Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Buffyverse (talk | contribs) at 05:00, 6 January 2007 (→‎Buffy location proposal: '''Comment'''). 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 
Shortcut
The proposals section of the village pump is used to discuss new ideas and proposals that are not policy related (see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) for that).

Recurring policy proposals are discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals). If you have a proposal for something that sounds overwhelmingly obvious and are amazed that Wikipedia doesn't have it, please check there first before posting it, as someone else might have found it obvious, too.

Before posting your proposal:

  • Read this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.
  • If the proposal is a change to the software, file a bug at Bugzilla instead. Your proposal is unlikely to be noticed by a developer unless it is placed there.
  • If the proposal is a change in policy, be sure to also post the proposal to, say, Wikipedia:Manual of style, and ask people to discuss it there.
  • If the proposal is for a new wiki-style project outside of Wikipedia, please go to m:Proposals for new projects and follow the guidelines there. Please do not post it here. These are different from WikiProjects.


This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

Redirect on Contribution pages, "redirect=no"?

uhh....i think people just don't really have an opinion on it. I, for one, have almost never encountered the situation you've outlined. On the offchance i do click on a contribution that's a redirect, i just click the history or diff links instead to see what changes the person made. I suppose a better place to ask would be the technical section... --`/aksha 02:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is definitely a good idea. `/aksha is right - move this to a technical section and it'll get noticed and maybe even implemented. Good luck. Nihiltres 18:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea (found it annoying myself before), but yeah this may have been better on the technical pump. -- nae'blis 19:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Print Versions for Articles

I do quite a lot of research work and Wikipedia is one of my most visited sites. However, like Wikibooks, I'd like to suggest to make PRINT VERSIONS of articles that are completed and comprehensive.

Thank you. 04/01/2007

--203.81.199.161 00:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce the size limit for sigs?

I keep running into huge sigs that take up four lines in the edit box and drown out the user's actual comment in a mess of formatting. Would it be reasonable to cut the size limit for sigs in half? Unless someone has a (blockably) huge username, that should still be enough for a userpage link, a talk page link, contribs, and a reasonable amount of formatting. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see that. I agree with you that sometimes you can't read the other person's comments in the edit box because of the markup from their sig. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to get rid of custom user names entirely. They aren't necessary and just waste space. --Tango 21:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would only go for that if the current sig replacement technology allowed to a link to the User's Talk page as well as their User page. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes and yes, to all above. Reduce and restrict, for clarity and simplicity in talkpages and talkpage wikicode. Please! —Quiddity 21:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support the prohibition of signature elements that serve purely decorative purposes. Extra links (talk page, contribution history, et cetera) are fine, but it is annoying to deal with several lines of HTML that merely add fancy colors and fonts. —David Levy 21:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I remember finding someone with a 1k (yes, I don't lie) signature. He used to transclude it, so you would not notice how long it was. Or force users to write at least 2x the amount of characters in their signature everytime they write in a talk page. That would make some people realize how awful a long signature is for us "common" people ;-) -- ReyBrujo 04:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting perilously close to a perennial proposal: See Wikipedia_talk:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages#Propose_banning_non-standard_.2F_raw_signatures. from just a couple of weeks ago. -- nae'blis 05:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking for a total ban, just a cap on the length, like two lines in an edit box long. This will cut down on overformatting simply by not allowing space for it, and cut down on the mess they make in edit view. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support anything that cuts down on the bloat. I recently had to struggle to find the actual post of someone with nine lines of sig markup. Fortunately he had included edit comment text to mark out its beginning and end... - BanyanTree 20:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Is my sig okay? --> Yuser31415 04:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC) <-- :)) Anyway, I believe per WP:SIG there is a limit on 200 characters in a signature, and, since the edit box is by default 80 characters wide, I make that 2.5 lines allowed in a sig. Is that what you would like? (If not, stating the specific number of characters you would like to be the maximum for a sig could help.) Cheers! Yuser31415 04:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely fine! Optimal even. Short and useful.
It's 16 line long monstrosities like this fellow's sig that are the worst offenders; anything more than 2 lines of raw text (which is 200 characters at my resolution/settings) is probably unnecessary, and more than 3 lines begins to get annoying fast. I don't know if there is a hard limit, but I'd like to see a 200 character limit implemented, or even less (150? 100?), or the suggestion from Zoe above. —Quiddity 02:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giving leeway to userspace type things like sigs is a good idea, but if it gets to the point that it inconveniences other editors, we have a problem. Suggest that it should be under two lines. —Dgiest c 05:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second the two line limit. Sounds like a good compromise, leaving enough personal freedom while keeping annoyance to a bearable level. This is not MySpace after all, and the hugest sigs tend to be just font/color HTML anyways. --Dschwen 08:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about making the sig a template in userspace? Then we could just put our sig in preference, and ~~~~ would translate to {{User:Username}} where our sig will be. It would cut the clutter down as we won't see them when editing anymore and we can update all instances of our sig just by changing the template. --antilived T | C | G 09:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See #Transclusion of templates for why we can't. —Quiddity 09:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I've seen it but I don't think it's entirely valid. How many times are you going to change your sig in a year? IMHO not many people will chnage their sig very often and thus they shouldn't consume too much resource to re-cache. And simply protect the sig so only the user him/herself and maybe admin/sysops can edit should clear the vandalism problem is well. --antilived T | C | G 09:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{User:Username}} would transclude the userpage, and like that there would be no way to permanently store the date, which is an important part of the sig. Also having a template defies the purpose of a sig as a permanent unchangable mark. Right now any sig manipulation shows up on the history page, with a template much more sneaky things could go on.--Dschwen 13:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's just some random user space link I used to illustrate the point, not that I intend to embed the whole user page onto talk pages.:) And also I meant 3 tildes not four so the date would still be in the page itself, only the sig is changeable. --antilivedT | C | G 20:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I guess I'll be the first here with a "long" signature.... you should get Why1991 to defend himself here. I really don't feel strongly either way, but I do understand that going though lines of code due to a long signature is pretty annoying. I propose a 5 line (in the edit window) cap for signatures.S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since most of my opinion has already been said, I'll just say that I agree with the above statements. I like Yuser31415's idea of 200 characters. I don't like the idea of userspace transclusions. I don't think there should be a total removal of custom signatures, as they are one of the few ways to make yourself unique. And now I sign. --Tewy 23:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought, but what about implementing this in steps (500 character limit, 300, 250, etc.). I'm just not sure how else the users with long signatures would be warned (is there a bot that could locate them all?) I'm a little worried that there will be this angry mass of users who all just found out their signatures no longer work. With a gradual system, it wouldn't affect all of them at once. --Tewy 23:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's now a bug for this; go vote your support. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add character deltas to the history pages

