Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tb kol (talk | contribs) at 14:01, 19 May 2015 (→External Links should be embedded in Wiki page content). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Before commenting, note:

« Archives, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61


Require an edit summary for edits by IPs and non-autoconfirmed users?

Since it is considered good practice to provide edit summaries, would it be a good idea to require IPs and non-autoconfirmed users to supply an edit summary when making edits to the article namespace? This would help prevent misunderstandings and make it easier to patrol edits, and encourage using edit summaries in general. Currently, many new users/IPs do not use edit summaries, even when making constructive edits. Tony Z. Tan · talk 22:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's an attractive idea, but my experience with developers who are paid to put summaries on source code checkins is that there will always be some who won't give a meaningful edit summary. If you introduce a mechanism to force a summary, they'll enter a single '.'. If you put a filter in requiring at least six characters, they'll put 'aaaaaa'. If, after a long-running battle, you implement a mechanism that somehow requires a meaningful English sentence in the summary, you'll end up with abuse directed towards the admin who implemented the mechanism. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. GoldenRing (talk) 06:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that this would end up being a deterent from users to start editing here - and the same users who don't know about edit summeries probably need their edits to get extra scrutiny. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why limit it to "IPs and non-autoconfirmed users"? I think having the edit summary as a required field for all would serve a useful purpose. While some may 'game the system' with glib entries many others will be nudged to take notice and give thought. And as 'required fields' are fairly ubiquitous in interfaces on many sites I don't see it as any sort of surprising impediment to new editors. Some sort of 'what is this' icon/link/hover-text/pop-up/etc.—such as the present "Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)"—should suffice to aid those who may be particularly naive.
Hmm, a pop-up message with a link to the talk page when the edit summary field character count gets maxed out might be a complementary feature as well ... --Kevjonesin (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible new namespaces, maybe "News" and "Almanac"

I think we all here have, well, reservations, about the effectiveness of wikinews, including even some of its bigger contributors. And, unfortunately, as can be seen about the recent creation of a WikiProject devoted to a single candidate in the upcoming US Presidential election, there is a real chance that we are going to get a lot more "news"-y editing and information about all the candidates, which we are going to have to, of course, try to insert in our comparatively few overview articles in an NPOV way which doesn't violate WEIGHT, which is, let's be honest, all but impossible.

So, maybe, and possibly even as a provisional matter to deal exclusively with matters of elections, maybe we might be better off effectively allowing some of the people who want to add "news" material to wikipedia, not wikinews, to do so here. In a separate namespace for news articles particularly. I expect we are going to get pretty much daily changes to some of these articles as is shortly, creating any number of problems and sinking the time of lots of people which could be better spent elsewhere.

That's why I'm thinking, maybe, to create a separate namespace for "news" pieces, which would still have to meet the same basic notability requirements, which could then have a link to the category or news portal for the election, or the race or the candidate or whatever, and then, on a fairly regular basis, maybe once a week or month or whatever, updating the main articles to reflect the lesser news updates. If this news site were also used to include information on other matters, like, say, developments in the Catholic Church, or the UK, Russia, or China, or the UN, or any other large entity with an article that gets a lot of coverage in the news, we could do pretty much the same thing.

Alternately, for the latter point, maybe we might institute a second namespace, an "Almanac:" or similar, which could be used to summarize the news stories on a weekly or monthly basis, which could then itself be used to allow for regular, scheduled, updates to the relevant main articles on, maybe, an annual basis for "smaller" items, unlike say natural or man-made disasters, wars, or similar things whose impact generally does reasonably get recorded in articles quickly.

Anyway, any ideas? John Carter (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two new namespaces seem a lot of overkill. We need more editors, not more content for our existing pool of editors to curate. Ironholds (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge, Objectivity, Neutrality, Facts, and Truth

proto-proposal

This one is rather a large body of suggestions, and written in a rather stern and esoteric prose, so I ask that you try to tolerate it as best that you can. The form it would take as a Proposal would be much simpler, and not some kind of discourse like it is now.

My apologizes to those with smaller displays.

There are some ways in which Wikipedia must be limited, and consequently deficient. It will never be a true compendium of truth, but merely a collection of knowledge, and even then impaired by the need for consensus. Consensus, of course, is neither good or evil alone, as are all things.
However, consensus is derived from a source, the same as any opinion, and in the interest of all users of Wikipedia that source must be chosen so as to provide the maximum appeal.
Fortunately, Wikipedia is not attempting to exclude beliefs in the process of consensus, but only to find the foundation upon which describe those variant beliefs in a way which is accurate for all involved parties. (Here the word 'beliefs' is to be read sans any religious or moral connotations, and is used merely because 'opinions' has other denotations.)

Thus, Wikipedia serves as a documentation of reputed knowledge moreso than as an authority deeming evaluation for it. I.e., in the interest of so-called neutrality, notability is more significant than any pretenses at correctness.

