Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mdann52 (talk | contribs) at 08:41, 27 October 2015 (→‎Time to shut down WP:NFCR by merging it into WP:FFD?: bah). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts

New ideas and proposals are discussed here. Before submitting:


Village pump (proposals) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 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, 213

Time to shut down WP:NFCR by merging it into WP:FFD?

Consensus is to merge NFCR and FFD into one process, called "Files for Discussion". No real discussion into merging WP:PUF into this now, but that can come later. Mdann52 (talk) 08:40, 27 October 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.

I propose that Wikipedia:Non-free content review be shut down as historical while referring editors to use Wikipedia:Files for deletion as an alternative. At the present time, there are 163 open discussions on WP:NFCR with the oldest discussion opened on 10 June 2015 (over three months ago.) The fact of the matter is that WP:FFD can and should be utilized in place of WP:NFCR for multiple reasons:

  1. On WP:NFCR, if a file is deemed to be used that is inappropriate, the file should be deleted (an outcome at WP:FFD). Files on WP:NFCR will be kept for the opposite reasons (also an outcome at WP:FFD.)
  2. Discussions at WP:FFD can question a file's non-free status, and if it is improperly used, it should be deleted.
  3. WP:NFCR does not have daily subpages (and seemingly never has), which causes inability to visualize and work on backlogs. On the other hand, WP:FFD has daily subpages and a backlog notification that accurately appears if there are entries existing more than 7 days old; in addition, the bit management and organization of WP:FFD is a lot more advanced in making it clearer what needs to be closed when.
  4. For someone questioning if a non-free file should remain in Wikipedia (aka, should it be deleted), it is honestly very unclear whether the discussion should go to WP:FFD or WP:NFCR.
  5. The concern regarding if WP:NFCR should still be functional has been discussed previously: see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Non-free content review. The discussion happened back in 2012, and the discussion was closed with the suggestion to go to other pages to develop a consensus on what to do with WP:NFCR. Since that date, there has seemingly not been very minor, if any, updates to WP:NFCR that better distinguishes it from WP:FFD. (Thus, this is why this discussion is happening here.)
Very simply put, if a non-free file is not used per WP:NFCC, the file should be deleted immediately. The purpose of WP:FFD is to determine if a file needs to be deleted. However, there is another point from the the MFD discussion above that needs to be considered during this discussion:

What if the non-free file is used in multiple articles, and the question is if it should be removed from one article and not the other?