I find the character deltas in the watchlist to be quite helpful. However, once the page is edited again, they are gone for that edit. It would be nice if this feature was extended to the history pages. --EMS | Talk 06:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{sofileabugonit}} [ælfəks] 07:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like this idea myself. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 08:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. —Quiddity 09:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice idea. That way, if an article shrinks (or grows) significantly, for example, it's fairly easy to see where that happened, and who did it. Or to see that a particular user consistently deletes text. Which implies, I guess, that it would also be very nice to see this function in a USER's edit history as well as an article history. John Broughton | Talk 00:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That too, strongly. These'd be immensely useful.
I can't think of any downside, except the server-hit as we'd probably want/need them generated retroactively for all the 100million+ edits done so far... Would that be a big problem? —Quiddity 02:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search spell check

There should be a Google-style spellcheck in the search engine, I'm sick of not knowing how to spell something and not being able to find it on Wikipedia. 84.70.112.198 15:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This feature has been disabled for performance reasons. I recomend you just use the real Google spellcheck to search Wikipedia. Tra (Talk) 15:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In case you don't know, you can restrict Google's search to Wikipedia pages by adding "site:en.wikipedia.org" as a search term. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone came up with this, too. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 19:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's bugzilla:974 which explain why it's disabled, and which has some possible alternatives. Martinp23 01:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Wiki?

Why don't you introduce a wiki for movies? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Christopher.demicoli (talk • contribs) 07:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Firstly, new projects should be suggested on meta:, secondly - Wikipedia already has information on movies, what would be different about a special movie wiki? --Tango 16:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Articles

I have an idea for Wikipedia that could change Wikipedia for the better and make it as accurate as possible. You might argue that it would not be an open source encyclopedia anymore but I think people would trust Wikipedia even more than they already do. I did not know who to send this to; however the Board of Wikipedia seemed like the right place.

My idea is to select the very best articles in Wikipedia once a day, once a week, or once a month however you choose. An article that has been a featured article and is an FA Class article should be required for the “Ultimate” ranking an article can get. The importance of the article should also be considered as this selection would be representing the very best of Wikipedia.

Once an article is chosen, someone should look back at the entire history of the article and make sure no valuable information or useful information was taken away; although this would be an extremely long and tedious process. Then the article would be entitled “Ultimate Article” and Wikipedians would have to submit edits and experts on the subject should look to see if those edits would be useful to the article. Eventually a lot of very trustworthy article entitled “Ultimate Articles” would be assembled and Wikipedia would become an even more accurate and used encyclopedia than ever before. This would stop articles from degrading because of vandalism and make people think and consider their edits more before they submit them. I don’t think this will stop people from adding great quality content to already great articles Please consider my suggestion and send me back an email telling whether my suggestion will be put into action and why or why not. Thank you for your time as all I want is for Wikipedia to be the best free encyclopedia it can possibly be. My dream would eventually be that every article would eventually be an “Ultimate Article” because then Wikipedia would be the ultimate Encyclopedia.