Enough with the musings. Well, not so much, alas, but I'll consider implications to some examples:

Bias inherent in any appellations aside, these are two broad groups which mostly agree on recognition and definition of their own ideals as well as on the ideals of the other, yet they disagree on the evaluations of those ideals, both of themselves and of the other.
This is a concern when documenting or reporting opinions. Applied to concepts such as science, it must be remembered first what the word 'science' means, and secondly that it is merely a collection of opinions, albeit determined by criteria attempting a nearest-match to facts in a mutual experience.
Certain groups may not use the same approach to their POV as others. Neutrality in the interest of documentation, in this situation, is to avoid bias by favoring any specific groups, even if it seems obvious which is more correct.
That's what this place is all about, really: a collection of human knowledge, not truth, and certainly not ideal facts as such but optimistically the nearest approximation possible.
Here I dissent from the guidance seen here, and will use one of those examples to illustrate. It may seem to be a fact that the capital of France is Paris, or that Mars is a planet, but really these are merely descriptions given by people.
What if the definition of the word 'planet' was changed? What if the seat of French decision-making was in actuality an underground cabal, and Paris was merely a front for their influence? One of these sounds absurd, and one certainly is much further removed from the accepted knowledge than the other, but both share a logical basis: some people say that Mars is a planet, and some people say that Paris is the capital city of France. That body of people must be recognized, at least once but in such a way that is consistent.
I am not arguing that all such statements must reference a source, as mentioned in the aforementioned guidance; but, to avoid delving too much into philosophic considerations here, I will re-iterate that Wikipedia must develop some consistent approach to reporting the facts of beliefs, as best it can, rather than the facts of some objective reality. Besides, once you get into the scope of experience and its significance with regards to knowledge, you can either accept something like Wikipedia for what it's worth or you can dismiss it entirely.
  • Descriptive versus Authoritative
This is seen in some of the disambiguatory templates used as hatnotes for pages, and is a milder recommendation regarding the tone of writing to be used in Wikipedia.
Compare this, as seen in the extant version of {{disamb-term}},
The term "{{{1}}}" may refer to:
with these phrases:
The term "{{{1}}}" may be referring to:
The term "{{{1}}}" could be referring to:
I could go on about unconscious traditions regarding encyclopedia, and whether it is important, and whether it is imparts anything besides a minor irritation to the concept of Wikipedia, but I'll stop here.

I suppose that I should thank you for reading.

JamesEG (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

responses

I...don't understand what your point is, with any of this. That Wikipedia represents reliable sources and not "objective truth"? Yes. That's...the very premise of Wikipedia. Ironholds (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also can't make out any sort of proposal here. What, specifically, ought Wikipedia to implement, change, or remove? What particular problem ought we to address? While this Village Pump is certainly dedicated to developing incomplete ideas … this thought seems so incomplete that others can't build on it. JamesEG, can you clarify things for us? {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 18:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for being constructive. Mostly, I was curious as to how some people would respond. The core of it was that certain articles may present controversial interpretations, but that this isn't consistent throughout others on related or subsidiary topics. Bias from editors et c., and that if anything contrary is to be added it becomes disruptive to the "flow" of an article. (e.g. “According to, ... However, ...”) The fundamental structure of the MediaWiki software probably needs modified to accommodate this.
So, you may consider Fossil, which assumes the interpretations consistent with Geologic time scale et al. It presently has very little mention of any disagreement; if it did, such inclusion might not accurately portray the relative proportions of the various groups espousing differing interpretations, such as if there was one interpretation producing the main passages with ancillary remarks either like a zig-zag, viz. a claim and rebuttal format, or relegated to a single Criticism secion. On the other hand, I can see how some people might find including some (rhetorical) viewpoint that fossils are evidence of Hollow Earth lifeforms as ridiculous, especially if most people reading an article aren't expecting that and thus infer that Wikipedia is full of "crackpots".
There's another example, too: Structure of the Earth and Hollow Earth. (Take no implication that I concur with the Hollow Earth, because that's not what I'm addressing and I needed another example.)
It just seems inconsistent. Regardless of what we may think, or if we may find some viewpoints so silly that they only belong on their specific pages, if someone believes it then Wikipedia should develop a format that not only presents them, but also properly prefaces them accordingly so that a reader notices the school from which it evolves.
— JamesEG (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like your proto-proposal is "Get rid of the WP:GEVAL policy".
The English Wikipedia doesn't take an even-Steven approach to ideas. We do not present all ideas and let the reader decide which one is right. Instead, we presents them in WP:DUE proportion to their representation in reliable sources. If 99% of fossil-related scientists think that the geological time scale is a good thing (which is pretty much the likelihood for that one), then our fossil-related articles should be firmly in favor of the geologic time scale, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also having trouble figuring out what the "proposal" would be. As best I can tell it would be to add an "Alternate Theories" nav-box or something, so that articles like Structure of the Earth could link to fringe articles like Hollow Earth? There is an "inconsistency" in how we treat them because Reliable Sources treat them differently. One topic has a vast body of Reliable Source literature describing it as widely accepted science. The other is an extraordinarily rare idea, and to the extent that Reliable Sources do discuss it they discuss it as a discredited fringe idea. Linking Hollow Earth would be Undue Weight because virtually zero readers of Structure of the Earth have any interest in Hollow Earth. On the other hand there is a significant chance that readers of Hollow Earth will be interested in the Structure of the Earth article. Alsee (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isolating format elements of an included page