For this question, I recommend that WP:FFD be updated to allow an outcome that specifically states that the image "should be kept, but removed from this article". This will benefit closes if these discussions happen on WP:FFD since it could be possible that during the course of the discussion, a non-free file that is on multiple articles but is nominated to be removed from only one article could very well be determined needed to be removed from Wikipedia altogether (which results in the file being deleted.) On a minor distracting note, if this change were to be made to the possible WP:FFD close results, the page may need to be renamed from Wikipedia:Files for deletion to Wikipedia:Files for discussion since the nomination purpose and outcome could then be something other than deletion. (This idea is similar to the fact that WP:RFD is named "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion" instead of "Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion" since pages are nominated there for reasons other than deletion.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NFCR is not to be used for case #1: if the only use of a file is up for discussion, that should be at FFD. All other situations are cases of multiple files and/or multiple uses of a file, which may or may not result in deletion. This means that discussions can be closed without administrator intervention (as is require for FFD and AFD). So no, this is not a good proposal, because NFCR handles far too much more than FFD can accommodate. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or to put it more directly, the distinction between FFD and NFCR is very clear: if you honest believe a specific image should be deleted from WP and just need community consensus for that, FFD is where you go. If you are not sure, or that one is talking about a certain use of an image, then we have the discussion at NFCR. It is the same distinction between AFD (where "D" is specifically for "deletion") and the various "for discussion" boards for other non-deletion options like merges. --MASEM (t) 22:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or, with my proposal, non-free discussions can happen at WP:FFD. I understand that you are trying to clarify the distinction between the two, but it should not have to be explained in this much detail, nor should an inexperienced editor still be confused after reading the distinction. (Which, I still am, by the way; what is the point of having a possible deletion concern started at one forum, then be forced to move it to another?) Steel1943 (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If someone does open a NFCR case that should really be at FFD, we do close those and point to FFD. There's a certain rigor and process that the FFC/NFCR dicotamy has come out of based on the same AFD/(general article discussion) issues. It's tied to the perennial proposal of why we don't remain AFD as "Articles for Discussion" - deletion of content is meant as an absolute step, and so AFD avoids having cases where the proposal is not to delete content and encourages that to take place elsewhere. Similar case at FFD compared to NFCR. --MASEM (t) 22:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I have to disagree with this statement in full. For one, I proposed the exact concern stated here be resolved by amending WP:FFD to allow a "keep, but remove from this article" close. Also, I fail to see how this is any different than a non-admin closing a discussion to "keep" at WP:FFD (or any other WP:XFD forum, for that matter) due to a clear consensus that doesn't require a deletion. If a file needs to be removed from one page but not altogether, a non-admin can do that. Steel1943 (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An admin action is the actual act of deletion. With images, NFCR is not about deleting images, just their uses (with rare cases of immediate CSD-type invalid images). Images may be removed from articles, then, leaving them as orphans which are then tagged with CSD by automated tools and later deleted (if the CSD tag is not removed) by admins later. So a non-admin can safely close a NFCR and take the required action that was developed without having admin tools. There's also much more than just considering keeping an image on a page - a good chunk is evaluating if a non-free could be tagged otherwise, if a non-free needs improved rational, etc. We used to have a noticeboard for the broader issues but that was shut down in favor of NFCR. So it is necessary for the less rigorous discussions that FFD is otherwise not set up for. --MASEM (t) 22:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take the following scenario: User:A finds an image, used in multiple articles, (s)he thinks should be deleted as unfree, and lists it at FFD. A clear (SNOW-level) consensus says that the image belongs in one of the articles. Would that be any different than an NFCR case? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the user nominating honestly believes that the image should be deleted from all uses, the right place is FFD because they are seeking admin action. Just like AFD, an FFD can be closed without necessarily requiring an admin action as the example you give. But it's what the initial intent is - if pulling the trigger for deletion is the desired result, an XFD should be used, otherwise other means that do not demand admin attention should be engaged first. --MASEM (t) 16:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fully support this proposal. The distinction between the two fora is an artificial construct of bureaucracy, confuses potential nominators, reduces attention for both forums by dividing admin and voter attentions up between them, and serves no purpose that I can see. While we're at it, merge the utterly obsolete WP:PUF into it too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you mean to say PUF is redundant? At first glance I agree with the rest of what you say. BethNaught (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • By that logic, then we should rename AFD from "deletion" to "discussion" and allow merges and the like to be offered there. The same reason that this idea remains a WP:PEREN applies to FFD/NFCR, as the FFD mechanism is simply not set up to handle the types of discussion NFCR handles. I can agree that PUF might be better at NFCR as NFCR handles the inverse case (possibly free files currently tagged as non-free). And really, the amount of mis-filings at NFCR (eg where the user is seeking deletion outright) is trivial and easily handled. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A question of mine: How does this proposal deal with the occasional topic asking about whether a non-free image really is non-free? There are plenty of queries in NFCR about whether such-and-such logo is original enough to be copyrightable. Lumping these into a deletion discussion is sort of odd.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that's just the point: the types of questions asked at the three fora overlap to a very large degree. All of NFCR, FFD and PUF can deal with questions of whether something is copyrightable or below the threshold of originality (no matter whether it's originally mis-tagged the one way or the other). Both FFD and PUF frequently deal with questions of whether something is PD-old or not. Both FFD and NFCR routinely deal with whether NFCC#8 claims are plausible, the only difference being that NFCR typically does this across several articles. On PUF you often have the situation that you first have to determine that something was mistagged as free, but then the question arises whether you could alternatively keep it under NFC. Conversely, on FFD you often get things nominated as misapplied NFC but then end up discussing whether you could actually keep it as PD. And so on. It's really the same set of questions everywhere. – As for the cases where things get taken to NFCR for the purely formal question whether a non-free tagging should be replaced by PD-textlogo, the answer is simple: those cases shouldn't be nominated anywhere at all. If somebody thinks such items are mistagged, they should simply change the tags; if they are not sure and need to ask, they shoul damn well leave the file alone. The busibodies who keep nominating these should simply stop doing it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • But these are similar issues at AFD too. Dealing with mass noms, dealing with results that are not deletions, etc, and the logic to keep things separate is one of those points in the PEREN "Articles for discussion" ideas. As for those that ask questions if a non-free can be tagged with a PD label, while I do wish some were less wary, there are still a good number of edge cases or logos of unclear origins that should be discussed before retagging, and thus fair questions to ask, just as checking on free images that should be tagged non-free otherwise. I'm totally for cutting 3 boards down to 2 (perhaps even 4 to 2 taking WP:MCQ as well), but I fear trying to group all these to one, particularly in the current FFD approach (where we have by date but not separate nomination subpages) is a recipe for disaster. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not convinced that the "is this image really copyrightable" questions should be thrown to the wayside like this. One consideration for me is whether FFD should stay "Files for Deletion" if folks want to merge PUF or NFCR into it; renaming it to "Files for Discussion" would be a solution to the "odd" issue I have.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would support renaming "Files for Deletion" as "Files for Discussion", as a number of FFD referals I made ended up with new information coming to light which meant files could be moved to Commons. A rename would also allow for PUF and NFCR to be merged into there being a single process for querying image status or information.