Thank you for considering my Suggestion. --Independentdependent 21:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're saying just put articles on protect after they become featured is the way to go? Just H 22:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is basically the same as Wikipedia:Stabilizing featured articles. Other related suggestions are at Wikipedia:Stable versions and Wikipedia:Static version. The German Wikipedia is experimenting with a related system described at m:2006 proposed approval for anonymous edits. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you could just put all the featured articles on your watchlist and keep an eye on them to prevent degradation. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or create a Citizendium-like fork of Wikipedia and ensure only "trusted" editors are allowed to edit articles. Eventually something along the lines of all these proposals needs to be done in order for Wikipedia to remain credible. We have gone far past the point of needing more quantity (bar some glaring exceptions) and time has come to focus on quality instead. Zunaid©Review me! 11:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about simply semi-protecting all featured articles? I have several featured articles on my watchlist, and checking their histories, most of the edits are anonymous vandalism or reversion of said anonymous vandalism. There are also some anonymous edits which, although made in good faith, decrease the quality of the articles. However, there is the occasional good edit by a registered user. I don't advocate completely locking featured articles, because we may need to update them with new information. For example, if the news (and I don't mean The Onion) just reported that Microsoft went bankrupt, the featured article on Microsoft would need to be updated. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an over-reaction. Semi-protection should be used in response to vandalism, not as a preemptive measure (from WP:SEMI). Trebor 09:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you propose we find these experts? The Foundation cannot afford to hire experts on retainer for every possible subject that might become an ultimate article, nor can the afford to verify that a user claiming to be an expert is actually one. Koweja 15:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia of Earth

I see external links to Encyclopedia of Earth start popping up in wikipedia. I also see that our SpamWatch have already put their eye on them. Unlike what SpamWatcher think, it is not just "another encyclopedia website"; it has quite a few points in common with wikipedia, both in its history and in rules of the game.

We have to figure out what would be wikipedia's policy with respect to it.

I am inclined to allow links to it, introduced via a standard template similar to e.g., {{imdb-title}}, {{1911}}, or {{wiktionary}}, since EOEarth declatres to satisfy our fundamental requirements of WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV.

Another approach, implemented by Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam now is to treat them as spam.

EOEarth uses Creative Commons license, and AFAIU, we cannot copy their content into our GFLD realm. Or can we?

Any other opinions? `'mikka 23:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, we can't copy their text verbatim into Wikipedia, it would violate the "Share-alike" part of the CC license they're using. If linking to this encyclopedia adds to the article, it should be fine to do so. Can you give some examples of pages where the links have been removed where you think they were good for the article? --Tango 23:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't do any investigation. (BTW, it can be a good idea, similar to Nature's "Wikipedia vs. EB"). I stumbled upon this in my watchlist, then I noticed that EOE was declared spam by our spam police, and decided that this must be done by a wider consensus. You know, no offense, but police is good for policing, not for creating policies. At the first glance, their 'Wetland' article looks better in one respects and worse on others. `'mikka 03:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The one problem that I can see is that Wikipedia:Reliable Sources states: "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking." (bolding is mine)... Encycl. of Earth seems to be essentially another wiki. Blueboar 02:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all EoE links are treated as spam and there are several WP articles that have this website cited. The reason it has caught the eye of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam is the systematic addition of links to this website from one or more users whose only (or primary) contributions to WP is the addition of links to this site - clearly the footprint of website promotion and link spamming.
"Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." WP:SPAM
WP is not a directory of links nor is it a forum to promote any website and there should never be a campaign to promote a specific website on WP. Calltech 11:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's avoid any wikilawyering, please. That some accounts have been abusive in adding links doesn't address the basic question of whether EoE articles meet WP:RS criteria. If they do, then the second question is whether such links add value if added to Wikipedia articles. I think they do - first, of course, they help the reader find further information; second, they provide links for editors who are interested in improving Wikipedia articles - who can use concepts and sources in the EoE articles, though not copy paragraphs wholesale.
Let's also not be defensive here: EoE is almost certainly going to have high quality articles. How many, and how current, is another matter - but if some Wikipedia articles serve as waystations to EoE articles, that (a) increases the value of Wikipedia and (b) serves as a spur to improve own own quality. John Broughton | Talk 16:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John, a posting was made here which I am addressing, not wikilawyering. First, the statement above "EOE was declared spam" is not correct. If it were, then all links would have been removed. The efforts of one or more users (mostly anonymous) to systematically add links to EoE IS spamming and that is why most of their EoE links were reverted by myself and a half dozen other editors. When warned, most of the users stopped spamming (or switched IPs). Calltech 19:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with John on this point. As long as the EoE article being cited is germane to the current topic, the link most likely is adding value to the Wikipedia article. Only if the link is to a non-specific EoE page or a significantly more general article should it be treated as "spam". --EMS | Talk 16:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought EoE could be safely considered a reliable source, per mikka. While our primary use of EoE should probably be for sourcing facts, external linking is also fine (IMHO). — Matt Crypto 16:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me offer a hypothetical: let's suppose Nature magazine decided to make it's older issues available on-line at no charge, and someone at that magazine went through the archive and post links to hundreds of articles in the now-accessible on-line archive. Let's also suppose the links were relevant - to make the case extreme, let's suppose that the links were added only to stubs. Is that a violation of WP:SPAM? If it is, I for one would think that WP:IAR should be invoked. And I'd also feel, strongly, that someone going through and deleting such links would be damaging Wikipedia, not helping it - whether or not Nature magazine made money from Google ads displayed on the pages or not, whether or not the person at the magazine was being paid to post links or not.
Here's an example (from the top of the specialpage list) to discuss, if one is so inclined (and, by the way, Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam was focusing on nearly 100 links - which doesn't strike me, per se, as an exgregious number): Tropical Andes links to the eoearth.org article called "Biological diversity in the Tropical Andes". -- John Broughton | Talk 22:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with John. Information should never be removed unless you're 100% sure it's Spam or not notableJust H 02:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a distinction between a user spamming, and a website link being spam. For example, if I were a member of WikiProject Films, and I added IMDB links to 100 film articles which did not have IMDB links, would I be spamming? If the creator of IMDB did that, would he be spamming? Is IMDB spam?
If a user is spamming, but the website itself is not spam, the user should be sanctioned, but the website links should not be removed (or should be treated on a case-by-case basis).
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the hypothetical example above, it smacks of conflict of interest (both financial and promotional). WP makes it clear that links such as these should be suggested through talk pages first, and not added wholesale when a COI exists. Regarding the damage to WP, EL's added in bulk as described in WP:SPAM can be added in minutes. These aren't thoughtful edits that took hours to ponder and create. It's doing pretty much a cut and paste in the EL section. Every website owner (manager, etc.) argues that his/her website adds important value to WP. In the hypothetical situation above, if the website is that worthwhile and there's a COI, then why not take a moment to put an entry on the talk pages. If it involves that large a number of links, put it in a discussion. (None of the bulk added EoE links that were reverted were discussed).
It takes 4 warnings to block a user who appears to be spamming (as it should to give them a chance to review guidelines). Many of the multiple link edits, however, are being done by anonymous IPs that don't surface again, so blocking them has little effect, especially when a new IP shows up doing it again. Calltech 15:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voting Buttons on discussion page to 'build global consensus' / debate