Providing some means of limiting the scope of format elements for an included page would be beneficial. For example, on the WP:AfD sub-pages, I keep finding that basic layout errors (such as not including a closing 'div' tag) will propagate downward to the succeeding sections. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suppressing redirects

Currently, global rollbackers have the permission suppressredirect. This allows for a page to be removed without creating a redirect. The purpose of rollbackers on enwiki is to combat vandalism, and sometimes page move vandalism occurs. In the past the permission has been proposed on this wiki, but was shot down because of the fear of page move vandalism. I want to gauge the general opinion on giving suppressredirect to rollbackers here. Just like with the normal rollback, this would be only to combat vandalism and using it otherwise would result in sanctions, including but not limited to removal of the tool. What does everybody think? Kharkiv07Talk 02:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have issues with administrators using it (since there should be two log entries, why was it moved and why was redirect deleted), so certainly not to rollbackers. It's not that hard to put the speedy delete tag on it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that namespace articles should not link to Draft: articles. Am I wrong?

But I have spotted such links (example) so how about a bot/script/something that would detect them? And either remove such links or create a backlog.

Cheers! Syced (talk) 06:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC) (Note: Example has been fixed. Alsee (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

  • Support requesting a bot operator to add a check for article links to Draft space (and maybe other inappropriate namespaces). I checked a few relevant policies and I couldn't find anything prohibiting such links, but it's pretty obvious. We don't want readers unknowingly landing at a draft thinking it's an article, and we don't want promotional/non-notable/POV pages deliberately buried in draft space and stealth-linked from articles. Alsee (talk) 10:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Revised to Support toollabs, or any other method to hunt down Article-space links to Draft-space, after noting Technical 13's comment below. Alsee (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as a bot operator having a bot to do this task. There is nothing really here for a bot to do except to "find" these links, and that task is much more suited to being a tool on toollabs where user's can be taken to a page with the issue or be given a list of pages where there are such links. So, I don't oppose the idea, just the suggested method. Give me a set of criteria and I'll get started by the end of May (it's finals week in school right now and next semester I have a 3 week summer class that is going to beat the poo out of me). — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 11:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any method is better than nothing :-) As for the set of criteria, it is really simple, just find mainspace wikilinks to "Draft:". Thanks a lot! Syced (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Analytics and socking

Should we have an analytics tool that objectively rates the likelihood that two or more accounts are actually the same person based on linguistic queues in their contribution history.

For example, say there is an SPI investigation that involves 30 alleged socks. The analytics tool may say that user:Notasock has different syntax patterns in their editing than the other accounts. This may lead to exonerating that editor, whereas otherwise a good faith editor would have been blocked. CorporateM (Talk) 04:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A smart user may "create" various oddities, and forget to use them in one account; this test would be unreliable. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This presupposes that such a tool could be created. I have my doubts that it could, at least to the extent that it was reliable enough to use - and I can't think of any way to test its reliability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could test it by asking users to create a bunch of socks - which, of course, is a very disruptive way to test. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A few notes:
  • Feasibility: The first step would be a grant request to do a feasibility study and see how possible it is
  • Accuracy: I think this is essentially already done by humans and could be done more accurately by an objective machine in seconds instead of hours.
  • Testing: The way to test it would be to use it on pre-existing SPI cases. See if it comes up with different results than SPI investigators than look more closely at those cases, or, use it on obvious socking cases and see if it correctly identifies socks already identified by checkuser.
CorporateM (Talk) 14:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found a couple papers[1][2] where an academic already used 200+ writing style indicators to evaluate whether two accounts were the same person using analytics, and found the same results as SPI in almost 75% of cases. I pinged them on Facebook to see if there is some way we can make the tool he already developed available online and take a closer look at it. CorporateM (Talk) 15:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't protection icons be part of the UI directly?

Right now, templates are used to generate notices and icons indicating that particular pages are protected. My only major problem with them is that they are manually added and are not specifically tied to the article's protection status (meaning that they do not necessarily "disappear" upon the expiration of the page's protection. Some, uneducated editors also believe that adding or removing said templates can change the article's protection status. Plus, it would also make a bit more sense to display the protection status in a location that is contextually

My idea is to replace the inline protection templates with a variation of them that is implemented directly in the software and MediaWiki skin. What I envisioned was a sort of minimalistic padlock icon next to the relevant function that is protected, accompanied by an indication of whether the user can edit the page. So for instance, a page that is semi-protected would show a faded grey padlock next to the Edit button; if the user is eligible to edit the page, the lock will still appear, but it will shop up as opened. A different icon could be used for pending revisions, mainly because I do not feel the padlock is an accurate symbol to signify this process.

