor says, you can always cut and paste. The "rabid" opposition to these perennial proposals is not just the contempt many of our active users feel towards efforts to degrade Wikipedia from a reference work to a bastardized social media venue; but also a principled opposition to privileging some specific instance of social media at the expense of all competitors present and future. Why Facebook and not MySpace? Why Twitter and not some European or Chinese equivalent? We do not want to be lured into the trap of picking winner and losers among competing multi-billion-dollar multinational corporations. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, there is no reason why any such thing has to be exclusive. It is very well possible to program a solution that tailors to multiple outlets dynamically. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia should help readers share the content. But social network buttons help them monitor traffic, and Wikipedia should prevent that. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

That's only if you use THEIR buttons. There is however no reason to use their buttons, you can built your own. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

If that's so, then I may agree with doing an extension that allows sharing. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is it problematic for social networks to monitor traffic to and from Wikipedia? There aren't any commercial services associated with Wikipedia that I know of (with the exception of some paid mobile apps to browse it, perhaps) but none of these are large enough of a threat to our independence to waste time in making a new framework rather than integrating with the existing one. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 02:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia's privacy policy indicates that IP addresses of logged-in users and the pages that any particular person reads are not revealed except in limited circumstances. Having a web bug on each page that allows Facebook et al. to record that information is a violation of that. Anomie⚔ 13:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the privacy policy leads to one believing that running the services Facebook et al. at the same time as Wikipedia would be a breach of the privacy policy. It's not, and putting Facebook buttons on Wikipedia entails the exact same thing. We wouldn't want to be in a legal gray area, though, and I will concede that to you.

In any case, it's possible to block analytics from other websites with the addthis.com engine, apparently. This should suit your interpretation of the privacy policy if "no analytics" means what I think it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wer900 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi strawman! I never said that someone cannot have Facebook and Wikipedia open in two different tabs. Or even that anyone may not install a user script for their own account that adds links to Facebook, Twitter, and so on. All I said is that we cannot add these links for anyone who has not specifically opted in (e.g. by adding User:TheDJ/Sharebox to their common.js, or by enabling a Sharebox gadget should one be created) if these links make any accesses to non-WMF sites until explicitly clicked by the user. Even addthis with "no analytics" is still providing a wealth of information to addthis. Anomie⚔ 04:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what I had in mind. Keep the Facebook/other services' "like" links, but don't make liking/tweeting/pinning/whatever an automated action - require explicit authorization by the user (in the form of a click). To the best of my knowledge this is how social plugins work.

• I'm actually kind of soft on this. I'm not for promoting multinationals. But we may as well make it easier for users to promote Wikipedia, even if multinationals are involved. Even as the 5th largest website, I don't think we make it friendly enough for readers to share, and reach the widest possible audience. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • This is completely true. By 84.106.26.81's definition of "supporting multinationals", even being listed on Google would could as "supporting multinationals." Wikipedia's extreme conservatism and lack of pragmatism in ensuring the survival and renewal of its editing community will be its undoing if it is not resolved. Adding links to Twitter, Facebook, and other recognized social networks (without payment to or receipt of funds from the companies) will, far from selling Wikipedia to multinationals and being the beginning of the end for an open and unbiased encyclopedia, will enliven this project and lead to a new renaissance, attracting an entirely new editing community. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 02:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• See WP:PEREN#Share pages on Facebook, Twitter etc.. While "share" and "tweet" buttons would be useful and convenient for many users, there are several complications to using them on Wikipedia. For example, we are and ought to be entirely non-commercial with no outside affiliations or endorsements. A link with the logo for Facebook, Twitter, or any other outside site could give the impression that Wikipedia and/or the Foundation endorse or are affiliated with these sites, and/or vice versa, regardless of whether this is the case. How about this: We could add a drop-down "Share" menu that would list sites/services alphabetically with no corporate logos, colors, or other such identifying marks. This may be something to keep in mind the next time we change our interface. szyslak (t) 08:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• • The contents of that drop box would themselves need to be open. I.E. All such sites would need equal and free opportunity to get their link in that dropbox, otherwise we would forfeit our neutrality. If that was practical then I would envisage it working by having another tab in user preferences where you could choose which networks you wanted to appear in your dropbox. I'm not convinced that the necessary investment would be justified, but that is how it could be done without us picking particular sites to collaborate with. ϢereSpielChequers 16:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Because they are idiotic. If you want to link something, copy the URL and post it. It works on every social networking service, every blogging platform, everywhere. Let's see: I don't want to share something on Twitter, I want to share it on my own blog. So, are you gonna add "Share on Tom's Blog" as an option, just for me? —Tom Morris (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose We're not Encyclopedia Britannica. We're Wikipedia. PhnomPencil (✉) 09:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the reasons above. Bookmarklets may be too complicated for some users, but if copy and pasting is overly complex for them, so probably is a web browser, which means they're not here to start with. The user is free to install whatever third-party widgets they may like, but we shouldn't be taking sides. So, to answer the original question: The tweet button is at Control-C followed by Control-V (in the vast majority of OS's), or wherever else you'd like to install a widget to put it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Deprecetation of the {{peacock}} template?

Hey, I was just thinking that the {{peacock}} template should be deprecated because it basically means the same thing as the {{advert}} template. Articles that are written like an advertisement usually contain wording that merely promotes the subject without imparting identifiable information (which is what Wikipedia's "peacock" policy means). So, instead of the {{advert}} template looking like this:

It should look like this:

Hope to hear from you guys! Interlude 65 17:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting idea. It does leave {{peacock-inline}} without a "parent", as {{advert-inline}} doesn't make any sense. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Right, we should keep {{peacock-inline}} because it will be needed so that editors can place it in the specific points in articles where there are peacock terms. The new {{advert}} will let other editors know that the article is written like an advertisement and contains peacock terms. Therefore, they will start looking for areas in the article with the {{peacock-inline}} tag and start doing their work. Interlude 65 21:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps {{puffery}} should be repurposed to mean the same thing; it's unlikely that most people adding the tag are solely referring to WP:Wikipuffery. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the {{puffery}} template should also be deprecated; it pretty much means the same thing as the {{advert}} and {{peacock}} templates. Interlude 65 21:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Support per Interlude. YellowPegasus (talk • contribs) 16:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree Support. Maybe a parameter can be added to the {{advert}} template to specify how the article disqualifies, thus hinting to peacock terms, puffery and/or actual advert articles written by affiliates with the subject.

• Oppose whilst there is an overlap it is not complete. It is certainly possible for fans to write an article using peacock terms without the article itself being spam - there may in fact be nothing connected that is commercially traded. we have two groups of editors here, those who deliberatly or otherwise are trying to use Wikipedia as free advertising, and those who haven't yet grasped NPOV. Having different templates enables us to communicate the appropriate messages to those two distinct groups of people. Also the proposed composite template is significantly longer and therefore more intrusive. ϢereSpielChequers 16:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe a rewrite of the "peacock" template is in order; there is lots of "peacock" language which isn't strictly advertising. Maybe some alternate wording would help rather than deprecation. --Jayron32 16:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Agree with WereSpielChequers on this on. Articles by fans can be written with a lot of peacockery without any real intention of advertising. And adverts can be written with no peacockery. I think both templates serve a specific role, and when they do overlap, just using advert is fine. Puffery on the other hand seems like the blend of the two and probably can be deprecated. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The {{advert}} template implies that the article attempts to portray a product or company that sells those products in a subjective manner, and it seems to be limited to those two subjects. On the other hand, {{peaock}} is just a general statement about language used, not pointing out anything specific such as products. The overlap seems minimal; and if anything, {{advert}} should be merged into {{peacock}}. CharmlessCoin (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Change 'contributions' to 'edits'