I feels that 'discussion' page should have a debating section (only editable by Admins i.e. not all pages will have this section) where a NPOV/neutral Admin moderator can summarize all the distinct points (typically there are very few even for hotly debated/controversial topics) and each of these distinct points should have voting buttons as well.
Wikipedia is a good consencus building site as well, better than blogs. This will also bring in more new users (e.g. bloggers) and attention to Wikipedia. On the other side it could also bring in more noice and unwanted attention as well but than can be an elitist opinion/resistance.
Another POV from me: A globally unique (per language) page with voting capability can kill other blogs. Vjdchauhan 19:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Wait, what do blogs have to do with this? --tjstrf talk 20:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My experience with blog says that in very active blog there is more noice and sometime many-to-many heated abusive posts. If one can summarize the whole debate there will be very few distinct discussion points coming up and with voting buttons one can build consensus and if one feels to put across new distinct point he/she is welcome (and which will be moved to disting section as well by Admin-Moderator) and he/she is also welcome to push across already listed distinct points in his/her own language as well. Thus a better (and gloally centralied) blogging mechanism in Wikipedia as well. Vjdchauhan 20:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC).
Er... Wikipedia is not a blog. However I think your suggestion could still be useful here - we need to end the charade that 'xFD/RFA etc. is not a vote' (for example, how many RFAs have succeeded with 40% of the vote?) and this would be the best way of doing it. Summarising the points of each side in a neutral way (not everyone has the time or inclination to read 20 pages of flames before forming their opinion) would allow people to form an opinion based on the arguments at hand. 86.132.3.8 21:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest reviewing m:Polls are evil and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a democracy. Yes, an RfA will almost inevitably fail if a candidate gets less than 75% of the vote, but you'll find when that's the case that the 25+% have good reasons. And there are certainly those out there who are likely to vote FOR a candidate if the objections seems unreasonable. More importantly, an RfA is an up/down decision; summarizing the points of dispute on a talk page is not trivial. And as with XfD discussions, a well-reasoned argument can affect a lot of subsequent comments, while pure yes/no votes are totally worthless for helping understand the arguments - it really is a popularity/in-crowd/interested-bystander sort of thing. (In other words, there would be a HUGE dependence on the moderator to get the question right - and we'll all human here, so I doubt that there could even be consensus over the question.John Broughton | Talk 21:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How many AfDs have gone against the majority? I've seen at least three during my time here. A well explained and uncontested argument in support of an article could be more significant than a dozen "as per" votes. People with experience editing that sort of article also have more weight for their votes, and conversely, people who've never touched an article of that kind before are more likely to go unacknowledged. –Gunslinger47 22:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a consensus building up here :).... Gunslinger's right, a good point is worth 15 "as per". Plus, I'm not sure how good this is, but as Wikipedia is communautary (sp?), who has what points also counts. For who knows what I mean, if Tony says an article doesn't meet FAC's 1a criterion, it's not the same as if an annon casts a speechless vote.--SidiLemine 16:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal: {{rejected-section}}