Perhaps the existing ffd/puf template code could be factored into feeding a new template which creates a "File for disscussion" entry with a reason code.

Some example reason codes in addition to the fact that the file is merely unfree/unused might be:

  • Dead source
  • "Practical" Duplicate - ie (not an F1/F8) but is in effect a near identical match to another image even if the hash means they aren't pixel for pixel
  • WP:FOP concern
  • WP:TOO concern
  • Derivative work concern
  • Work raises ethics concern ( e.g An image which shows an embarrassing medical condition, and the subject is identified.)
  • "Attack" image
  • Contested Speedy Deletion.

(Of course obvious cases for some of these would still be under CSD)

In addition to having referral/reason codes, there could be outcome codes along the lines of..

  • Deleted - and should not be restored.
  • Deleted - but can be restored.
  • Deleted - for technical reasons (can be restored)
  • Deleted - at Wikimedia Commons. (can be restored)
  • Retained - Non-free content
  • Retained - With status change/update
  • Retained - under new name(s)
  • Retained - Commons

Having more discrete referral and outcome codes would also potentially allow users like me that do a lot of file work to find similar previous decisions more easily. I am however wary about fosillising policy decisions "made from the bench" so to speak, given that contributors need some flexibility. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Files for Discussion Articles is the only deletion venue that is explicitly deletion only, and for good reason, that there are a lot and it often takes significant effort to comment intelligently, so we need to keep the load a small as we can. It has nothing to do with whether administrators are required. In this case, like the Redirects, Categories and Miscellany venues, the real purpose is to centralize discussion of pages that may require deletion. Since FFD is not overloaded like AFD, it should be just fine to add non-free content reviews to it. Looking at the page now, there are nominations from four months ago, which is a big problem. (Also, it's difficult to explain the distinction, and I think Twinkle has it wrong) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a file appears on two or more pages and should be removed from some but not all of the pages, then the request should go to NFCR. On the other hand, if it should be removed from all of them, it should go to FFD. This looks like an artificial difference, and users who are unaware of the distinction sometimes send files to the wrong place so that discussions have to be closed as "wrong venue" and forwarded to the other venue. Also, it is not always clear from how many pages the file should be removed at nomination time, so nominations could accidentally go to the wrong place even if the nominator knows about the difference between the venues. I suggest that we merge these two situations by having both at the same discussion board instead of splitting them up. FFD could handle all of these situations.
If an article contains too many non-free files, then some of them need to be deleted from the article per WP:NFCC#3a, but there might not be any preference on which ones we should keep. If the files aren't used in other articles, then I create a section at FFD where I list all of the files, stating that we should keep some and delete some. On the other hand, if the files are used in other articles, then I create the section at NFCR instead. If some of the files appear in other articles whereas other files do not, then the page tends to be listed at NFCR, although the rules maybe technically say that the discussion should be split by listing some files at NFCR and some at FFD. This looks like an artificial difference, and it would be less confusing to list all of these pages at the same place, for example at FFD.
If a file is listed as free but someone suggests that it may be non-free, then the file is listed at PUF. If a file is listed as unfree but someone suggests that it may be free, then the file is listed at NFCR. Both situations (change free → non-free and change non-free → free) require the same knowledge and should attract the same users, so it seems more natural to list all of these at the same place. Adjusting PUF to take all of these files sounds like a good idea.
There was also a proposal to merge FFD with PUF. The difference between FFD and PUF is more well-defined and there is less overlap, so I think that it would be better to keep them separated from each other. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a single process, unless there is some noticeable difference between the potential outcomes of the 2 processes, or some clearly objective difference between pages you should nominate for each (i.e not just the nominator's opinion about the ideal outcome). Consider calling this process "Files for Discussion" (just like we do for categories). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:42, 12 October 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.