Any thoughts? ViperSnake151  Talk  00:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This may be technically possible, unless you wish to have different colors for diffferent reasons of protection - which I think I remember it did. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not like it's impossible to have different sprite graphics for the different states, or use an icon font. ViperSnake151  Talk  06:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I should finish up development of User:Technical 13/Scripts/Gadget-pageProtectionLevels.js which will put the appropriate icons for the current protection level at the ver top of the page next to the user's name. Currently it uses words instead of icons. I'll move it up in my todo list soon™. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really like this idea - it's similar to implementations of access levels on other websites I've seen. ViperSnake151, why don't you try VPPR? APerson (talk!) 13:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ViperSnake151, you might want to write a Phabricator: task for this. There are some WMF devs thinking about better ways to handle "metadata" like this. There are instructions at mw:How to report a bug. Leave a note on my talk page if you need help. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Templates that use either {{documentation}} or {{collapsible option}} will automatically add a prot padlock where applicable. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDesign

Proposal for WikiDesign - a cloud based open source design tool. WikiDesign would incorporate all of the tools to design modern devices and processes in a web based application similar to Wikipedia as well as an intellectual property conservancy user's agreement. Some tools to consider would be autocad and gis applications such as Arcview. There would need to be the other tools for the entire design process. For example a package for economic analysis, a tool for modeling process/controls, and a mechanism to pursue patents on any new intellectual property collaboratively developed by users. The intellectual property user's agreement would state that any design and intellectual property is open source and available to any user who follows the user's terms of agreement free of charge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RBenn38486 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RBenn38486: Are you suggesting a project that would create opensource versions of Autocad and ArcGIS? These are copyrighted software programs, so they are inherently not compatible with a wiki concept. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Oiyarbepsy: It depends on how their licensing agreement works in an open source platform. Can one purchased license allow multiple users? Are there any alternatives that would enable a WikiDesign platform? RBenn38486 (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RBenn38486: Autocad's licensing scheme is pretty easy to describe: They'll sue your ass off if you even think of sharing anything. So, no, Autocad, nor any other major proprietary system, would be suitable. Such a project would require open source software. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A pretty cool idea, but probably years ahead of its time (like WikiData was in 2005). One can easily imagine though that as 3D printers' user base increases, implementing something like WikiDesign will start making total sense...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 27, 2015; 17:43 (UTC)
Inquiry - Are there any existing open source design tools? Google Earth has rudimentary GIS tools, but very useful. If there are governmental applications free for download, that could work. The only other alternative is to start each of the components as open source applications.RBenn38486 (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good Lists

Discussion continued at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Good Lists. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

A new class of article to be introduced. it will be a good list. It would be similar to a good article but in a list format. We need this because the step from list to FL is too great and we need something in the middle. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me. If we can come up with a reasonable set of criteria which is applicable to almost any list, and which would tend to be similar to GA, then we can make those be the GL criteria. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here they are TheMagikCow (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It covers a topic that lends itself to list format (see WP:List) and, in addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content (particularly naming conventions, neutrality, no original research, verifiability, citations, reliable sources, living persons, non-free content and what Wikipedia is not) a good list has the following attributes:

  1. Prose. It features a good standard of writing, with no copyedit issues,
  2. Lead. It has a lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
    • (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing all of the major items and.
    • (b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the good list process.
This has been discussed before, though I don't have any links handy. Personally, I do not believe there is much value in creating another review process that is ultimately redundant to the Featured List process. There will not be enough difference between a "good" list and a "featured" list to make the process worthwhile. Resolute 17:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Good Wikipedians

Does anybody have any ideas about how Wikipedia could change to be very efficient at enabling most newcomers who want to become a good Wikipedian to be able to easily get trained to do so? I don't know how to create a WikiProject that does that. Blackbombchu (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timothy. We have the Adopt a User program, and more recently, the Co-op, which matches newcomers based upon their area of interest (i.e., content creation, technical, policy, etc.) to a mentor who is familiar with that area of editing. Do you have ideas on how these systems can be improved? --Biblioworm 22:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have Wikipedia:Teahouse. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are many basic introductions, like WP:Introduction and WP:The Wikipedia Adventure (check Category:Wikipedia quick introductions, plus WP:Edit-a-thons for in-person training. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube Wikiproject Proposal and How Bold can I be?

So I've got a proposal on the go for a YouTube Wikiproject (Not blatant advertising) and I'm wondering how bold can I be with such an endeavour. I want to create a Template header and WP: project space to get the infrastructure going and an audit of all the articles. While WP:BOLD is a policy I don't want to find someone getting upset for some unforeseen reason.