I have a new proposal {{rejected-section}} --HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 19:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is this for or say where will it be used, an example pls, but not on my section(s) pls. Vjdchauhan 20:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC).
Is that really useful - marking a section of a proposal as rejected? If there is such consensus, the section ought to be just removed. If it's needed for historical purposes, copy it to the talk page. After all, if the section is rejected but debate continues on the main proposal, who wants to see irrelevant sections still sitting in that? John Broughton | Talk 21:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HIZKIAH, perhaps we should tag this section you just created with {{rejected-section}}? --J.L.W.S. The Special One
lol, that makes two of us who thought of it immediately. I couldn't find a sufficiently recursive way of tagging it though. --tjstrf talk 08:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enhanced notification mechanisms

Wikipedia with this size and user base needs better notification mechanisms which will help improve productivity of active users having big watch lists (below is incomplete list and needs to be expanded): Vjdchauhan 20:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

  • 'Categoty Watch' don't report new addition/deletion to the category in question.
  • 'Section Watch' for Discussion pages (some are pretty big and dynamic) and may be for pages like this one itself.

Display What links here feature more prominantly

What links here link (there at left column below search button) is a very useful feature and more use of it will help better inter-linking of wikipedia pages and can also avoid creation of duplicate articles (the merge tage cases). May be this link can be made as tab of the article itself like Discussion, Edit this page, History tabs. Vjdchauhan 20:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure what purpose that would serve. It's not nearly as integral as the tabs on the top, but is already easily accessible on the menu. I only really use it when sorting links to disambigs and to avoid double redirects. Trebor 22:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection restrictions for new Users

I hope I have read the rules properly, and that this is the right place to propose this: An account must be four days old before it can edit a semi-protected page. I am tired of Users creating an account, waiting for four or five days, and then vandalize a protected page. This User: Oliviagundry created an account on the 29th of December, waited, and then vandalized the Paris Hilton page, which is semi-protected. I propose that we change the days from 4 to 10. This change won't stop all Users from vandalizing, but I'm thinking that a lot of Users might lose their will to vandalize if they have to wait 10 days to edit a semi-protected page. Acalamari 04:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent sleeper socks from vandalising semi-protected articles, I have previously suggested we change the autoconfirmed suffrage from 4 days to X edits. (A value of X should be decided later, but should not be lower than 20 or higher than 100.)
Consider the possibility that someone may create an account with the sole purpose of contributing to (not vandalising) a semi-protected article. Increasing the length of time they would have to wait would discourage them.
Requiring X edits would discourage vandals while being friendlier to contributors. A vandal has to make X non-vandalistic edits to vandalise a semi-protected article (if their first X edits are vandalistic, they can be blocked). A contributor could use their first X edits to learn about Wikipedia (by, for example, asking questions and experimenting with markup) and discuss on the article's talk page (assuming it's not semi=protected as well).
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious problems with the X edits as the criterion is that a user can make the required X edits to his own user or talk page (just hit the save button X times on your own user page). I believed the correct decision would be to have "Y days after the Xth edit)" or even "Y days after the Xth edit outside the user space)". The Wiki way IMHO would be to flag "established users" (non-novice) manually by any established user and deflagging by admins. I believe it was proposed but rejected as generating to much drama Alex Bakharev 08:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure increasing the number of days would be especially effective - they don't have to do anything with the account in this time, just leave it as a "sleeper", so they'll just wait a bit longer and then do it. I feel it's more likely to annoy the anons who sign up in order to contribute to a sprotected article, and have to wait even longer. The edit count limit makes more sense to me (especially if it excludes edits in user space and perhaps sandbox), although I suppose that could also annoy anons. Trebor 09:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An article is semi-protected for a reason. If we can cut down on vandalism to those pages by making more restrictions, I think it should be done. I've seen articles like Paris Hilton and the Michael Richards get vandalized by accounts four days old. Whether we make it a number of edits (User Page and User Talk Page edits not counted) or increase the number of days to wait, something should be done. Acalamari 16:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that extending the number of days (say, to 10) would be more effective than adding an edit requirement. Someone intent enough on vandalizing to set up an account days in advance will presumably be able to figure out how to do a number of trivial edits really quickly, negating the usefulness of any edit count requirement.
The absolutely best approach to eliminating vandalism would be to do what is done at Metafilter.com - you pay a one-time fee of $5 to get a login/account, which isn't refundable even if your account gets permanently blocked after its first day of use. But Wikipedia is built around minimal (aka "virtually no") barriers to editing, for better or worse, so that kind of entry fee isn't likely to be implemented in anything resembling the near future. John Broughton | Talk 20:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I like the idea, I am quite certain that the Wiki community will not sanction the idea of a fee, either refundable or non-refundable, to open an account. How about combining the various ideas outlined above, and make the requirement for editing semi-protected pages that the editor must have an account, must have had it for at least ten days, and must have made (say) twenty edits in that time, none to his own userpage or talkpage?--Anthony.bradbury 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am opposed to an entry fee. If one was instated, I, and many other Users, would probably have our accounts blocked, as we wouldn't have paid/will not pay. Also, there will still be anonymous editors, unless they are all blocked. However, I agree with Anthony.bradbury in combining ideas. The requirements to edit a semi-protected page should be something like this: having an account, ten days old, with fifty edits that have been done to articles, and not to any User or Talk/User Talk pages. Acalamari 21:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that a much longer waiting period would probably suffice and serious new editors know that proposed additions to the articles' talk pages, or requests for temporary unlocking, would get their edits added quicker. I would also like to propose something of a chaperoned registration, wherein an established user or admin could vouch for a new user so as to bypass the waiting period. The "drama" might be avoided by having the authorization happen at the time of the registration, either by a code given to the new user by the sponsor or the sponsor registers the username for the user. Grika Ⓣ 04:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain this more. Forgive me for sounding stupid, but I don't quite understand what you mean. Acalamari 16:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea needs some fleshing out, but it would mean either adding a "Code" field to the "Create account" page wherein the user would enter a code that established users and admins can generate or perhaps easier would be to add a "Sponsor user" link to the toolbox that brings established users and admins to a "Create account" page and displays an error/info page for everyone else. Grika Ⓣ 03:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the proposal as modified here. Any obvious vandalism by a user reverts them back to a new user status. Ronbo76 04:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea; if they vandalize, they get lowered back to new user status and are given a minor block. How about this extension of that suggestion: if they return to being able to edit semi-protected pages, and they vandalize again, they are permanently lowered to the new user status, and are given a longer block. Acalamari 16:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pure edit count is obviously not sufficient protection because people can just dick around on their user page. Even pure edit count plus waiting period has the problem that they can just dick around on their user page then go sleeper. On the other hand if we only look at the edit count in mainspace, then someone just making junk edits might at least pick up some talk page warnings before they go sleeper. —Dgiest c 17:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We already countered for this: edits to User or Talk Pages don't count towards being able to edit semi-protected pages. Acalamari 17:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search Tool for Featured Articles