'Contribution' is quite a subjective term. By definition, it refers to a role played by a person to produce a result. This means that edits such as vandalism and other disruptive activities are considered 'contributions', which fails to harmonise with the idea of a contribution being for the better to produce an outcome. Therefore the word contributions should be replaced with edits to reflect a more netural and objective term. Thus when using the user template, instead of saying Username (talk | contribs) it will say Username (talk | edits). And the 'User contributions' of an editor's page should be changed to 'User edits'. It's shorter, more neutral, more factual, and more consistent. Till 10:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe. Your arguments are pretty good but "contributions" has been around so long that I'd need think about whether I want to change it. Will editors feel subtly less appreciated? --Trovatore (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• "Contributions" includes page moves and page uploads too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • A page move (not sure what you mean by page upload) is still an edit. When an editor clicks on the 'edit' tab, they are 'editing' the page. They may leave an 'edit' summary, and can mark it as a minor 'edit', before finally saving the 'edits' they have made. Notice how they are not 'contribute', 'contribution summary' or 'minor contribution'. Till 10:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
    • File uploads and page protections are recorded under contributions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
      • No they aren't. Page moves, uploads, etc. are under logs. Some appear in edits, but that's because you are making an edit to the page. Statυs (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support: When I first started, I found "Contributions" to be a confusing term and wasn't quite sure how it worked. It took a long time to get the hang of it ad work out what it actually showed. Further suggestions are: "Talk" to "Talkpage", "Preferences" to "Settings", and "[Insert Username]" to "[Insert Username]'s Userpage.--Coin945 (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't think "edit" would include creating a new image or article in the mind of a newcomer. I also think the newcomer might not think of talk page contributions as edits. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • All those examples are still edits, regardless of thought. I would hardly consider vandalising articles to be a 'contribution' to the project. Till 23:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I have to agree. I don't think that this will end up going through, as there will be a lot of users who think that "what was should always be", but I'm leaving my support none-the-less. Statυs (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I personally think a lot of Wikipedia editors should take a peak at List of fallacies before they weigh in at these sorts of discussions. Major arguments always seem to be things like "flawed tradition is better than improved evolution" or "it may result in bad things despite the many good things it will cause so there's no use trying it at all". It's a shame to see editors sink so low...--Coin945 (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Naming fallacies is very rarely a constructive contribution to a discussion. Most of the time it's an attempt to frame one's own contingent beliefs about the world, or normative preferences, as a matter of logic. --Trovatore (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Status. YellowPegasus (talk • contribs) 16:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Undecided - I can see the validity of the argument however I don't think all contributions are edits whereas all edits are contributions as they contribute another event to wikipedia (even negative contributions are contributions). Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 16:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• At Commons, "contributions" makes more sense than "edits". And we should use the same words in every project. --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • That would be hard to do, given that most projects are in different languages. Commons is in English, but I note that Wikipedia changed "discussion" to "talk" not that long ago (six months? a year?) and Commons has not followed suit. --Trovatore (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support - As stated by nom, changing the owrd makes a lot more sense and is clear. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Isn't this a software, Mediawiki, issue? when I click history I see a list of Username (talk | contribs)‎, but that is not a template, that is the software. Euphemistically, a page blanking is a "contribution". Apteva (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes it is something that needs to get fixed software wise. Legoktm (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, many of the places can be changed by editing the appropriate pages in the MediaWiki namespace. But if you wanted to rename Special:Contributions to Special:Edits (or make the latter redirect to the former), that would require a configuration change. Anomie⚔ 18:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose You can make a negative contribution to something. Also Magioladitis is right, Special:Contributions shows more than just edits. Legoktm (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Not every action on Wikipedia is an "edit", per se (that is, a change to an article). Contribution vandalism is still contributing, so I like the current wording better than any other possibility. --Jayron32 00:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • This isn't about what is "right". This is about what is making it easy for our users to understand. If there was a choice between a correct but obscure term versus a common albeit almost-perfect term (e.g. euphemistic/slang etc.), I would hope - and expect - our wikimunity to choose the latter every time.--Coin945 (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • So you would propose changing something that is correct, and making it wrong? I'm not sure I see the logic in that. Legoktm (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Ummm.... that's not what I said.... :/. If you have a term that describes the thing perfectly, but to the common man it is vague and obscure, then I would always swap it for a word that is common and can be understood easily by all (in this case "edit" as it is used all over the internet and is "the" button that users press to make contributions) even if it doesn't describe the thing perfectly (there are going to be exceptions which fall outside the definition of "edit"). An example off the top of my head would be (if The Netherlands was a much more obscure term than it is), using "Holland" in the case of "The Netherlands" even thoguh it is not exactly the same thing, because it is a much more common term and in people's minds they are the same thing, so it doesn't really matter that in actual fact they aren't. I see this as no different. People see their contributions as "edits" so why not just use the word, regardless of whether they 'actually' are edits or not...?--Coin945 (talk) 10:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't understand what the problem to be solved is here. The term "contributions" doesn't stand out to me as being inaccurate (even when the contributions are not productive or are merely technical). I can't see where it's causing any confusion or problems... I don't know whether it would or would not be much work to modify MediaWiki to display "edits" instead of "contributions," but I honestly don't think it would be worth the effort regardless. jæs (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Contributions looks stupid especially when it's abbreviated on the user template; 'talk | contribs' could just be 'talk | edits'. Till 02:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I really don't understand your subjective argument that it "looks stupid," but I guess that's why it's a subjective argument. I suppose it's a matter of taste. All in all, though, if it ain't broke... jæs (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
      • You will admit, however, that it is simply illogical to use the abbreviation 'contribs' when the word 'edits' could be used? Till 06:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I don't believe that abbreviations and acronyms are inherently illogical, no. If the community felt strongly about it, I imagine we could simply replace "contribs" with "contributions." But it has been this way for — what, over a decade now? There's been no evidence demonstrating mass confusion or hysteria as a result of the use of "contribs" and "contributions." In any event, as I said earlier, I honestly don't think this is worth the effort. Best of luck with your proposal, nonetheless. jæs (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support. "Edits" is simpler and clearer, and that's the direction we should always be looking towards in making this project more accessible. As noted above, it also saves having to use the ugly abbreviation "contribs". A quick change for a long-term benefit. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Of course, in addition to my further suggestions above, i must confess that after thinking about this proposal for a bit, the term "edits" seems like it may confuse some people. The obvious solution is then to bring back the "My"'s so it will read "My edits". End of story. So what if there is no evidence to suggest this is better or worse. Screw bureaucracy. We have identified a change that we think will be better, and all this talk and talk and talk about possible negative effects or research that must be done etc. has yet again reminded me of why i hate wikipedia so much. Just bloody well make the change already..... :/.--Coin945 (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • "All this talk and talk and talk about possible negative effects or research that must be done..." There's usually a reasonable amount of discussion of those sorts of things in good user interface, user experience, and human-computer interaction design... jæs (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Sorry...? I'm not following. What's your point?--Coin945 (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Jæs is saying that typically there is a reasonable amount of discussion and feedback that goes into changes in usability and user interface, which is really what this discussion is about. Since it's unlikely that there will be usability testing done, we have to rely on feedback of other editors, which needs to be given time. Saying "Screw bureaucracy", like you did just above, is essentially saying "screw other editors and their feedback," since it's the community of editors that is going to decide this, not some vague "bureaucracy." First Light (talk) 04:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. As stated before, even negative contributions are contributions. Also, would adding comments and ideas to a discussion on a talk page really count as edits? Yes it is editing the page, but isn't it more of a contribution to the discussion than an edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharmlessCoin (talk • contribs) 15:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above. Statυs (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Per the comments by users explained above. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 23:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You probably didn't even read them, or any of this thread, you just saw a proposal initiated by me and decided to oppose it. Till 02:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. "Contributions" in some sense would be a useful statistic, but its definition and restriction is unclear, prone to misunderstaning. "Edits" is clearer, and seems to be closer to what is actually being counted. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. - No need. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral leaning oppose - It wouldn't be the end of the world either way, but I tend to agree with Gabe, I don't really see a need. <sarcasm> Additionally, a change as drastic as eight characters would put me over the edge. Eight characters! Come on, I mean, maybe seven, but I can't deal with eight. </sarcasm> That said, should this change be implemented, I can guarantee you I won't notice it in two months (just like I probably wouldn't have noticed not having the "my" in front of talk, preferences, etc. a few weeks ago...) Go Phightins! 03:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Having uploaded a fair number of images, some of them without any digital editing having been done on them, I prefer "contributions" as being more literally accurate. And a new article is more accurately a "contribution" than an "edit." No name will be perfect, but "contributions" works better. First Light (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose . A solution looking for a problem. If it ain't broke, why change it? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per what Kudpung stated above.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per First Light's well-reasoned arguments about uploaded images and new articles not falling under the "edit" category. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Also, neither of these contributions could possibly be considered edits, because they made no change to the content of the pages. Graham87 08:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You edited the revision history of the page. There is no reason to pedantically restrict "edit" to the meaning of "changed the content of a page". — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

A wikimedia project for original works publication

As wikimedia doesn't provide yet a wiki to publish orginals works (essays, novels, songs, etc.) here is a proposal: Wikikultur. I hope some people here may be interested. --Psychoslave (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sounds awesome. I do think that Wikiculture is a better name though. I'd love to know more about the project.--Coin945 (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

How about "Wikreati" or "Wikreamus"? However, this project doesn't fit the definition of "educational content" that the Wikimedia Foundation requires. It should be a totally separate project, perhaps at Wikia. --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem with publishing original works is establishing notability. That is why wikisource only takes items that are already published. Apteva (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It used to be that when publishing was physical and expensive and only a fraction of "works" could be published, editors (publishers) could be selective. Now any kind of crap can, and is, "published", and readers are swamped. What is needed is not more publication, but more selection. Or at least some way of rating notability. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Notability is a concept on Wikipedia. There's nothing stopping original work being done on a wiki. Other wikis don't abide by "notability". Indeed, that's part of the point of Wikiversity, I'm told. (That said, I think this falls outside of the Wikimedia Foundation's remit.) —Tom Morris (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Consensus needed for TAP Bot's second task

All of the details can be found at the BRFA and I'm looking for consensus here on this task. Thanks. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This is about changing ==Sources== to ==References== in articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Standardization of U.S. Supreme Court case articles

Hi. There's an ongoing discussion about standardizing U.S. Supreme Court case articles here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases#Project's style guide and article standardization. Any and all are welcome to comment and collaborate on forming a style guide for U.S. Supreme Court case articles. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I tried advertising this discussion at Template:Centralized discussion, but the entry was rejected. If anyone knows of other places where this discussion should be advertised, please let me know or feel free to post there yourself!

Did you post to the main WT:MOS page? Did you start a style RFC? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Closing Wikipedia:Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard

I propose closing the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. It is a useless (by "useless", I mean no negative effects will happen if it is closed), and it is relatively inactive. For a dispute resolution noticeboard, even if there is a thread, the actioning on the thread takes too long, if at all. The disputes in the area of the noticeboard is also being "absorbed" by other noticeboards, such as AN(/I), DRN, MedCom, and ArbCom (I am not proposing to merge the noticeboard into these, but stating that it is already). In all, the noticeboard is just more bureaucracy. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 23:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Support Any disputes can be handled by DRN, which seems to work fairly well. This is an underutilized board, and people who post there expecting useful results are frequently disappointed by the lack of attention. Having them use an actual working noticeboard, like DRN or 3O or something may be better. --Jayron32 00:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Support. The volume of related complaints/problems is better handled at an active noticeboard or dispute resolution mechanism such as those described in the above comments. dci | TALK 01:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Support Even with the current existence of the noticeboard, disputes are usually handled through the normal DR process. CMD (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Support because I also think it's more or less redundant and means bureaucracy Jesus Presley (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Support, we've had far too many noticeboards for quite a while. Impossible to keep track of all of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Didn't even know this existed. Doesn't look like it is effective at all, many threads were never responded to, we have plenty of other noticeboards, etc. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. As others have stated above, I never even knew it existed. It appears to be extremely inactive; quite pointless, and yes, "useless". Statυs (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support This has reports from March gone unanswered and not viewed much. Totally stagnant, so I think we can shut this down. Reminds me of WQA, just a more extreme example. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. There has been a confusing proliferation of noticeboards over the years, see the size of {{Noticeboard links}}. This one is barely used, and any threads could be better handled elsewhere. I see no reason not to close it. the wub "?!" 13:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Reducing clutter of inactive noticeboards is a great idea. Dan653 (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Wow, I've missed a lot. Definitely a step in the right direction towards streamlining DR. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Implementation of closure

This seems a likely successful proposal. If it is successful, what would we do with the page? Mark it: Historical? Historical with soft redirect? Redirect? If redirect, where to? --Izno (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it shouldn't be redirected elsewhere, but just marked historical. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 11:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Just mark it historical, and tag it with a hatnote directing people to other venues. --Jayron32 18:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Might not hurt to lock it afterwards, just for the folks who ignore the banner (or misunderstand it) from posting there and expecting a reply. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Redirect it to ITNC. That's where most of them occur. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 10:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:ITNC? Is that what you mean? --Izno (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

See wikt:facetious. Come back when you have more questions. --Jayron32 03:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

images used on the Wikipedia:Reference Desk should be counted as being used in articlespace for purposes of IFD

While I was away a bunch of images I used to ask questions on the Reference Desk (dating some years back) were deleted without my knowledge. The reasons for their deletion included "bad JPG" and not perfectly following the guidelines for chemistry drawings, and not being used in the article space. These are ridiculous reasons when the images were created to ask a Reference Desk question. Why should an image used to ask a question on the Wikipedia:Reference Desk be deleted for not being in articlespace? It makes no sense, do people intentionally want to break the Ref Desk archives. There are tons of other Ref Desk images that have been deleted simply because IFD doesn't seem to recognise the existence of the Reference Desk. John Riemann Soong (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like some people need to be reminded about what is and is not a valid reason for deletion. Unfortunately, some people are too caught up in "cleaning" things that don't really need cleaning. Anomie⚔ 03:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think, other than the people who frequent the reference desk, most editors don't really care about the reference desk. Just a hunch. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Making Wikipedia earn Money

Hi,

I would like to propose a solution as I think the content as it is currently available should remain free and the same, BUT wikipedia should be more independent from donations.

we should have an interactive way of accessing this content in a members section: more intuitive, accessible and fun to go navigate around or to download content. This section would be available through a monthly membership fee.