Do we have a research template?

Do we have a template like Bulbapedia's MoveResearch? (For articles in general that need research). It would be great if we had one. If we already have something that serves this purpose, tell me here. Hop on Bananas (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "research"? Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. For templates that indicate that more or better sources are needed or the article needs to be expanded or improved see: Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 19:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia". Duh, I knew that. I was looking for a template for articles with missing information (which might as well have reliable sources). Hop on Bananas (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"need research" is very vague. See Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Expand and add and note Template:Expand. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that seems close enough. For the record, I was looking for: 

This page is in need of research. Reason: (insert reason here) You can discuss this on the talk page.

I guess {{Missing information}} is good enough.

 – Hop on Bananas (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Worth looking at the discussion in which the {{Expand}} template was depreciated: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_16#Template:Expand. There is an understanding that ALL articles on Wikipedia need improving, and that simply tagging an article as such is not that helpful. And to get a fuller appreciation of why tagging an article as needing general improvement is not helpful, spend some time working through Wikipedia:Backlog. Pick a section, say Category:BLP articles lacking sources from October 2006, and look at the first article in that category: Tracey Cox. What has happened since it was tagged in Oct 2006? It has been tagged twice more, in 2008 and 2010, as needing improvement. There is a school of thought that rather than more tagging, what is needed is more actual work done on articles. Tagging is usually asking someone else to do it. As we see from the backlog, there is no-one else spare to do the work. If you spot that work needs doing, then it would be more beneficial to do the work yourself. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trans-Pacific Partnership protest

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Is Wikipedia going to do that semi-blackout thing for the Trans-Pacific Partnership like it did for SOPA?--67.182.233.46 (talk) 08:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not having been involved in SOPA, I don't know what "that semi-blackout thing" means, but if it means preventing or deterring edits that are contrary to WP:NPOV, or vandalism, then I guess it might be necessary. Ditto for TTIP perhaps. Stanning (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:SOPA initiative. Basically Wikipedia was shut down for a day to protest SOPA and 67.182.233.46 is asking if we are going to do the same thing for the TPP. I think there has been some discussion about it at User talk:Jimbo Wales, might be worth checking the recent archives there. Jenks24 (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, thanks. TPP is mentioned in User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 196, with pointer to information on Wikisource. I don't see anything about TTIP, which is getting a lot of protest over in Europe, but maybe that doesn't have the same concerns or isn't getting the same attention. Stanning (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added helpful information from Electronic Frontier Foundation, linked above. — Cirt (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the extension to copyright terms would drastically affect public domain works at Wikimedia Commons and Wikisource. It's a very strong reason to protest. --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion to Quality Award

I've created the WP:Deletion to Quality Award.

This recognizes editors who've taken a page previously considered for deletion — to Featured Article or Good Article quality.

The award is inspired by the Wikipedia:Million Award, the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement.

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion to Quality Award.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

A RfC has commenced on whether a limited unbundling of blocking for counter-vandalism should be tried for eight weeks, see Wikipedia:Vandalism/RfC for a trial unbundling of blocking. Esquivalience t 02:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite Create Protection

Salted pages should not be case sensitive, as it allows the user to recreate the page by simply turning a letter from small to big or big to small. If an administrator indefinitely create protects Tunga Warrior, then Tunga warrior, Tunga warrioR and TungA warrior should automatically become create protected.--1.39.37.62 (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's necessary. Where we see odd capitalization, I presume an admin reviewing the CSD nom will also look around to identify that it's a deliberate misspelling trying to do the runaround on the page (if the NPP doesn't get to that review themselves). Recreated page at that point can still go through the salting nomination if it's a repeated action, IMO. --Izno (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any experienced admin has certainly seen this, we just delete and salt the recreations, and probably block the user responsible. I don't think it's that big of a deal and I'm not at all sure what is proposed here is technically feasible at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it becomes a serious problem with a specific title, we can always use MediaWiki:Titleblacklist - simply add a line to disallow "Tunga Warrior", and it can't be created with any capitalization. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TAFI & main page discussion

Please head over to this discussion and place your views. :D--Coin945 (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Internal Hyperlinking of Wikipedia article