How about a search bar for Featured Articles? Db0255 07:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Db0255 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not sure how useful that would be. If you want information on a specific topic, you don't want to be limited to the (relatively) small number of FAs with your search - in most cases, you'll be disappointed. If you want to browse FAs, you wouldn't be searching (as you wouldn't know what FAs there are); you'd want to be looking through a list. For what purpose do you envision this being used? Trebor 09:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism studies project

I was thinking of setting up a wikiproject whose purpose would be to research, study, and gather statistics regarding vandalism on wikipedia. This would help us understand which vandalism is the most damaging, which lasts the longest, who is responsible for the most and other points of interest. Nevertheless, I didn't want to propose this if someone is already doing this. Any thoughts? Remember 16:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may have seen Wikipedia talk:Don't protect Main Page featured articles/December Main Page FA analysis, which looked at anonymous IP vandalism from December 1-7. I'm not aware of any other studies. I think it such a wikiproject would be a great idea, and if done right, wouldn't require an extraordinary amount of time. If you do start such a project, please let me know. John Broughton | Talk 19:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am something of an anti-vandal fanatic. If I can help, please get back to me.--Anthony.bradbury 20:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, with this quick positive response I'm going to try to start a wikiproject page. I will add a link to it here when it is up and running. Remember 22:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Ok. I have quickly set up a page here Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies, please come on by and help improve the page. Remember 22:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability (science) criteria

I'd like to draw attention to the work people are doing at Wikipedia:Notability (science) to refine and make explicit the criteria for inclusion of scientific content. (My involvement was spurred by the stunning amount of cranky articles -- unmonitored by all except their specific enthusiasts -- that hide in the intersticies of the WP and to my mind really affect the quality of the project.) Sdedeo (tips) 20:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ending FAC

Looking at old FAC pages, it is impossible to tell when they ended and what happened. Why aren't the pages archived like the XFD pages. It would not take long to do after a discussion is closed. I am not suggesting that we go back and fix all the old ones, but they should at least be archived in a similar fashion to the XFD pages. Does anyone else agree with this? The Placebo Effect 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the nominations have no indication of Raul's ruling or even that they've closed. I once relisted a closed nom because it was practically blank and there was no sign it had actually passed through FAC before. There should be a sign at the bottom to indicate results, like is already done for WP:FPC.Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Remove the Glossary

In going through Wikipedia:Glossary, I noticed that it is really just a list of definitions with a little additional material to put it in context & link to some Wikipedia articles. (which is what a glossary is) But it doesn't seem to fit into an encyclopedia. A glossary is typically found in a textbook. Therefore, I propose to basically move the Wikipedia Glossary to one of the sister projects, either Wiktionary, Wikibooks, or Wikiversity. This would remove unnecessary pages from Wikipedia, while expanding one of its sister projects. Thank you.--Wikiphilia 03:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia:Glossary, which is intended as a glossary of common terms used in community pages and discussions (such as talk pages and deletion discussions), not as an actual encyclopedia article or general glossary. It's in the Wikipedia namespace to separate it from the encyclopedia. BryanG(talk) 04:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to create a better article submitting system

This is my proposal to create an article-submitting system that ensures that articles are nearly 100% verifitable, fit our guidelines and policies, and follow the manual of style.