I have a few ideas on how to make this happen, let me know if you're interested!

Hadrien— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpiana (talk • contribs)

That'd kinda kill the whole "free encyclopedia" deal. The site is as intuitive and accessible as everyone can agree on and as coding allows. Downloading content is already not a problem: see the "print/export" bar on the left hand side of the page. To charge for what should be a free improvement would be unethical.

If, however, you have ideas on how to improve the site as a free site, we'd like to hear them. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hey, Hadrien, thanks for the idea! I can only speak for myself, of course, but I think I can safely say that this wouldn't go over so well with the broader editing community. One of the principles that Wikipedia was founded on is the idea of free-as-in-freedom; restricting people's access to content or features doesn't align with that principle. Plus, the idea of separate "classes" of editors is one that the community already decries, and I think that introducing a concrete separation between "free" and "premium" members is only going to make that worse. Not to mention that that means the Wikimedia Foundation (which dirves the development of Wikipedia's software and receives the donations) would have to devote a large portion of their current resources into developing it, at the expense of the encyclopedia proper. So, thanks for the thought, but I don't think it would work. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys! I see what you are saying. No worries.. Well the ideas I had in mind were more in the targeting of the information which the user is looking for. Here we just have a search bar. Why not have a tool where you can scroll and select Years or period / domain (litterature, music, art, history, science etc) / geographic location (as narrow as a town and as wide as the world).

The system would then pull all of the information corresponding to your search. This would serve for presentations, research, etc.

Let me know what you think!

Hadrien

Why not make that free for all? Also, that would be hard to implement. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You're free to make a separate site that does what you propose, and even charge for it, so long as you follow all licenses. But that would completely external to Wikipedia. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be a great idea, and it should be workable, especially when Wikidata comes around. It might be better to discuss it on WP:Village pump (technical) or even at meta

Support per Hadrien. YellowPegasus (talk • contribs) 23:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Usonian Vs. American

The following discussion 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.

---

Dear Sirs,

I am one of the many readers that enjoys enormously your webpage and I deeply thank for the monumental effort you have done developing such a knowledge source.

Although widely spread and even accepted by many, there is a mistake when referring to people or events of the United States. On most articles it is used the word American which literally means from America (the continent) instead of USONIAN, which is the correct word when referring to an event, person or place from the United States . American is to the American continent as Asian is to the Asia and European is to Europe.

Certainly, all Usonians are Americans but not all Americans are Usonians. Hope this note can help to improve even more the quality of Wikipedia.

Thanks for considering this suggestion.

Alberto Martinez— Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.68.248.34 (talk • contribs)

No one ever, ever uses Usonian. Ever. Even you. --Golbez (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alberto, American also means citizen of the United States and is most commonly used. a·mer·i·can/əˈmerikən/ Noun: A native or citizen of the United States— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.217.50 (talk • contribs)

I'm from the United States, and I've never heard the word "Usonian" before. I do understand that "American" can refer to anyone or anything from the Americas North and South, but "Usonian" is not something applied to the US in general. Looking into it and finding the article Usonia, the word appears to only be a pet peeve of Frank Lloyd Wright, and not any actual common parlance except when describing select houses Wright made. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've only heard of USAian as an alternative. Though estadounidense in Spanish actually works well unlike most English attempts. Chris857 (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"Usono" is Esperanto for the United States of America, and "Usonano" is Esperanto for what most of my fellow citizens of the U.S.A. persist in referring to as an "American". "Usonia" was, as has been stated, Wright's coinage, and has no other common useage. --Orange Mike | Talk

Seeing the OP has a Spanish-looking name, it may be worth pointing out that there is a cultural issue involved here (which confused the hell out of me as well originally): in the English speaking world, there is no such continent as “America”. They consider it to be two continents, “North America” and “South America”. Link: Continent#Number of continents.—Emil J. 16:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Usonian at Wiktionary has something to add. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

South Americans correctly point out that citizens of the United States aren't the only "Americans". Bus stop (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Certainly true in Spanish, but in English it's the etymological fallacy. Ntsimp (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

In Spanish, they're welcome to call us Estadounidense. In English, they'll have to settle for American. --Golbez (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A lot of people seem to not understand - 'America' IS the name of the country just as 'Mexico' is the name of the country south of it (officially, United Mexican States). Calling someone an American is not only perfectly acceptable, it's also the extreme preferred term (so much that I can't think of any other). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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.

Wikipedia coverage of recent teenage suicides

I don't have time to make a detailed proposal, but can I draw the community's attention to Suicide of Amanda Todd. This concerns a Canadian teenager who appears to have committed suicide last October following cyber-bullying on the internet. The case attracted wide-spread sympathy and is certainly notable enough, especially following an intervention from the Canadian PM, to merit an article.

Presently however, following an AfD on grounds of single-event notability, the article, its very title, focuses on her suicide rather than on Amanda herself. My worry is that this may not be responsible given the potential for teenage copycat suicides. Guidelines for the responsible reporting of suicides are published in various countries. These are a set prepared by the Canadian Psychiatric Association. Its three lead recommendations concern 1. Details of the method 2. The word "suicide" in the headline 3. Photos(s) of the deceased. I have just deleted a reference in the article to the means employed (the Talk page discussion queried why Canadian newsapapers did not give details of the method apparently unaware that Canadian media guidelines prevent them form doing so), in so far as "suicide" is in the title of the article this can be said to transgress the headline recommendation, while the article carries two photos of Amanda. There are also arguably issues with "Admiration of the deceased", "Romanticised reasons for the suicide" and "Simplistic reasons for the suicide".

With some 50% of teenagers (in the UK, no doubt similarly elsewhere) reportedly experiencing on-line harassment and cyber-bullying, I judge the problem acute. There have been some truly dreadful epidemics of teenage copycat suicide in the UK and elsewhere. I suggest the article title is restored simply to "Amanda Todd", that details of her sucide method are kept out of the article and that that images of her are removed at least in the short-term future.

A search on Wikipedia article titled "Suicide of [a named individual]" show that there some 12 articles with this title, of which 9 appear to relate to cyber-bullying of teenagers. I have posted on the Talk page my concerns about that.

In Suicide of Amanda Todd a Wikipedia administrator appears to have determined that the article should be "non-biographical", whatever that might imply. In my view the article, on the contrary, should be a straightforward biographical notice. Amanda Todd's life is either notable or not. JaniB (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't censored. But I agree that the article should be renamed as Amanda Todd. --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It might be useful to frame the discussion around the wider (and narrower) questions of;

1. Given the reasoning above, should all similar articles generally be renamed to remove the "Suicide of" that has often been added?
2. Given the reasoning above, should all articles about teen suicides avoid mentioning the method of suicide, even where this is widely covered in reliable sources in some countries? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion we should not single out suicide for special treatment. Consider Murder of JonBenét Ramsey, Killing of David Wilkie, or Shooting of Trayvon Martin. In each case the individual was notable only for the occurrence, and the article is about the occurrence. Should we rename them to be the name of the victims? As for the mode of suicide, we should reflect the coverage in reliable sources, if they discuss it, then it should be in the article, if they don't then it shouldn't be. Obviously there is room for discretion depending on how many do and don't cover it, but we should not censor our coverage beyond reflecting what the potentially censored sources are saying. Monty₈₄₅ 20:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This renaming thing is not a good proposal at all and is contrary to what we try to get away from in this project, these in-the-news one-event people. Amanda Todd as a person is not in the slightest bit notable, but the event itself has been deemed notable by our editors. And really, it isn't even the suicide itself that's a big deal, kids cap themselves every day. It is the aftermath and ensuing controversy about those alleged to have baited and blackmailed, and those who outed the identities. Tarc (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It is precisely because "kids cap themselves every day" that Wikipedia has a duty of care, and especially so when it seeks to brand itself as an educational resource (in fact, I believe, enjoys charitable status in some countries such as the UK on the basis of the claim). I sympathise myself with the view that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, that it shouldn't seek to report every news story of the day. But the fact of the matter is that it generally does and in this case Wikipedia, which is not an homogenuous entity, takes on the character of other social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter commenting on the events of the day and ought therefore to hold itself to the same journalistic standards as does the main stream media.

Regarding other points raised above, I would certainly say that "Suicide of" titles should be renamed to the name of the individual and this soley because of the issue of responsible reporting of suicides. Regarding "Murder of" I don't see an issue. On the other hand I don't really see why these articles should not be named after the individuals concerned. Concerning the mode of suicide and images of the deceased, my suggestion is that these are scruples which should be observed in the short-term. In the long-term, when the suicide has ceased to exercise the imagination of the public and there is correspondingly no appreciable risk of copycate suicides, then they can be inserted. JaniB (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This is an online encyclopedia project. It is not hand-holding, it is not therapy, it is not here for your emotional needs and well-being. Kids aren't going to be any more or less likely to commit suicide because of how the project covers these events. The assertion that it does or would is patently ridiculous. I will strenuously oppose any attempt to rename that article. Tarc (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I feel that we are doing something immoral if we did not make these changes. While WP:NOTCENSORED is a policy, this doesn't mean that we can use it as a blank check to override WP:DICK. This is not even a political/religious topic - in such topics we should remain impartial rather than pandering to the sensibilities of any one group. This is, however, a topic where there exists scientific evidence that "Suicide of" articles lead to more suicides if not dealt with properly. As an encyclopedia we should cover all salient details, but excessive glamorization of suicide leads to it. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 00:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Replying to Tarc, in the matter of an on-going news story such the Amanda Todd suicide, Wikipedia is effectively a social media site as a glance at the Amanda Todd talk page establishes. For example you demonstrably cannot edit the Amanda Todd artcile to any siginificant extent without first gaining peer support on the talk page. That the project is an online encyclopaedia project might (but I frankly doubt it given that editing it is open to all) carry some weight were a family of a suicide victim to launch a privacy suit or such like against Wikipedia, and Wikipedia defended itself on grounds of innocent dissemination or the equivalent in the relevant jurisdiction, nevertheless individual editors would remain liable. You assert that teenagers aren't any the more or less likely to commit suicide because of the way it covers these events, but you cannot know that while your demonstrably cavalier attitude to the possibilty of "kids capping themseleves" suggest you neither know nor care what the facts really are. The truth is the facts are straightforward. There have been some desperately tragic epedemics of teenage copycat suicides and the evidence strongly suggests that irresponsible coverage by newspapers and internet sites have been a factor. That is why bodies such as the Canadian Psychiatric Association publish the guidelines it does, and why newspaper in Canada observe them. Presently the Amanda Todd article is significantly in breach of them. JaniB (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Added: I see you have reverted my edit at Suicide of Amanda Todd deleting the means Amanda employed and stressing the coroner's court caution that the investigation would be long and complicated. You claim that Wikipedia is not governed by Canadian or any other national guidelines. These are the American guidelines prepared by the Surgeon-General. JaniB (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any evidence that says that not reporting means of suicide does anything to reduce its incidence. In fact, concealing suicide has been shown to be counter-productive in some situations. In my country, Australia, governments and media have been moving away from the idea of hiding-the-truth-in-order-to-protect-the-children. "The kids" discuss suicides in full detail on social media. I've seen it first hand. And Wikipedia is not censored. Can those wanting censorship on this issue produce evidence that it achieves anything at all? HiLo48 (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