--- :D Derry Adama (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would consider that generally not a good idea. Very little of what goes on on YouTube is supported by Independent Reliable Sources (by Wikipedia standards, anyway), and pages on people's YouTube accounts are often deleted as not being notable or verifiable enough. Even linking to YouTube is generally discouraged for spam and copyright reasons (and it can't be used as a source anyway). There is a YouTube specific wiki on Wikia here which might be a better fit for documenting YouTube stuff. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See I am personally of the opposite view point. YouTube personalities far outstrip traditional media personalities in terms of viewership and many of them are notable. The creation of a WikiProject Youtube sounds great. Re: how forward. Wikipedia was built on being bold to my understanding. JTdaleTalk~
  • YouTube is generally not considered a reliable source, so it would depend on what the goal of the project is. If it is just intended to be a place where people can go and ask "is this video reliable" and the people there say "it's a CNN news report, so yes" or "it's some person's blog, so no" and if there is interest by enough community members to monitor such a thing, then I suppose I wouldn't object. I can't see any other potentially useful purpose for such a project. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add link to latest revision in Talk page signatures?

I've just opened a discussion here around a possible idea for adding a default signature link to more easily access the revision of the page a person was likely talking about when they made their talk page post.

Per instructions there, I'm putting a note here. What do folks think?

If somebody believes the idea is worth putting up for consensus polling, perhaps after some further development, please go for it (and crosslink to that discussion!) :-).

--WBTtheFROG (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To which URL would you link from your sig in the above comment? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External Links should be embedded in Wiki page content

What about external links which open up actual websites of what is referenced or of the subject. For example if I am seeing a Wiki of list of USA newspapers, all the papers open up their own wiki pages. Well, I would expect to be taken directly to the paper website, right. So how about like two links or option to go visit the actual website.

I interacted with Wikipedia Contact-us representative who mentioned this embedding within content is not found because it would be open to a lot of spamming. This is perfectly a valid reason. But could we find a way around this. Wordpress seems to have a way in preventing spamming on their blogs which are the maximum around the world.

So ive put this in the IDEA LAB to generate a feasible proposal if possible. I am not such a techie person but this handicap of not having external links sure does put one off on researching new subjects. It means again I got to go and google out the actual website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tb kol (talk • contribs) 08:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tb kol: Please see WP:LINKFARM also WP:ELPOINTS item 2 specifically, and the rest of WP:EL in general. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, external links are a pain, and used by main companies for free advertising of related products. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia mot a search engine, if a topic isn't notable for a Wikipedia article on it, then it's perfectly easy to use Google instead. Allowing external links would lead to linkspam, as highlighted in WP:LINKFARM. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LINKFARM says: External links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines.

It does not say external links may not be used. Further it says its appropriate to include a link to the main website (fansite).Tb kol (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the External links section, not in the article body. --NeilN talk to me 16:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show me where it says 'in External links section'. Tb kol (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tb kol: WP:ELPOINTS --NeilN talk to me 16:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Wikipedia:External_links#Important_points_to_remember When you read a blog or article, the company referenced to, or the subject if there is a website, it links directly from the article. On wikipedia when its perfect to include links in article of wikipedia pages (internal links)/ why the distinction and step-motherly treatment to external links. Why should good sources not be rewarded on the same footing as wikipedia pages as sources of information on an article. This is bias and injustice.

And when you bring in an excuse as spamming, it shows you don't just like the idea. We know that these spam links can be removed. The authors can be traced and warned if excessive spamming. I mean we can have policing and policies on it.

But it is simply unjustified when you have one set of rules for wikipedia links and another for external links. This is not a proprietary website. It is an open source website.

The advantages you get being open-source and contributed website i guess are a) a lot of people from various subjects of interest writing about their specialization. Surely some external website may be a point of reference on that subject. Now when you don't allow linking of it in the article you are taking it out of consideration for maybe 50-60 per cent of the viewers least. That is imposing a rule unjustifiably. It is giving a picture that wikipedia is the only god-source of online reference.

b) The other thing i ask you is why should wikipedia not be a repository of good reliable online references of external links where required, where justified. Being an online open source project funded by everyone in the world, you are sort of leaving a lot of room empty when you dont upfront say this and this website is worth visiting. And you demand they be inclueded right at the bottom, for all their worth.

As viewers, as supporters, as contributors, as donors to wikipedia we need external links pari passu with internal links. I mean wiki just cannot differentiate between the two when referenceing for an article and say we'll put internal links up in the article and external links right down. And then call yourself open-source. It should be illegal. Please check your licences and rule books. Else I'm going to take this up with open-source licence people who-ever they are and where-ever they be.

This is an Idea Lab, when you come here, and i am saying this to veterans, expect that new people will ask what they think should be asked from Wikipedia. Be considerate, understand from our perspective. And don't stone-wall us out. Most of us may be asking out of wikipedia, spending our time, effort and taking interest for it, for something due to us from this project Tb kol (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, Wikipedia is interested in readers reading Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not interested in shilling for other websites. We have encyclopedia articles, not Internet topic portals. Also, reading your misinformed comments, your understanding of open source could use some improvement. Reading Open source might help. --NeilN talk to me 17:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A) By open source I mean not discriminating between sources and on exhibiting sources. Therefore whether it is a wiki-page or an external webpage, both must be held equal while lending a reference within an article. Currently only internal wiki pages have rights to be linked within an article. External pages have a lesser right, that to be mentioned at the bottom of the article.