1. Wikipedia can /should interlink all its data so that it will be very much better for user to reach indepth knowledge of any topic/article

their are three ways i think

  1. 1. Assign all article titles to an array, replace each array element into hyper link, for example title is Sindh, replace it into hyper link like <a href=www.wikipedia.org?title=sindh>Sindh</a>, now find sindh array element into articles body where it is just word with spaces around both sides. replaec ith with Hyperlink. this will be performed when article is loaded. like we have done at انسائيڪلوپيڊِا سنڌيانا Encyclopedia Sindhiana
  1. 2. Apply list of Title to an array and find replace it into store database at once, then on new submission of article the title automatically be hyperlinked into all articles in database.
  1. 3. the third way is little easy and bandwidth friendly also time friendly, i think, then above both ways, which is on load of any article assign all words of article to an array, and find each array element/word into list of titles. in find true replace array element/word into hyperlink of finded title. this will loop all words of article with title and hyper link on success find. then echo hyperlinked array element as article body.

(if some data should not be hyperlinked then assign linkable data to a veriable, like find until footnote word or until refrences word, i mean a= a varible of article data from title to footnote or reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.116.243 (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I can make any sense of this at all, it sounds like you're proposing to do exactly what WP:OVERLINKING says not to do. Or alternatively, to make Wikipedia look like the sort of articles you see elsewhere on the Internet where some ad script links random generic words to advertisements. No thanks. Anomie⚔ 12:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Global Encyclopedias Network

i Think there is more then requirement Data available on net, but their is still thirist of even basic knowledge to some humans, the reason is simple we dont let comunicate information with each other, it can be a global network of information, fast, easy to access, and highly as per requirement of user. reach able to depth of requirment.

we can hyperlink all internet encyclopedias artilce's titles, at least we at www.encyclopediasindhiana.org want to let user be in network of encyclopedias.

the formula is simple call and apply any/each encyclopedia's article titles, convert them into hyperlinks in article body. (first stage), second stage is generate auto hyperlink on new submission of any article , auto click it programetically: for example in our case we can send or wikipedia can send us new submission of article, its title, it could be generating auto hyperlink of any new article submition, for example if at wikipedia side a new article is submitted, it can generate link like www.encyclopediasindhiana.org/articles.php?new_wiki_title=Sindh when such link be clicked/checked like google crawler check or broken links detecter check link and it will be ranked one time. so the autometically our page will be opened, on such evend we will add new_wiki_title=Sindh into database table of external links, find sindh word in our data replace it with wikipedia hyper link like www.wikipedia.org/Sindh. i think this would make us very informative and keep in touch with Latest Information. this would be the dream of story writer of time travel movie scene an global encyclopedia. one word can have more then hyper links of diffrent encyclopedias like sindh 1-2-3 (sindh one defind in encyclopediasindhiana.org, sindh two in wikipedia.org, sindh 3 define in encarta.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.116.243 (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, let's not spam links to every random encyclopedia (by whatever definition separates "encyclopedia" from other things pretending to be encyclopedias) onto all articles, particularly not in some SEO scheme. Anomie⚔ 12:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiHisotry Project

we at Sindhi Language Authority developed a Project named www.encyclopediasindhiana.org, in it their is a feature of time line (dates entered in encyclopedia's articles and their description) with hyper link to such title of entered date. http://encyclopediasindhiana.org/timeline.php

Wikipedia can also build a project name like wikihistory or it can add feature to wikipedia called dates entered in this article, it would be very usefull for historians, students and comman user to search history of for example 2015 year. or history of Internet from 2000 to 2015, The history can be search able date-month wise, date-month-year wise, month-year wise and year wise, subject wise, location/country wise, for example history of Pakistan events or keywords used in description of such history timline.

Wikipedia can apply this idea also,,,, create crawler which find date formatted strings inside article data, store it in data base, as description it can crawl and include some sentences of crawled date both sides. for example the Pakistan get independent in 14th august 1947 from Brtain., crawler include words on both sides of date. then user can be asked to proof such entry of date line in such article, proper formate it as standerd date is formated, assign it a Defined description as in article. and update it to database.

or User can insert history from any part of world.

or wikipedia also can add one more feature to existing wikipeida articles, so that when a user enter an article so it can highlight date formated strings which will be shown in side bar of article and whould be added into database of wikihistory, or search able history of wikipedia dates entered in articles.

or this is also an example www.historymole.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.116.243 (talk) 11:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&oldid=687715317"