What you're proposing to change is WP:BIO1E. Which I suspect is being cited in the AFD mentioned by the OP. --IznoRepeat (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Freedom of speech trumps protection of life? Really? I accept that the facts, about the effect of this, should be checked, as proposed above. But I note that blanket affirmations that WP should not be censored regardless of consequences is inhumane. I doubt any of the editors stating such thing wish to live in a country where the right to freedom of speech is more important than the right to life. I doubt there is such country. - Nabla (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I am proud to live in a country where the right to freedom of speech trumps the entirely speculative fear that some individuals may misuse certain otherwise innocuous information to harm themselves. There is always a balance between the risk of direct, concrete harm, and freedom of speech, but here the scales fall squarely in favor of speech. Monty₈₄₅ 22:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Monty845, in your country freedom of speech if more important the life? I doubt it. That was my question, not if there may be news about suicides. - Nabla (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Nabla, can you produce evidence that censorship of suicide stories achieves anything at all? HiLo48 (talk) 00:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hilo48, I do not claim that censoring news about suicide has whatever effect. I simply stated my opinion that some people already proclaiming that WP should not be censored *no matter what*, apparently value freedom of speech in a absolute way, above any possible effect on life; I think they are not looking at the whole picture . And that seems to be wrong, no? Yourself questioned if there is some data about the effect of suicide related news; thus I presume that if data proved there is a effect, then you would agree with suppressing some information about suicides, right? I feel exactly like that - Nabla (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I feel that in general, an event involving a person (e.g. "X of John Doe") should just have the article at the name of the person, unless the person already has their own article. Yes, we do want to be focusing on the event, which is notable, rather than the person, who is non-notable. And I don't think anything should change content-wise in what we do with regards to WP:BLP1E. But I just feel that naming something "Suicide of Amanda Todd" rather than "Amanda Todd" smacks of being overly pedantic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

In reply to HiLo48, see the American guidelines I quote about

• Suicide Contagion is Real

........between 1984 and 1987, journalists in Vienna covered the deaths of individuals who jumped in front of trains in the subway system. The coverage was extensive and dramatic. In 1987, a campaign alerted reporters to the possible negative effects of such reporting, and suggested alternate strategies for coverage. In the first six months after the campaign began, subway suicides and non-fatal attempts dropped by more than eighty percent. The total number of suicides in Vienna declined as well.1-2 Research finds an increase in suicide by readers or viewers when: • • The number of stories about individual suicides increases3,4 • • A particular death is reported at length or in many stories3,5 • • The story of an individual death by suicide is placed on the front page or at the beginning of a broadcast3,4 • • The headlines about specific suicide deaths are dramatic3 (A recent example: "Boy, 10, Kills Himself Over Poor Grades")

where there are numbered references. The issue not about censorship and you should know better to suggest this in Wikipdia forums. JaniB (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I think what you're missing, while trying to prove this effect, is that it doesn't, in the end, matter if you can demonstrate it or not. If someone's suicidal, they're going to find a way to do it. If they happen to read about a particular method in the paper, sure, some might try that way. I doubt reading about a suicide encourages those who were not otherwise intending suicide to suddenly decide to end it all—I went and looked at the article, and I certainly do not have a sudden desire to kill myself. That aside, a lot of information on Wikipedia could potentially be misused. That does not mean we leave it out or redact it. Our goal is to be accurate and neutral, and we cannot do that if we start the habit of removing information someone could potentially misuse. That is the exact meaning of Wikipedia is not censored.

For some history on discussions like this, you might want to have a look through the archives of Talk:Rorschach test, as we have addressed such issues before, and have ultimately decided that if information is relevant to an article, well-sourced, and acceptably licensed, we will use it, even if some assert it could be harmful to do so. Similarly, if the title is appropriate (and I see no reason it is not, this is a textbook one event case, which should be titled as an event rather than a pseudobiography), it will remain. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all it's not about you and secondly the issue is here specific to articles commencing "Suicide of ...", of which there are 12 such in Wikipedia, in turn 9 of which refer to teenage suicides contingent on cyber-bullying or internet harrassment. Unlike articles commencing "Murder of ...", "Disappearance of ...", these titles, and in the case of Suicide of Amanda Todd some of its contents, are in violation of journalistic standards accepted by the main stream media in the US and Canada, certainly in the Netherlands as well, and no doubt in many other nations (Hong Kong, for example, has its own guidelines here). Were we talking about historical figures there would be no issue, but we are not. In the case of Amanda Todd, her passing was less than two months ago and investigation into its cirumstances are ongoing. It follows that Wikipedia is reporting current events in her case and is thus essentially acting as a social media site commenting on the affairs of the day. Passing over any legal considerations in relation to possible privacy suits and the like, it is increasingly accepted that social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter can't claim the right to free speech unhindered by the kind of regulations main stream media are obliged to abide by. The editor Tarc above would apparently claim that Wikipedia does have that right, but I rather think the Wikipedia Foundation on reflection would judge that it does not, especially if its mind were concentrated by a lawsuit.

That you don't have the desire to kill yourself after looking at the article is not an issue. I frankly don't understand what your point can actually be, but copycat suicide nevertheless is a real issue taken seriously enough by the Canadian and US pyschiatric professions to merit publishing these guidelines. People do kill themselves in sympathy with figures like Amanda Todd and her article, whether a pseudobiography or otherwise, should be sensitive to the fact and abide by sensible guidelines, of which the most important is to remove the "Suicide of ..." in the article title. Call it "Death of ..." if you will, as the guidelines would recommend. JaniB (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That's simply not going to happen. It is an encyclopedia article on a girl that killed herself, nothing more. Your amateurish, armchair psychology shtick regarding what you think people will do if they read articles like this is just...sad. Tarc (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Calling the article "Death of Amanda Todd" seems to me a sensible compromise in line with the guidelines, especially since a coroner's court has yet to rule on the circumstances of the death. I note that you apparently don't think so. Your remark "amateurish", "schtick", "sad" and so on amounts to a personal attack and I ask you to cease and desist. JaniB (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

"Compromise" implies that there are roughly equal sides who are at an impasse and need a way to move forward. It seems more like this is pretty much a lone crusade by you, so there really doesn't seem to be a pressing need to make any such change. Tarc (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) JaniB, "...especially if its mind were concentrated by a lawsuit", is a legal threat. Those are disallowed, because of their chilling effect on discussion. I won't block you for it, both because I'm involved in the discussion and because you may have been unaware of this policy, but now that you are aware, I ask that you either withdraw the threat or refrain from editing if you are planning to take such action. If there were a legal issue, we have a very competent general counsel, and I'm sure he would advise us of such.

That aside, I suppose you're calling the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation incapable of following these supposed "journalistic ethics" from Canada? They apparently are, "suicide" is right in the byline here: [2]. My comment that I don't suddenly wish to kill myself was to demonstrate that no, the presence of "suicide" in a title does not have some magical impact, and that those killing themselves in a "copycat" manner are likely those who were already contemplating or planning suicide anyway. You'd do those people a lot more good spending your time volunteering at a suicide-prevention or cyberbullying education group than you would tilting at this windmill. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

OTOH, having an involved administrator threaten with a block is, evidently, something that improves the quality of discussion. Yeah, right... - Nabla (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Nabla, you may wish to re-read my comment. I believe you missed a "won't". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

No I did not. You threatened with a block. You "won't" do it *only* because you are involved, but you so imply that someone else, not involved, surely would. That is a threat.. hmm, intimidation, may be better expression, whatever.. You could perfectly well remind of the rule, without showing off the gun. - Nabla (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course that wasn't a legal threat. Of course I know legal threats are a big no-no in Wikipedia. I recently completed a very intensive course in it and other social media. I'm threatening no-one. I was simply pointing out that the prospect of a lawsuit might persuade the Wikipedia Foundation to take a rather less exalted view of its rights than the editor Tarc does. The page you cite from CBC is within the guidelines. The word 'suicide' is not in the headline, certainly the byline but not the headline. It doesn't detail the suicide method and there are no images of Amanda. The article is restrained and is not exclusively about Amanda and in fact Amanda is mentioned only incidentally. That's very different from Suicide of Amanda Todd. JaniB (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like several of you haven't read the guidelines conveniently linked above by Wer900. I recommend having a look at them. Among other things, they summarize the evidence that reporting suicides has a measurable, proven effect on increasing suicides and specifically on increasing copycat suicides.

Many (but not all) suicides can be prevented. Most suicides are not committed by a determined person who will kill himself one way or the other. Suicides are largely method specific (if I can't do it by ___, then I won't do it at all) and are very impulsive. The typical suicide attempt involves less than five minutes between the first thought about committing suicide and the attempt. That's why making people go to two drug stores to buy enough over-the-counter drugs to kill a person has been so effective at cutting the suicide-by-poisoning rate in the UK. By the time the person gets to the second store, he's changed his mind.