I would like to draw the meaning of 'No Discrimination', 'Must not restrict' and 'Neutral' from the definition of Open-Source at opensource.org opensource.org/definition

B) Wikipedia is on the Internet as an encyclopedia. It is but natural and contextual to have meaningful and expert links to resourcefull web-pages of the internet. I truly believe it fails in its avatar as an encyclopedia and limits is depth and thereby its readership when it chooses to not allow external links per se within the articles.

Your policies must be framed then to disallow any bad links and check on them. And not have a principle of dis-allowing external links within articles. Tb kol (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's articles aren't source code. You are welcome to take the open source MediaWiki code and change it however you like. You are free to take Wikipedia's content and set up your own website and format the articles as you wish. You are even free to propose on Wikipedia that external links appear in the body of articles. However don't expect that proposal to go very far, and certainly not on a misguided notion of "open source". --NeilN talk to me 16:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Open Source (Technical) people at Wikipedia have done it! That is adding a pop-up Reference Tooltip for external links that are cited within the article. I just noticed days back pop-ups opening within the article itself (as i would have liked it) where Reference numbers are given. I was waiting to ascertain the exact date this change took place, but cannot place it. It seems to have come out of a Technical Proposal Reference_Tooltips and see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reference_Tooltips .

It would be good to view their Hypothesis and Rationale:

Rationale Currently, Wikimedia sites list all references at the bottom of the article. For large articles, especially those with many references, this is sub-optimal. Checking an article's references requires several traversals over the entire length of the article, during which time the reader will often lose their place.

Hypotheses This is a general usability feature. It is hypothesized that readers will be more likely to visit references if they are immediately accessible without having to traverse the entire page length.

But its been quite a while for them to roll it out globally in Wikipedia. The dates on the proposal are 2012. But they've done it.

So we're done i guess. Thanks everybody !! Tb kol (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New sports section on home page, no longer part of "In the news"

I think Wikipedia should follow the same format as just about every other form of media and not mix sports with news items in the "In the news" section on the home page. Maintaining the current situation leads to an overemphasis on sports items and it can easily be solved by just creating a sports section which is the standard in TV, radio, newspapers and news websites. I think this would be the best solution since it would still allow for the sports items to be featured on the home page but it would also allow for more "news" items to also appear.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As said on Talk:Main Page right now we are in a time of year when there are a lot of sports holding their championships(the ones whose seasons occur over the winter) and we will have another in the fall (when sports holding their seasons all summer have their championships). That's why it seems like there is a lot right now. This also is a slow time for non-sports stories, at least ones that regularly occur, which can be counteracted with more nominations to discuss.
How exactly would you change the layout of the Main Page to fit in another box? 331dot (talk) 09:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tabs? I had a really, really basic concept for how it could look for the old "GAs as DYK" arguments from a few years ago. Could work here as well, but I have no idea how hard that would be to implement in the page code. Resolute 13:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would also wonder what would go in a sports box during the times of year when there aren't a lot of championships. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above, it just so happens there have been lots of sports events in the last month (Cricket World Cup, end of football seasons, Snooker World Championship, Kentucky Derby, Grand National)- most of these are annual events (Cricket World Cup is every 4 years), and it just happens that they're all now. When it gets to June/July, there won't be many, and most of the year there won't be either. Also, as far as I can see, there isn't much significant other news anyway. I can't see the need for a sports news box in October or November for example. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree the number of sport and non-sport stories varies too much for separate boxes. We are not a news media and actual news media don't limit their main page news section to a box in the corner, so a comparison to news media has limited relevance. At Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 44#Shorter stays for sport I made another suggestion, to let sports stories stay shorter than other stories. It didn't get support. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetics: code vs. mono

The CSS for <code> (and thus {{code}}) currently uses a grey background, which I find appalingly ugly since it's meant to display source code inline. See, e.g., C string handling#Strcat/strcpy replacements. See also qsort, where I changed qsort to qsort in violation of the instructions at Template:Mono; change this back to {{code}} and hit preview to see just how ugly it can be.