My system would work like this.

  1. Any editor can browse any article.
  2. Each article has a "sandbox", preferably in a subpage, for example "Apple/Sandbox".
  3. Whenever someone edits the article, they instead are redirected to edit the article's sandbox.
  4. Only an experienced editor (for example, a user with over 500 edits and no blocks) can sync the sandbox version of the article to the article itself, or vice versa, if they deem the sandbox version appropriate or not, respectively. There would be two links that appear if the user meets the criteria for an experienced editor: a link to sync the sandbox revision to the article, and a link to sync the article to the sandbox revision.

Obviously this would strictly only apply to mainspace.

So basically any editor can edit the sandbox version of an article, but only an experienced editor with over five hundred edits and no blocks can sync the sandbox version to the article. In this way, no article should ever contain vandalism or unverified content.

The question is, why have I suggested this?

I have multiple reasons for making this suggestion. Among them are the facts that Wikipedia is a prime place for nesting vandalism and hoaxes; its warm coves and backwater locations allow the possibility for misinformation to remain dormant for months, even indefinitely if the article is never found. It's not a good look for our encyclopedia. Take the Nature comparison of Wikipedia and Britannica[1]:

The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three.

In my opinion, we can do better than this. We can get our encylopedia to much lower error levels. I hope my proposal helps bring this vision to us, and that it is successful.

Your feedback is welcome. Yuser31415 07:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stable/moderated versions are an idea that's been tossed around many times before; this just seems to be another version of that. As for ensuring articles follow guidelines and policies, your proposal won't do anything for that. I know numerous editors with thousands of edits who regularly add material to articles that doesn't meet standards. Count of edits doesn't indicate quality of edits, and anything more complicated would entail enforcement and overhead and get very ugly very quickly. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (architecture)

I thought it might be a good idea to establish some notability criteria for architecture and I seek discussion and comments. It's my first time at proposing anything like this so please be gentle with (but robust in your comments!). Cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since there is significant overlap with WP:BIO (for architects) and WP:LOCAL (for the buildings themselves) I think it would be best to add your work to those pages, rather than creating a new page for it. >Radiant< 12:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problems, I can do that for buildings and architects - There quite a lot of related fields for architecture though other than just buildings - Law, Building technology, Material science, Art, planning, urban studies, psychology - should I incorporate the notability criteria for architecture into all the related policies or would it be better to have it all on one page? --Mcginnly | Natter 14:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe it's best to keep it with the existing guidelines (e.g. WP:SCIENCE); it's probably not so practical to have one guideline for "architectural law" and another for "criminal law", because that'd be confusing to editors. Having one for "law" is easier. As an example, of course; it applies equally to the other fields. Note that most of the fields you mention have not, so far, needed any notability guidelines so they might not actually exist yet. >Radiant< 12:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Free Images

Images can be divided between free and non-free ones. Recently, there has been a push to eliminate the non-free ones that, apparently, can be recreated. However, until now I have seen many places with suggestions about how to request free images, but not a project to coordinate efforts. Because of this I am giving the first push to WikiProject Free Images, aimed at centralizing discussion about free images. Currently, it is situated at my userspace, User:ReyBrujo/WikiProject Free Images, but with enough positive feedback and help, it will be moved into the Wikipedia namespace.

The WikiProject aim is broad: first and foremost, educate users about the benefits of free images, but also to teach the differences between free licenses when applied to images. Aside this, the WikiProject will focus in replacing the current fair use images with free ones of good quality, by contacting the media, agencies, publishers or other copyright holders as necessary. It would keep a list of requested images to different organizations, with the different steps that had been taken and the different replies. It will also have an index of all the images that had been donated by these organizations, so that they are able to review their contributions. Also, the members of the WikiProject would review the usage of these images in Wikipedia, verifying that attributions are applied at all times when requested by the copyright holder.

This WikiProject was given as a thought during the Wikipedia:Elimination of Fair Use Rationale in Promotional Photos discussion, and since apparently there has not been a similar one, I decided to try it out. With some luck and effort, it should be possible to replace many of the current fair use images with free ones of similar quality.

Please drop by and give some thoughts in there. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 18:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Ciriticism on the current discussion mechanism

Discussions are hard to read. Discussions are not articles, so they should not be treated/shown the same way as articles. Discussions are like bug reports. I would like to suggest a "New Suggestions Mechanism".

Creating a Suggestion: Suggestions are like bug reports. Suggestions should be added using a form, with properties like "headline", "content", "severity" and "opened by".

Showing Suggestions: Like a forum page. In a tree. Each branch shows the "headline" field of the Suggestion. Also in each branch "severity" and "opened by" fields.

Editing a Suggestion: By adding a sub-branch in the forum tree.