So, yes, I think we can take reasonable, ethical steps to reduce our (IMO minor) contribution to the suicide rate. We can do that by providing general information rather than detailed instructions on methods; we can eliminate sympathetic statements about how it's baffling and tragic and everyone is sad (a desire for sympathy of the "Pore Jud Is Daid" type is motivating to some would-be suicides, and besides, it's not encyclopedic); we can even delay adding material until it's firmly established, rather than trying to keep up with all the breaking news; we can be strict about long-term notability and excluding flash-in-the-pan media frenzies. There are many things we can do that will produce less damage and better, more encyclopedic articles. Just changing the article title, however, is likely to be unimportant. The media guidelines aren't about whether you label something as a suicide; they're about whether you make killing yourself sound like a way to meet emotional needs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You're still asking Wikipedia to censor itself. That's a pretty radical departure from core policy. It would need to be very thoroughly justified, and strictly defined. I've had too many debates with conservatives terrified of nipples to want any more arguments over what a guideline means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 2012-12-05T07:52:30‎

I am certainly not asking for censorship, unless you think that omitting unencyclopedic glurge and stopping people from using the English Wikipedia as a memorial website is "censorship". Removing emotional garbage like "She was such a beautiful, sensitive girl that everyone loved and we all miss so much, and nobody can understand why she committed suicide" happens to be simultaneously good for public health and for the encyclopedia. Ditto for avoiding detailed descriptions of just exactly how many pills the person swallowed or exactly which anatomical point he aimed the gun at. It is not censorship to do what's good for the encyclopedia, even if it happens to also have a positive side effect in terms of public health. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Replying to WhatamIdoing: yes, interesting post. Thanks for that. What I'm asking is that Wikipedia accepts there is an issue with copycat suicide, especially amongst teenagers, and is seen to behave responsibly. At present this proposal affects just nine articles, of which only one Suicide of Amanda Todd is really at issue because it is topical. The question of having the word "suicide" in the title arises from the guidelines. I really can't see what the issue can be with my suggestion that such an article is given the title "Death of ..." until at least the coroner's verdict is in confirming a suicide. The passion this proposal has engendered amongst those who responded here is extraordinary. To be attacked in this way, accused of engaging in censorship, of making threats, to be called comical and sad, engaged in a personal crusade, is deeply upsetting and profoundly unsettling. JaniB (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

In my limited observations of your contributions to Wikipedia you have challenged, at various times, WP:VERIFY, WP:TITLE and WP:CENSOR. And then you wonder why your provocative posts are met with strong response and derision. If you want to lead with your chin you have to expect the occasional blow. WWGB (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, limited. Since opening my account I have edited (from memory) at the Featured Article of the Day, Christopher Tappin, Suicide of Amanda Todd, Pussy Riot, Tracy Chapman's Talkin' 'bout a Revolution,North Wales child abuse scandal and Emel Mathlouthi. I contributed the framework for a very substantial expansion of Metock case and I'm currently preparing a similar article on P v S and Cornwall County Council, a landmark ECJ gender discrimination decision protecting the employment rights of transexuals, the first of series of aticle starts and expansions planned by myself and colleagues of ECJ and ECHR decisions (interested readers searching for these edits may need to search on my old username "FrontBottomFracas", an ironic puff at Pussy Riot whose upcoming appeal I propose to edit for Wikipedia, and which I changed after a complaint it was borderline offensive). That I "challenged" those policy documents is your spin and it arises because I wished to include the day of Amanda Todd's date of birth i.e. "27 November 1996" (from memory) rather than "November 1996" that was cited, arguing that it was multiply sourced in literally hundreds of tribute websites. In the end I had to take it to a successful RfC to have it included. Perhaps you would like to offer an opinion about my proposal rather than engage in a personal attack. JaniB (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

1. "Hundreds of tribute websites" do not constitute reliable sources.
2. The RfC was only "successful" because her date of birth was coincidentally published in a reliable source.
3. If you consider my comment to be a "personal attack" it also goes to your oversensitivity. WWGB (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

1.1 The point of my "challenge" of verifiability was that her date of birth was entirely uncontentious and thus didn't need citing by a reliable source. Moreover I remarked it was very likely to be reported in newspapers as Amanda's birthday neared at the end of the month and vigils were held, as proved to be the case.

2.1 The RfC was successful against strident opposition from you and others demanding no mention at all be made of her date of birth because the start editors supported it, because an independent editor supported it and because, as I predicted, Amanda's birthday was noted in newspaper reports of her vigils.

3.1 Of course you're attacking me, at the very least you are grossly uncivil, and I ask you to cease and desist. JaniB (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I propose to complete my edits here by citing Death of Kurt Cobain. Here we have a case of an event that was widely publicised as a suicide at the time and decided as a suicide at coroner's court. Nevertheless doubts subsequently surfaced that it was a suicide and not misadventure, and so we have "Death" rather than "Suicide". A coroner's court has yet to rule on Amanda Todd's death. There was a press release that a preliminary investigation has determined it a suicide, but the coroner stressed that it would be a long and complicated investigation. A verdict of misadventure is still possible. Another reason to prefer "Death of Amanda Todd" rather than "Suicide of Amanda Todd".

I thank respondents for their comments. JaniB (talk) 13:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

We have a Wiki-word for that; WP:OTHERCRAP. In Cobain's case, yes, he did kill himself, but the real notability there wasn't with the actual act of suicide. It was that a famous and influential person had died, and the minor conspiratorial controversy surrounding the death. A better analogy to Cobain would be the Death of Michael Jackson. For this girl here, the suicide itself and the aftermath of the blackmail story is the be-all and end-all of the person's notability. Tarc (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. If Todd had died in her sleep or been killed by a bus, her death would not be notable and there would be no article. Her death is notable solely because of her suicide, perhaps as a consequence of social media. If you take out the suicide, you take away the notability and the article has no raison d'être. WWGB (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to chip in that I agree with both of the above. The title of the article properly reflects what aspect of the subject is notable and should not be changed. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm open to either, so long as the title matches the information. I believe the current understanding is that she did in fact commit suicide, and that there wasn't any verifiable conspiracy or foul play going on, so Suicide of Amanda Todd should be the current title. CharmlessCoin (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the fact of the matter it has yet to be ruled a suicide by a coroner's court. The court has stressed that their investigation will be a long and complex one (this should have been reported in line with guidelines, but my edit to this effect was reverted by Tarc). It might still prove to be misadventure. Suicide games are a common feature of suicide ideation and unfortunately they sometimes lead to a death. There are, moreover, BLP issues because Amanda is recently deceased (the guidelines explicitly mention notable suicides) and I shall be referring the issue to a BLP noticeboard in due course after testing opinion here about policy, when at the same time I shall notify the Wikipedia Foundation of the situation.

Of course Tarc has no right nor basis to dismiss as '"crap" the real possibility that Cobain's death was misadventure. JaniB (talk) 04:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Jesus fucking christ, how naive does one have to be to think that a girl who, after being attempted blackmail to strip for a stranger, makes a video of herself holding up placard after placard saying "help me", "i am alone" etc...who happens to wind up dead a short time later is anything BUT suicide? How naive does one have to be to think that a guy with chronic stomach pain, drug dependencies, depression, and who left a fucking suicide note just accidentally put a shotgun in his mouth and accidentally hit the trigger? "Misadventure", my ass. Tarc (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not about your own private (and obscene) convinctions in the case. JaniB (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing "private" about acknowledging the reality of an event (a suicide) and ridiculing conspiracy theories ("misadventure") about the event. Also, there is nothing obscene about profanity. Your comments above were enough to piss off any reasonable individual here. Tarc (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter what the coroners court has or has not ruled on. What matters is what the reliable sources say. If the reliable sources are limited to suicide, and likely suicide buy still under investigation, the title being suicide is entirely reasonable. When reliable sources start reporting that it was not suicide, and there is a conflict between sources, then maybe death of is appropriate. To be clear though, differing levels of hedging relating only to suicide as a cause of death is not enough. Monty₈₄₅ 05:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Well in general the 'reliable source' argument would indeed have point, Monty. But this is about reporting a current event and reliable sources are thus perforce newspapers, and then we run against the impasse that responsible newspapers, the ones likely to be reliable, will be abiding by the guidelines and downplaying the suicide angle and in particular not headlining "suicide". What has actually been reported was that a preliminary investigation indicates a suicide, but it was stressed that the case was likely to be long and complicated. Finally the issue of care over suicide contagion must take precedence. Do you know of the Bridgend suicide incidents in the UK involving up to 79 teenagers. There have been similar cases in the Netherlands as well and no doubt eveywhere. It's a real and pressing problem.

The issue is the treatment of teen suicide and copycat crime. As responsible encyclopedia writers, if we knew for a fact that there was going to be one more suicide in the world simply because we titled the article Amanda Todd suicide or Suicide of Amanda Todd instead of simply Amanda Todd, it is a no brainer to choose Amanda Todd. That is what this thread is all about. Apteva (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You continue to overlook the fact that Amanda Todd, as a person, is not notable. Her premature death, and its circumstances, are the only notable issues here. Remove the suicide statements and the article fails any reasonable test of notability. It's just another "teenage girl was bullied" story. WWGB (talk) 08:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea who "you" refers to, but I know that I am not overlooking anything. I am saying that if we can save one teen suicide by naming the article Amanda Todd, and calling it a premature death at her own hand instead of a suicide it is worth doing. Apteva (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

And which other things do we stop discussing here because they're not nice, and could influence others negatively? I'm really uncomfortable with that concept. Real thin end of the wedge stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 09:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing, and not this either. It is only how we cover the subject. WP is definitely not censored, other than stuff that is illegal. Apteva (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Based on long precedent, BIO1E cases like this are named for the event rather than the person. In this case, the suicide of Amanda Todd. While I am not personally opposed to discussing whether that is appropriate on the macro scale, I am not interested in arguments for a specific article that rely on appeal to emotion fallacies. And in this specific case, the entire article is about the girl's suicide and aftermath of it. Retitling the article does not "soften the blow", and I am decidedly unconvinced that doing so would prevent a copycat event. Resolute 15:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

But this is a news story. The investigation is ongoing and the article is a news story and not an encyclopaedic article. It cannot be encylopaeidic because the only possible reliable sources presently are newspapers or reliable web sites and so any article by Wikipaedia is no more reliable than these are and these incidentally, in Canada and the United States at least as in many other nations, are bound by the guidelines. Thus to assert boldly that Amanda'a death is a suicide is an abuse of what is actually reported, which is uniformly that a preliminary investigation indicates suicide, but that is not the same as ruling Amanda's death a suicide and it might still, for example, go to a misadventure, perhaps a suicide fantasy game that went tragically wong. Whether Wikipeida should be doing articles like these is the real issue, nevertheless as reporter Wikipaedia has a duty of care in the the matter of copycate suicides, the more so since ordinary readers might imagine it is encylopaeidic. Have a look at the Bridgend suicide incidents in the UK and consider that cyberbullying, what was involved in Amanda's care, is reported as affecting some 50% of UK teenagers. It must be an issue, indeed an accident waiting to happen. It's all very well for Tarc to dismiss the risk with the cavalier observation "kids cap themselves all the time", but I'd like to see him justify that position to the grieving parents of Bridgend.