I'm not sure what to do: either try to get the CSS for <code> changed, or get the instructions for the {{code}} and {{mono}} changed so that inline code snippets should be displayed in {{mono}}. I'm not really sure how to do either (via RFC?). Suggestions? Thoughts? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

qsort does not need any styling at all, as it is just the name, so I removed the styling there. However, finding something ugly is not a reason to make such changes. You can try propose a style change at WP:VPR, but I don't think there will bu much incentive to change the styling. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Edokter: the name is an identifier in a programming language, and it's customary to typeset those in a monospace font. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not on Wikipedia. Please review MOS:COMPUTING; there is no mention about how to typeset programming languages. The only use of monospace is detailed in MOS:CLI. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Edokter: according to MOS:CLI, at least the "syntax of shell commands" goes in <code>. By convention at least, that includes the names of ls, cat, etc. When used once, the grey background stands out, but in articles about these commands, it gets really annoying. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My question is: who thought it needed anything but the default (inherit) background color? Something lost to time I'm sure, since the element's had that styling since 2007ish at least. --Izno (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Change formatting of inline code snippets. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably an 'apallingly ugly' feature in CSS can be addressed via a reskin by the user? There shouldn't need to be a mass change just to suit one person's taste. Praemonitus (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Praemonitus, if you disagree with my taste, you're free to say so. I think I have some feeling for good presentation, but I haven't been trained in that area. I simply find pages that pages that use a lot of {{code}} hurt my eyes, and I've read and written quite a few of those. Of course I can change my settings, but I don't want to bother the entire reader population with that. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In Special:MyPage/common.css, try 
code { border: none; background: inherit; color: inherit; }
to restore the styling as it was until a few months ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Light grey backgrounds seem to be everywhere on Wikipedia and I haven't seen much concern raised about it. Is this an accessibility issue? Some of the source language templates can make it more difficult to read due to the colors selected. Praemonitus (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind grey backgrounds on, e.g., blocks of code, but they're very distracting when they appear in large numbers in the prose. I started noticing this when I wrote (pseudo)code examples with explanations that mentioned variables from the code. For pseudocode, I've so far used either {{mono}} or {{math}}, depending on context.
Re: accessibility, I guess not.
(Agree with the syntax highlighting bit.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested allowance for small nations

Do we take into consideration that small countries with low literacy rates may find little access to Wikipedia for their missionary history if only commercially published sources are trusted, and if use of publicly accessed archives is suspect. Scholars within former colonies must travel abroad to access archives where missionary materials are held. And those outside the country are dependent on unpublished works within the country. I suggest that a provision be added in the case of former colonies to legitimize substantiation through archival material and through books and materials not commercially published. Let the control device be editing or deletion for statements found to be false or where the motivation for placing a statement is suspect.jzsj 12:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talk • contribs) jzsj 15:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you exactly propose here. Primary sources, like archives can sometimes be used so that is already ok; although such archives should be in principle accessible to the public (ie no secret government archives). The problem with allowing closed archive sources is that wild claims can then be made without any possibility for verification, and that is an allowance we cannot make. Arnoutf (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, I'm certainly not speaking of closed archives. But how about the issue of books published by organizations, like a diocese or religious order, rather than commercially which is not realistic in many of these cases?jzsj 18:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talk • contribs)
There is nothing against using these right now, as long as they are not biased. In addition using such sources in an article about that diocese or order maybe frowned upon as the neutrality of such self-published sources is often doubted.Arnoutf (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jzsj, there are a lot of extra limitations on using that type of source. The best place to ask about it is at the Reliable Source Noticeboard: WP:RSN. You'll need to identify the source you want to use *and* what information you want to use from it. For example diocese sources could probably be used to cite uncontroversial information about themselves, such as a list of their current and past leaders. It would probably be usable to cite their opinions about outside things - something like "The diocese criticized colonialism". It probably wouldn't be usable to cite factual-claims about outside people and events.
There needs to be some reasonable availability for a motivated-editor to independently check it, even if it means they have to find someone in that country to check it for them. Closed internal archives wouldn't work, but diocese publications that are floating around in public would satisfy availability. Alsee (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jzsj, you might be interested in m:Research:Oral Citations. It was featured in a recent Research Data Showcase (which I missed, but which might still be available on YouTube). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Jzsj, it's hard to tell what specifically you're advocating here, but it seems to be about having a seperate set of reliable-sourcing standards for developing countries. This would be a bad idea, as it would create the impression of bias. In fact, if anything I would say we need to be even more careful about sourcing for subjects in developing nations, as they likely wouldn't have access to the public-relations and legal defences available to those in more affluent countries. If Wikipedia publishes libelous content about Bill Gates or Lady Gaga, it would be cleared up quickly. But libel about an activist or academic with no hired staff in a country with limited Internet access may not even be noticed for a long time. Therefore, it's extremely important to make sure such information is accurate and well-sourced initially. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Recommended Viewing" or "See Also: Videos" section on articles

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, taking full advantage of the capabilities of a massive interconnected network and an evolving information medium to display an amount of information that would normally be impossible by any other method. However, Wikipedia relies almost exclusively on the same methods of the classical encyclopedia to convey information to the readers of its pages. Text and pictures can only provide so much of an idea of a concept; and at a point it becomes difficult, to a degree tedious, to slog through the massive walls of text that are the amazingly well written Wikipedia articles. While the rest of the internet continues to evolve in ways to convey information to wide audiences, Wikipedia continues to lag behind, still caught up in the vintage methods of textual context with the occasional picture.