Of course I have to accept that BIO1E is established community consenus but this is a single issue within that context and incidentally a BLP issue as well since it concerns a recently deceased person and where suicide is expressly cited. In due course I'll be taking the issue to a BLP notice board as well. JaniB (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

As responsible encyclopedia writers, we are obliged to provide the information as reliable sources report it. Not to protect people from information, or attempt to foresee what future sources will say. I think the only issue here is the title of the article; and even then, only based on the question of was the death was in fact a suicide. The reliable sources we have say that it was, therefore, the title should stay be as is. The far more general Amanda Todd title implies that she was notable. She was not, and still is not. What is notable, is her supposed suicide, and the reactions to it. CharmlessCoin (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thoughtless copy-paste from source X is responsible; thinking about the consequences of your actions is irresponsible? Instead of calling each other irresponsible, maybe we could agree that we have different views on what we are responsible for and how. - Nabla (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This proposal arises from an absurd conflation of newspaper headlines and prime-time news reports, with the mere titles of a microscopic handful of articles. The actual likelihood of a suicide-prone teen stumbling on one of these articles and being influenced in any way are so infinitesimal as to make it embarrassing to think that we are actually talking about it seriously. --Orange Mike | Talk 06:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really concerned about the eleven or so other "Suicide of [a named person]" articles, which are now historical. Page stats show that Suicide of Amanda Todd is currently being viewed at around 15,000 to 20,000 times a day with a peak of about 40,000 views, in all somewhere around a million views over its lifetime. It's not about suicide-prone teenagers accidentally stumbling on a page but about learning suicidal behaviour from a role model as, for example, detailed here. Wikipedia prides itself on being the reference source for many individuals, very likely for most teenagers. Teenagers will know that Amanda was a victim of cyberbullying and apparently killed herself after posting a harrowing vido about it on YouTube. They turn to the Wikipedia article and they find all that repeated at length and in clinical detail as far as the fact and mode of the suicide is concerned. From the source quoted:

• These recommendations represent the consensus of suicide experts at several federal agencies as well as private foundations based on the research literature and theories of behavioral contagion. The statement suggests that reporters not give suicide stories undue prominence in newspapers or television news broadcasts.This includes avoiding sensational headlines that focus on the suicide, avoiding prominent placement in the newspaper or news broadcast, and avoiding detailed descriptions of the method. In addition, the recommendations call for a balanced description of suicide victims so that the victim is not presented as a model for those considering the same act. Finally, the recommendations suggest that whenever possible stories include the important role of mental disorders such as depression and substance abuse as precursors to the act. This information about the victim’s background not only provides context for the act but also opens the possibility for information about treatment. Nearly all of the mental disorders that precede suicide are treatable, and if vulnerable individuals sought care rather than focusing on suicide as a solution to their problems, many suicides might be prevented.

I invite you to review Suicide of Amanda Todd and consider to what extent this article complies with these recommendations by experts. The exercise should hopefully make you feel less embarrassed about taking it seriously. JaniB (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I see Mike that you are a Wikipedia administrator, one of the 400 most active Wikipedia editors. I would really appreciate an opinion on my proposal that the article be renamed "Death of Amanda Todd" until such time as a coroner rules it suicide and that the contents be made guidelines compliant as a precaution against contagion suicide. Why would that threaten Wikipedia's integrity? JaniB (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You're trying to take away information to protect people. Regardless of what experts have or have not said on the topic, that's a slippery slope, especially here on Wikipedia. I'm still strongly opposed to the idea. The reason we have the information we have there, is because it's been found in reliable sources. If there is suddenly a conflict between sources in regards to what happened, then maybe this could be considered.

In regards to your last comment, "teenagers will know that Amanda was a victim of cyberbullying and apparently killed herself after posting a harrowing vido about it on YouTube. They turn to the Wikipedia article and they find all that repeated at length and in clinical detail as far as the fact and mode of the suicide is concerned," I don't really know what you expect the article to be. It's about her suicide, so of course we would give information on it. Take a look at Budd Dwyer, where not only does it go into far more detail than the Todd article, but it also provides a link to an unedited video where one could watch the event take place. Glancing at the talk page, you can see that no controversy has ever been brought up about it. As I stated before, it's not our job to protect people, it's our job to put encyclopedic information out. CharmlessCoin (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)JaniB, we are not censored, no matter why and how you think we should be. Really, me and Tarc usually are like day and night, but for once we completely agree: This has been called by all RS a suicide, and as such the title stays. There is a quote I have on my user page, by WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs): "Wikipedia really, truly does not care what the real-world consequences of distributing verifiable, educational information are (or might be). Someone else may have a problem with Wikipedia providing 'potentially harmful' educational information -- but we don't, full stop." Our job is reporting information correctly. If people have a problem with this, that's their problem, not ours. --Cyclopia^talk 19:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Jani, to respond to your question to Mike (here) and to me at the BLP page (I'd like to try to contain this at one place), an administrator's opinion on a content matter carries no more weight than any other editor's does. Admins are neither permitted nor responsible to make binding content decisions. It may be that an uninvolved admin comes and closes a discussion, such as a deletion request or content RfC, but that must be an admin who is uninvolved in the matter, and must reflect the consensus of the discussion (or that no consensus formed, if that's the case), not the admin's personal viewpoint. I'm speaking here as an editor, and of course, having participated in the discussion, it would not be appropriate for me to close it or determine its outcome. That being said, I do see a pretty strong consensus that if reliable sources have called the death a suicide, we follow suit rather than "second guessing" them. That's covered by our restrictions on original synthesis. As to the title, since it is explicitly the fact that the death was by suicide which made it so notable, we entitle the article accordingly. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and so newspaper guidelines do not apply here, any more than guidelines on how to write a college admission essay or a textbook would apply to encyclopedia articles. I think what you're failing to see is that, while you evidently feel very strongly about this subject, and I think your motives are good ones, it is not going to gain consensus. Generally speaking, we do not redact information on the grounds that publication of it could harm "someone out there", if a specific target of concrete potential harm cannot be identified. Finally, since reliable sources have overwhelmingly called the death a suicide, there's no issue of such concrete harm here for the family. The sources have already made their determination, and they have legal and fact-checker teams. Apparently, those have overwhelmingly considered it acceptable and non-libelous to definitively call the death a suicide. We can't and don't just say "No, you're all wrong", when there is a clear consensus among high-quality reliable sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

What makes Amanda's death so notable Seraphimblade is that she apparently killed herself after self-publishing a heartbreaking and shocking account of her cyberbullying on YouTube, not the fact of her suicide. As Tarc so sensitively observes above, "kids cap themselves all the time". Arguably "Cyberbullying of Amanda Todd" would be a better title if we were genuinely seeking common ground here. I'm not arguing for the redaction of information. Just for its responsible reporting, and it remains the case that Amanada Todd's death has only been provisionally determined to be a suicide. Meanwhile there are very cogent reasons for reporting the facts of her death very circumspectly given the danger of copycat suicide, particulary so given that the cyberbullying of teenagers is now so common. Wikipedia's freedom of speech is already very constrained by its self-regulatory regime of only reporting reliable sources (newspapers certainly are not restrained in the same way). I can't see how its integrity would be damaged by it observing the same guidelines reliable sources observe in reporting suicides. JaniB (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for the other editors involved in this discussion, but I'm not seeking common ground. The death has been deemed a suicide by every source we have, so that's the title we use. You are in fact arguing for a redaction of information. While I will not go find the exact words, I believe you wanted to remove how Todd carried out her suicide. We aren't reporting on anything, we're an encyclopedia. Our content absolutely needs to be verified by reliable sources. A previous editor here dropped this quote, ""Wikipedia really, truly does not care what the real-world consequences of distributing verifiable, educational information are (or might be). Someone else may have a problem with Wikipedia providing 'potentially harmful' educational information -- but we don't, full stop." It doesn't matter if there is a risk of a "copycat suicide," it's not our job to care about that. As I've stated here before, we only worry about getting information out that can be verified. Which is clearly what's been done with the Todd article. CharmlessCoin (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Very well said. HiLo48 (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a news article and Wikipedia should care. JaniB (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If "the cyberbullying of teenagers is now so common" then it is no longer notable. Hence the title "Cyberbullying of Amanda Todd" has no particular merit; it is her subsequent suicide that tips the issue towards notability. WWGB (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well that's so. What about "Cyberbullying and subsequent death of Amanda Todd"?. JaniB (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If you feel the article should be retitled, there's a process for suggesting such. As this discussion makes clear such a proposal is likely to be controversial, I would advise using the "potentially controversial moves" process. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this Seraphimblade. I'm aware it's bad form to abuse the renaming facility and I wouldn't dream of doing it without acieving some kind of consensus for it. In fact I have no intention of making any edits of any sort there any more because they are instantly reverted by the folk who live there. I tried to edit for the birthday, for 'see also' cases, and for an external link to a FindAGrave tribute site, all of them reverted at once. A final attempt to delete the details of the mechanism of death, not released by the coroner nor reported by the Canadian or US mainstream press, and also adding the important qualification from the coroner that this was going to be a long and complicated investigation, was also reverted by Tarc after seeing the discussion here. But that was very much within the guidelines. Another recommendation in the guidelines is to avoid giving an unbalanced view of the case. And just today another edit has been made diluting the mental illness aspects of the case. It's impossible now not to read the article without forming the conclusion that Amanda killed hereself directly as a result of the bullying, and not because of an illness such as depression for which there is a known suicide risk, no doubt exacerbated by the bullying but nevertheless the point is not to encourage an overly romantic view of the 'reason' for her death. The truth is most suicides are accidents, a five minute impulse that precipitates you into eternity without leave for regret and Wikipedia should take care not to encourage it in those who are vulnerable.

I really have no more to offer. If I see posts willing to discuss constructively how to implement sensible guidelines on the responsible reporting of recent siuicides in Wikipedia, I will respond if I can contribute. Otherwise I'll let it go. I should have liked to have heard again from Orange Mike (was that really it Mike?)

I thank all who contributed in good faith here. JaniB (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Jani, as others have said, I'm just a guy with a Mop-and-Bucket. But for what it's worth:

the consensus is that we have no, repeat no, reason to believe that this is other than a suicide; the article title is fine.

We do not censor ourselves out of pious beliefs as to what is and is not suitable for others to read or see. Censors always believe that they are calling for "responsible" actions, to protect other people from themselves.

I am the father of a teenager; I do not make these statements lightly or without long thought (part of why I took so long to respond). --Orange Mike | Talk 21:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Mike, thanks for this. As indicated above I'm wasted here. I might suggest what I would like to see as guidelines on my Talk page later. I would like to see Amanda's inquest first (or rather what is published about it, the inquest itself is unlikely to be published) and the teenage suicide stats in Canada and the USA for this period of time when they are collated. Brieflly I think WP:BDP should establish that recent suicide articles should be entitled "Death of ..." until such time as a coroner rules a cause of death, and then link to a policy document WP:Responsible Reporting of Recent Suicides outlining Wikipedia's policy. The preamble of that should make clear that an article covering a recent suicide can never have any sensible pretensions of being encyclopaedic so long as the inquest remains unpublished, and must therefore be considered a news report that ought to abide by guidelines published by the Surgeon General given that Wikipedia's servers are established in the USA.

I resent these accusations that I attempting to censor the fact of a sucide. I am doing nothing of the sort. I am just asking that the fact be reported responsibly within guidelines that main stream media abide by. Wikipedia can never be freer than the press and publishing houses that service it. So long as these remain free and uncensored then I suggest Wikipedia has no cause for anxiety. JaniB (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break, recent suicides

Personally, I think that this discussion has an impact beyond its original subject matter of teenage suicides, and should be the starting point for a new interpretation of Wikipedia policy. So many individuals here think that the purpose of NOTCENSORED is specifically to offend the sensibilities of various political, religious, or ethnic groups that are not the majority of Wikipedia editors (white Christian males). Living comfortable lives as members of the majority ethnic group in liberal democracies, many Wikipedia editors fail to realize that their edits have a farther-reaching effect that can cause communal violence and hatred in less-developed parts of the world. While I do believe that we should do our duty in ensuring that our articles fulfill all necessary encyclopedic purposes, I see no value in deliberately adding material beyond this whose sole purpose is to incite and inflame. That Wikipedia is not censored should be held in comparison both with WP:DICK and the actual impact that Wikipedia has on the world. We should, by all means, fulfill our encyclopedic purpose; but I don't think that there is any (moderately interpreted) religion on this earth or otherwise sane value systems that espouse deliberate incitement of communities because of some twisted view on the right to freedom of speech.

Now watch me be pelted with tomatoes for stating that in material that incites hatred and division, we should fulfill our encyclopedic purpose and no more. We should not pander to any one group, but we should not inflame them more than necessary either. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 03:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

In re "white Christian males": I believe that "Christian" is probably wrong. White and male, yes, but the majority of editors are probably in the non-religious category (including atheists, agnostics, and those of a non-specific spirituality). You could accurately add "single" and "childless" to your description. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is probably true. However, after you account for unspecified spiritual, agnostic, atheist, and Christian individuals, there is only a small section of the community left. That is, excluding temporary flamers who log on to fight currently ongoing military conflicts on the front of Wikipedia. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 04:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the "deliberately adding material beyond this whose sole purpose is to incite and inflame sentiment, that echoes exactly the anti-image crowd from the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images earlier this year. Then, as now, some people need to get it though their heads that the desire to provide information unfettered and uncensored is NOT...let's make that crystal-clear; N-O-T...the same as purposefully wishing to inflict offense on another person or group of persons. Offense is at times simply an unavoidable side-effect of free-flowing information. Tarc (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Tarc, I think that you are merely echoing the mindset of the majority of the encyclopedia that thinks that its editing has no implications whatsoever when this is simply not the case. Given the dominance of this encyclopedia by a single (no pun intended) and largely monolithic group, which may or may not have experienced the true diversity of religions, cultures, and ethnicities on the planet and which certainly does not incorporate these into its editing community, I think that it is largely ignorance of these diversities among people that causes editing, which may not seem particularly problematic to a member of the white male Christian/agnostic/atheist/unspecified spiritual European/North American crowd, but which would certainly have a ripple effect on other peoples. I see this as out of ignorance, which is of little harm if it can be swiftly corrected. But to continue to prop up your mentality that "we don't want to harm anyone" despite the fact that you probably are is, in my opinion, little different from climate change denial. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 04:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Wer900, I am not "echoing" the "white male Christian/agnostic/atheist/unspecified spiritual European/North American crowd", I am proudly a member thereof. People being possibly offended are of no importance to me whatsoever, and if you click that RfC and read through the data, the overwhelming majority of this project is of a similar mindset. Freedom of information trumps the possibility of offense, every time. Tarc (talk) 12:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that we should leave out materials offensive to some persons because it is offensive, but I don't think that we should add material that is offensive just because we have an edit button and a NOTCENSORED policy. As for "freedom of information trumps the possibility of offense, every time" just think about yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater and how your statement applied to that situation would clearly cause more injury and death. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 23:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

And just where did anyone here say that we have to add such material, because I sure as hell didn't say that. This is the same wrong-headed rhetoric that comes out from people like you at times like this, accusing others of wanting to retain potentially offensive material on purpose. We also see the same misapplication of the Shouting fire in a crowded theater metaphor. I have yet to see anyone ever cite that metaphor correctly, as they invariably leave out the point that Oliver Wendell Holmes was making about a person who falsely shouted such a thing in a crowd. Tarc (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly recognize there are consequences. There are countless things on Wikipedia that are capable of being misused and causing harm. Even seemingly innocuous knowledge can result in harm, for instance, by providing information about the abuses the government of a country is known to have perpetrated, it may have a tendency to contribute to unrest in some small degree. Now we can try to decide constantly on a case by case bases which risks of harm are big enough to justify censoring, but it would be a constant struggle. And the outcome would likely strongly reflect the demographic leanings of the editor base. Or alternatively, we can say that we just wont consider it when it comes to content decisions, knowing that harm can and will be done, but believing that providing un censored information is valuable enough to outweigh the harm. We don't include things with a purpose offending, just as we don't exclude them to avoid offense. I think we are pretty good at not censoring things offensive to the "Christian/agnostic/atheist/unspecified spiritual European/North American crowd" as well. Monty₈₄₅ 05:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

As another approach, I have always been concerned about the implications of titles like Death of X, which I consider a triumph of sensationalism over encyclopedic principles, although the people who advocate it call it the triumph of accuracy about title structure and BLP's NPOV. They're wrong to think it encyclopedic--it is just the opposite. If The Death of X.Y is the only article we have on person X.Y, the significant part of the title is the identity of X.Y., and it is not relevant whether his life or death is what made the person notable. If X.Y. is a writer, and his notability arises from his writing , the article is properly titled X.Y., for that is the entry point and what anyone would look for and the natural way to organize material. (If X.Y. is not just notable but truly world-famous, we might have break-out articles on his biography and his works, but that;s similar to the case of Michael Jackson.) The name is what anyone would look for, that's how anyone would think of the article in a reference work, that's how an encyclopedia would be made. Calling it the Death of X.Y. is what a tabloid would do, and what would differentiate a news source from a work of reference.

I have never advocated any degree of censorship, and I would include details of suicide methods and the like, just as I would include candid coverage of human sexuality and sexual images. But I would want to include these because we are an encyclopedic work of reference, and it is appropriate for us to maintain a certain amount of dignity and responsibility. I would never sacrifice accuracy for the sake of avoiding consequences, but I would use careful presentation as the way of not provoking consequences. Harm will come to people, and it may come because of the nature of events, but we should not magnify it by our presentation more than necessary. The recounting of suicide and of crime can lead to imitation, the description of dangerous devices may lead to their construction; this is unavoidable, but orienting our presentation to the lurid or dangerous details is avoidable. They must be included, they should not be featured. There is no contradiction between telling the truth and social responsibility. There is however a contradiction between individual & social morality & responsibility, with reckless manner of description and presentation. Honest people describing horrible things write so the horror will be known and understood; just as they do not hide it, they do not over-represent it. Writing about difficult things take care. The tabloids and to a considerable extent even the more responsible news media are skilled at emphasizing horror and using it for merchandising; we need to be equally skilled at handling it and using it to distribute knowledge and understanding. BLP is an essential principle, and I can not work with people who ignore their common humanity: the details must not get in way of the meaning of the principle--that's legalism triumphing over humanity. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Your paragraph on "Death of X.Y" is pretty interesting. Think we could expand the scope of this discussion to include that? CharmlessCoin (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Really excellent point, DGG, on the lack of logic in titling sensational Biographical articles with "Death of....", "Suicide of....", etc. If it's a subpage of a larger article, such as Death of Osama bin Laden, then it makes sense. Otherwise, it makes no sense. The absurd conclusion of the current approach would be to retitle every other Biographical article about someone's life to "Life of....". First Light (talk) 06:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that, but on the other hand I can see how the death of someone non-notable can be a notable event, especially with the outcry in social media, like in Todd's case. It would be difficult to determine on a case by case basis, and then there's WP:VICTIM which could also cover some of the "Death of X" articles. CharmlessCoin (talk) 06:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

DGG conveniently overlooks the guideline WP:BIO1E: "the general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person". Todd never was, never will be, notable. It is the event (her suicide) that is relevant here. WWGB (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

And do you convinently overlook that the aim of that guideline is to when there is a larger event (e.g. Britain's Got Talent_(series_1)) usefull as placeholder (and eventually target of a redirect) for some "one event biography" (e.g. Britain's Got Talent (series 1)#Mels Klever k9s)? It does not mean we should create an article titled Britain's Got Talent participation of Mels Klever k9s.

@DGG: brilliant reasoning (even if I may not agree 100%) - Nabla (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I really doubt that a serious encyclopedia like Britannica has articles titled "Suicide of..." and rarely if ever "Death of...." Maybe Encyclopedia National Enquirer would do those "Suicide of...." articles. First Light (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Todd would never appear in EB. Period. And that's the problem: wannabe reporters who seek to include marginal news stories in Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia is sensationalist/tabloid not just in titles but in content, approach, and tabloid level "reporters." But if EB did have an article about Amanda Todd, it would be titled simply "Amanda Todd." First Light (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement that we should never purposely attempt to incite any group or individual. However, it needs to be made perfectly clear (as I believe the consensus above reflected), that we will continue to publish information that could be deemed offensive or dangerous, as long as it's of encyclopedic value and can be verified. In part of Monty's above statement, he suggests that going through these sorts of cases and evaluating the "risks" of each case could be a way to handle this. I'm a little worried where that would leave us. I understand that we should always have a discussion over whether material was purposefully meant to incite, but I'm opposed to evaluating the "risk" that certain knowledge may carry, for fear that it could turn into a form (however minor it may be) of censorship. CharmlessCoin (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

this article shoulda been deleted outright on event and not-the-news grounds. --216.66.108.218 (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Creative Commons is turning ten!

Should we put up a site-wide banner related to Creative Commons's 10th anniversary, should we do something else to mark the date, or should we not do anything? If we decide to do something, then how will we do it technically?

Creative Commons, an organization that makes free content licenses (Wikipedia is published under one of them) is turning ten years old this week. Will we be doing anything? David1217 ^{What I've done} 04:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Toast to their good work and carry on creating Creative Commons-licensed encyclopedia articles, manuals, news articles, photographs, dictionary entries, travel guides and so on...? —Tom Morris (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps put CC and compatibly-licensed images on the main page? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, though, Put it in On This Day on the main page Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Has the Creative Commons article been featured yet? If not, maybe someone could take a look at nominating it. CharmlessCoin (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, I was thinking something like a banner to draw attention to the fact that Wikipedia is freely licensed under the CC-BY-SA. David1217 ^{What I've done} 22:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Anyone up for working on that? CharmlessCoin (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Simple HTML editor for the "E-mail this user" function?

Hi all,
Whenever I use the "E-mail this user", I find myself confuzelled by how to add links to articles, editors and external resources. This is 2012, almost 2013, and yet the "E-mail this user" still generates messages in plain text. HTML formatting functionality in posting messages has been around for, I dunno, since 15 years ago, maybe?
Text font, size, colours and other chrome would be good too, but would not be, ahem, a mission-specific core business requirement.
Surely this should be a cinch for the developers to code?
--Shirt58 (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it as a high, or even medium priority. I use the email this user for contact with someone who isn't active on-wiki. I don't think extensive off-wiki discussion about wikipedia related issues ought to be encouraged, but if you must do so, then do it through a proper email address. Letting someone know that they should look on-wiki for something can be done with plain text. We have dozens, if not hundreds of better uses of developers' time.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Plain text is plenty for a short notification. Developers could be working on plenty of other things. CharmlessCoin (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Email should be text/plain. HTML is for webpages. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

For once, Tom, I find myself in complete disagreement to you. That argument is positively antediluvian and simply does not reflect the reality of modern email. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose too much trouble to have to go through for something that would probably just result in spam, vulgarity, and excessive images (or perhaps even a combination of the three...). —Theopolisme 14:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Considering that in some corporate email systems, hmtl emails tend to get blocked or mangled, it's probably better to stick to plain text.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose - HTML in e-mail is for people who write business letters with crayons, felt-tip markers, glitter and stickers. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't feel the need to get more HTML email than I already do, and already tend to delete email with significant use of HTML on sight. If you need to put a link in an email, you copy and paste the link, and if I want to see it, I copy and paste the link into my browser. How hard is that? Email is supposed to be plain text, not LOLOMGZORZ PICTURES and whatever the hell else. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose for all the above reasons. We want less html email not more. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

What you mean "we", Kemo Sabe? — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose HTML in e-mails, like ClipArt on posters, is best left to people who don't understand the complexities of the real world doktorb _words^deeds 06:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• oppose: my e-mail spam filter thinks html tags are a good indicator of spam. let's keep it so - Nabla (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Creating wiki-torrents

The storage and dissemination of data in the form of torrents can solve several problems at once:

• Decentralized storage of data that will provide invulnerability Wikipedia in case of any problems with the central servers.
• Offload server.
• In some cases, much faster access to some resources, especially large.