I propose that Wikipedia encourages editors to include external links or recommendations to videos discussing the topics contained in an article. Whether Wikipedia encourages this through the implementation of new systems or simply provides the documentation to appropriately link videos is not of immediate importance; the most important thing is that Wikipedia provide editors with the methods to facilitate the use of informational videos on Wikipedia articles. Embedding would of course be a great solution, as would a dedicated "Recommended Viewing" or "See Also: Videos" section at the conclusion of an article.

Either way, Wikipedia needs to take a strong stance to promote the use of informative videos as a medium of information on their articles. Important to note is the fact that not all videos would have to come from unverifiable, unqualified sources on YouTube. In fact, there are multitudes of open source instructional videos to be found on the internet, a stellar example of which is the MIT OpenCourseWare website: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/audio-video-courses/

Wikipedia should aim to inform their readers in the most efficient and effective means possible. Video and audio means of information communication are arguably the best methods to convey information to wide audiences with varied characteristics.

Also, WikiEducation online courseware would be the next big thing, but that's a whole different topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearLemon (talk • contribs) 01:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't links to these videos be added to the "External links" section? --NeilN talk to me 01:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN They certainly can, and Wikipedia policies allow for it. However, I am proposing a that Wikipedia encourage a discrete section for video links and recommended viewings in an article. This could be done mainly by providing documentation on how to do so properly and perhaps adding new tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearLemon (talk • contribs) 01:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"See also" is for links to other pages on the English Wikipedia (usually other articles, but also Portals or Books) which don't already appear in the text of the article. It is not for links to external pages, which belong in "External links" or as part of a "Further reading" section, either of which appear after the references. That's what MOS:LAYOUT says to do.
We also have the {{External media}} template that can be used to insert a link to a video in the body of an article in cases where we'd directly display the video if we could host a copy of it on Commons. For example, a video under copyright without an appropriate license can be linked, and someday if that situation changes, an editor can upload the video and swap out the link for the actual video.
I don't know that adding additional heading options are necessary to encourage the inclusion of videos in our articles. Imzadi 1979 → 09:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Color codes for policy-guideline-essay pages

Linking the idea here for a possible incubation. Logos (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An Icon for the Main page to read random articles

How about an icon on the main wikipedia page featuring a daily random article? There is a link to the side but it would be more useful as an icon on the main page of wikipedia because it would encourage the following advantages:

    • This would ensure that all articles are reviewed even if they are not popular or they are unknown.
    • It would also help users get more involved, know more, and get a better experience of wikipedia.
    • It would help with POV and balancing issues.

59.96.197.51 (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)POV[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by a daily random article. We have 4.8 million articles. Do you mean a random of them should be selected each day and be featured on the main page for 24 hours? Most articles would never appear and I don't see the point. Most of the time it would be a stub of interest to nearly nobody. The editor time used to revert or fix bad edits would be much better spent elsewhere. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support this idea, as many stub pages do get ignored for months (or even years) on end!--Sigehelmus (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP: Teahouse mention on Wikipedia Introduction

There is no mention or link to of WP: Teahouse on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction_2 or the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing pages. It would be a good idea to add the Teahouse so that new users can get help on editing. 59.96.197.51 (talk) 10:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)POV[reply]

Tying users to tags.

Would having user's screennames attached to cleanup tags allow for responsible tagging? Here's my example: {{ {{{|safesubst:}}}#invoke:Unsubst||$N=Confusing |date=__DATE__ |$B= {{Ambox | name = Confusing | subst = <includeonly>{{subst:substcheck}}</includeonly> | type = style | class = ambox-confusing | small = {{{small| {{#ifeq:{{lc: {{{1|}}} }}|section|left}} }}} | issue = This {{{1|article}}} '''may be [[Wikipedia:Vagueness|confusing or unclear]] to readers'''. {{#if:{{{reason|}}}|In particular, {{{reason}}}.}} | fix = Please help us [[Wikipedia:Please clarify|clarify the {{{1|article}}}]]; suggestions may be found on the [[{{{2|{{TALKPAGENAME}}}}}|talk page]]. | date = {{{date|}}} | editor = {{user|[[User:Discuss-Dubious|Discuss-Dubious]] ([[User talk:Discuss-Dubious|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Discuss-Dubious|c]])}} | cat = Wikipedia articles needing clarification | all = All Wikipedia articles needing clarification }} The flipside for me is that this may be an irresponsible crossing over of articlespace and userspace. However, it would help people ask users what they do and do not like about the article in question. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 19:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've made a copy of {{Confusing}} (and not a particularly good one, as demonstrated by that safesubst: stuff at the top) and added one parameter - |editor= - which is not in fact recognised by {{ambox}}. Also, who or what is User:Discuss-Dubious, and why has the {{user}} template been misused? It takes one parameter, a bare user name. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It won't let me modify the template, but I want to mention the user's name in the tag, so you can ask them about it. People don't write things on the talk page. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 21:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)&oldid=663086083"