Unlike Wikipedia resources from other types of distributed resources of the torrent is that the objects of Wikipedia (articles or parts of articles, attachments) may be changed to the original source (central server). Therefore, wiki torrent client should receive notification of a change of objects handed out, and in the event of changes exclude the object from the distribution until it is updated from a central server. Data integrity of the torrent system is checked by computing the hash stored files. In the setting of a wiki torrent client, you can specify limits on the amount of data storage and upload speed, CPU load. In accordance with user central server caches the user's computer a piece of data.
Probably reduce the load on the central server will significantly reduce the cost of maintenance for the Wikipedia community. In addition, in the event of data loss central servers (up to destroy the central server) and the problems of recovery from backups Wikipedia will continue to operate successfully. Caches of data stored in user, you can quickly re-create the temporary (and in the case of destruction of central servers even permanent) central server.
Weak Link offers: development of methods for handling web-browser to the torrent networks. Likely to have to develop a browser extension that allows for accessing the resource Wikipedia (page file) to request the resource (and its components) in the first place in the torrent network, rather than on a central server. But it is preferable to do without extensions, for example using a client-oriented tools java: java on, there are several projects working with torrents (for example, Java Bittorrent API). Or, the ability to download the requested resource object can provide installed on your computer wiki torrent client. Needless browser extension can be used as a Wiki-BitTorrent client. --Lebedev IV (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC) originally posted on talk page at 22:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• This proposal has no relation to Wikipedia. You can try proposing it on meta.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not a decision for English Wikipedia to make. You need to propose it on Meta, although I can't imagine the WMF surrendering control of the servers. Mogism (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I wrote in Meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Creating_wiki-torrents --Lebedev IV (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Image use policy at VPP

Hi, I've opened a proposal to redesign our image policy structure at WP:VPP#Image use policy. All input welcome there. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Fundraising

Dear Wikipedia,

I believe that you can increase your fundraising effectiveness. If you just had a Bar/Meter there will be a sense of accumilation by watching the fund requirements being fulfilled. For extra boost, use a volumetic flask with extra small base. Danger: a base too wide and large will depress us all. Preferably, the base is already filled with funds already raised, indicating the hard part is already over. Also, make sure the flask or fancy meter is not intrusive; a good spot could be under the wikipedia globe on the left side of the website. Also it may not be optimal to place the flask inside the "please help" tab since most people will not be motivated enough to click it.

Every day/week you should change the color indicating how much money was donated so that everyone can compare to the previous days. Each color should be at least 1/2 an inch tall to show that progress is being made.

What you can also do is take the amount of funds recieved, say one day's worth and take an average so that each minute or second it seems like people are donating to our beloved wikipedia. Not only that, raise 2-4x more than needed so you can have some accumiliation. (unless insolvency gives you all a thrill.)

Good luck with your endeavors and thanks for wikipedia! If you do decide to take this advice, I would be very grateful to know whether this tactic was successful and how much it increased donations.

Sincerely, Hsaadat  Removed

I think it's a neat idea. I always wonder how close we are to meeting our goals, or even what our goals are. CharmlessCoin (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

there's an app for that ;p. Ironholds (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The app seems to be about two weeks out of date... and that's when it's making sense. Right now, it's telling me we've raised $22M... as of eleven months ago (January 15), which it asserts is "day 61" of the fundraiser. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I'm seeing. It shows that as of "Day 27 of 2012 Fundraiser" "2012-12-11", the "Cumulative total (USD)" is $18,900,967.46. --Yair rand (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like five blind people describing an elephant. It is showing three years and depending on where your cursor is, you can get a result from any of the days of any of those years. Apteva (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Took me a moment to realise that, all the bits you look at (i.e. total, cumulative total etc) are on the left/centre while the year is far right. I didn't notice it was changing between three years at first. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

User contribution display

User Contributions are usually quite hard to locate. Its only in the article history that we find it being easily accessible. Otherwise its quite hard to find the contributions of a user once you are on their user page/talk page. Is there any easy and quick way to check a person's contributions when you are on their user page or talk page? It will be quite good as I often find myself checking people's contributions.

If there is no simple way, then I suggest we add an extra tab next to "User Page" and "Talk", named as "User contributions". It provides easy access to a well-used resource. 15:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOriginalSoni (talk • contribs) 15:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Note there is already an entry "User contributions" in the 'toolbox' section in the sidebar on user and user talk pages. Anomie⚔ 15:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the user already knows that. He/she seems to want it in a more visible place. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I asked this exact thing about a year ago. Why do people's signatures not have Userpage/talkpage/contributions? Hello...... *so* much easier!--Coin945 (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

We do that for IP signatures, but adding that to every signature would just add billions of unnecessary bytes. Anyone who wishes can create a custom signature that includes their contributions. Apteva (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to use any of my brain's valuable processing cycles to find a more precise figure for this, but I'm sure that each of those billions of bytes of storage has a cost measured in cents/pence rather than in dollars/pounds/euros. I don't think that we need to worry too much about that if we judge it a good idea to make this link more obvious. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is as easy as clicking on "User contributions" on the left hand side of a user's user or talk page, under the "Toolbox" heading.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I know that now, but only because I asked this question and then was told where the link is actually located. (to Apteva): If we're talking about resourses being wasted here, what's a couple of billion bytes when your time and effort is taken up every time someone asks the same question, to which you give the same answer because this neccesary feature is so hard to find? Wouldn't you rather invest your efforts in more important things? As long as this remains unsolved, i can guarantee that you and many other editors will waste huge portions of their wiki-time answering this question over and over. Make your choice...--Coin945 (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Why not just go to Special:Contribs and type in the username in question? I see the problem of its potential inconvenience, but it's only occassionally that I find myself scrutinizing another editor's contribs. dci | TALK 02:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Most editors do not have a great deal of need to check other users contribs (stalk them), but as with anyone else who does wp:RCP, I do it a great deal, and had not noticed the link to user contributions, and had been just copy and pasting the user name into a contributions page, or click on history and click on contributions from there. Apteva (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A better option may be to turn on popups, (see Preferences → Gadgets )

Then hover the mouse over the user name and it gives you access to the contributions, and much, much more.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Task force for The Canterbury Tales?

Apologies if this is the incorrect place to put this discussion, but I am uncertain as to how to proceed when trying to set up a task force under a WikiProject that is rather inactive (and therefore, it's unlikely I can gauge the amount of interest / appropriateness for the suggestion). So the following is taken from the talk page of WikiProject Poetry (found here):

The Canterbury Tales is one of the most important collections of stories in the English language. And it's also in an absolutely dire state on Wikipedia. Many of the articles are poorly-written stubs, inconsistent with one another and lacking much good information — or seemingly a way forward.

I propose that we set up a task force that would help to coordinate the improvement of articles relating to The Canterbury Tales (27 altogether); since I've proposed it, I would be willing to start setting up the framework and other admin business.

Who would be interested in participating?

MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

As one who is currently visiting a modern translation of the collection, I'd be much obliged to partake in this program. I would suggest you expand it to coverage of Chaucer as well, as some articles regarding him are in need of attention. dci | TALK 01:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

See WP:REVIVE. Basically, in this instance, you and your wikifriends stage a "friendly takeover" of the main, inactive project, and it "just coincidentally happens" that the newly revived group focuses on the area that interests the (new) members. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

That's great DCI, I have continued the discussion on the WikiProject Poetry page. Thanks for the input WhatamIdoing; so, in essence, there's no need to go about with the formalities of creating a separate task force when this would be the bulk of the main project's activites. Okay, that makes sense. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Sidebar Addition

I am writing to inquire about a small problem I ran into with Wikipedia, and I will try to present my issue in a way very easy to comprehend (*context*, *problem*, *suggestion*).

• Context*:

The present tools in Wikipedia are very advantageous. Upon reading an article, it is common to click on a hyperlink of a keyword that is not fully understood. Once then this keyword is understood from reading its article, the reader can go back to the original article to continue reading. I will use this tool often. However, upon using this tool and reading another article to better understand the first article, I find myself needing to read a third article just to understand the second article. I hope this makes sense to you. I'm sure it is a common occurrence among people using Wikipedia.

• Problem*:

This aforementioned process will happen to me often. However, the process will repeat until I have many Wikipedia tabs open within my browser. I've noticed that this noticeably slows down my laptop. Also, cycling through tabs can be slightly inconvenient. Though this is not a huge problem, I realized it is one with a simple and easy solution that I was hoping Wikipedia might incorporate within its design.

• Suggestion*:

Instead of having multiple tabs open within a browser, it would be nice if Wikipedia conveniently kept track of the links users opened from in an article. This information could then be displayed on the sidebar of Wikipedia's web page in a tree data structure format.

I realize this idea is already present in Wikipedia in the button View History. But my suggestion is to do with optimization and convenience. And the View History button load a new page to show you your past pages, and they aren't in hierarchical order. Hierarchical order meaning -- pages are listed under the pages that the user hyper-linked to them.

For example, if you were previously researching baseball the other day and ran out of time but didn't finish, it would be nice to be able to continue researching baseball by logging onto Wikipedia and viewing the hierarchy of pages you viewed.

ex.

Baseball

batter
  Babe Ruth
bat
bases
  home plate
    pentagon

Your consideration and any feedback would be greatly appreciated

Thank you— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.105.183 (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2012‎ (UTC)

First, View History does not do what you think it does. Struck the incorrect statement off.

Second, it sounds like a great idea!!! Being a ferocious reader, I know how irritating it is to have my computer slow down due to me having too many browser windows. We could have a tool similar to what the nominator said so that one need not keep hundreds of tabs to keep track of everything one sees. Some minor tweaks to that will make it absolutely reader-friendly (like removing links you dont wish to see from that list etc) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

RFX notification (or lack thereof) in centralized discussion

I propose that we include the open RFX template in the centralized discussion template to bring awareness about open RFX discussions and the lack of RFX discussions. A bot updates it automatically and it could be transcluded in the bottom. --Mono (HG) 00:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)