Sandman2007 20:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wickey Selpub Factor

Ronbo76 came up with a theory on using Wikipedia to make a marketing base or a place where someone could create a citeable reference which could come in handy if you wished to be self-published on a reputable source. Below is a copied version of his work (so far). It's a bit rough, but you should be able to get the gist of it. If you don't understand fully, scroll down to the So what does this all mean? section located at the bottom of this post. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Theory as an Anti-vandal Patriot

Wickey Selpub Factor (n. pna How do I self Wiki-publish Factor) - The Wickey Selpub Factor (WSF) is defined as what some people will do to get themselves listed on something other than a blank wall (grafiti), MySpuce dot com or their other fantasy isle location where they are king. The WSF is usually closely followed by an editor who has a big black dog (The Fast Eddy Wheelie Theory) to take care of their vandal edits. Typos in the WSF help because they usually become a searchable factor on the Interfet SEarch Engene of your choice and why this editar included as an exampill in this sentence. Please do not correct the spelling of this paragraph, as it is vital to the WSP Theory. Thank you.

  • Theory Defined

Since someone asked, I am an anti-vandal patriot. The WSF is a theory I have developed that concerns the self-publication of articles on Wikipedia. Basically, someone seeking more glory than just the self-postulates put up on private pages that do not get reviews will seek to find a legitimate place where their grandiose will last forever. Wikipedia is that place because it means they have arrived so to speak. If the stuff they post here sticks to the wall, the post becomes a searchable and citeable item. In researching self-posts, I have noticed that Wikipedia is usually the first place or hit someone seeking notable status gets besides dubious hits on answer dot com and then my space. One such spammer only had three internet search hits in this order: Wikipedia, answer.com and myspace. No, I am not advertising for anything. I just want to snuff out self-publishing vandals with my big black dog truth edits. Ronbo76 20:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Formal Discussion on Wickey Selpub Factor

Those words were inserted as a test on another consenting user's talkpage. If you follow the Yahoo search link you will see the first major indented paragraph where two misspelled words, wickey selpub form the basis of a poorly written self-published article. If someone were to create a self-published article in this manner, similiar results will arise and have in the AfD I have nominated.

  • Theory Vindication

Guess what? The test worked and in less than three days (as of January 4, 2007. Please see: the search for Wickey Selpub Factor on Yahoo. I almost feel like publishing this as it vindicates my theory. Do the search and you will get one hit. My original theory concerned what some people will do to get self-published. It arose because in an AfD I nominated, there was a mispelled word similiar to one in this article Ha-Ash. That mispell is "epynomus" and you can see my thoughts on that article's talkpage. I may ask for a helpme to see how to bubble this up to the admin types. Ronbo76 16:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Epynomus

To make it easier on the reader, when Ha-Ash, a Mexican singing duo, was researched, the word epynomus appeared in the article. This is a mispelling that occured because the article creator lifted the translation from another website. The translating website created a word that has no meaning or history. When that word was originally Yahoo searched, the hits were Wikipedia, answers.com and reference.com (in that exact order). Answers.com and reference.com appear to cache articles from Wikipedia. If you follow reference.com's link, epynomus websearch, that site offers the reader the option to "Cite This Source." How much more easy could that website make it for someone to self-publish on Wikipedia and then cite wherever desired?

  • So what does all this mean?

In the words of Ronbo76 from my talk page, found here.

If you have read my userpage, some of the self-publishing vandals have put up pages that are either vanity bios, business ads or something in between. The way a smart young user could use my theory is to create an article that meets the basic wiki standards. Then over the years add stuff with newpaper article titles that really exist (even better if your last name is in it as you could claim that was a typo) and build a bio that becomes searchable. The other night a user Curtis Newart that flashed onscreen when I did a Recent Changes check like you mentioned to caught my attention. I caught an error that he made in a change displayed onscreen. Turns out this guy is the owner of the record company Immaculate Records. Part of what caught my attention on his direct named page is that he claims that he received support from "Oprah Winfrey, Elizabeth Taylor, Bob Hope, RuPaul, Carol Burnett, (and) Ned Beatty"(sic). After I AfD'ed both articles, he put a bunch of Canadian newspaper article citations that are non-searchable. He might be a legit one-hit wonder but it appears to me and others that he is trying to build a searchable business and market for his CD.

On his talk page, found here, I asked how this would be used in a real life situation.

Like, say if I had a book called "ZYZZYSDDS and Friends". How would I use your theory to..... do what, exactly?


To which he replied:

In your example, the book ("ZYZZYSDDS and Friends") now becomes searchable in three days because it is on my talkpage. It amazed me that answer.com and reference.com cache Wikipedia's talkpages. The prime reason in the cases I provided are because of the typos. ZYZZYSDDS should become a double searchable because now it is on your page. If you were to cleanup the title and present a good wiki page, in a couple of years you could cite yourself as printed author.

I do not know if this theory has already been presented, as I am only here presenting it on behalf of Ronbo76. Questions and comments are appreciated. Written by S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 .

Note: Ronbo76 is somewhat new to Wikipedia, so please keep WP:BITE in mind with dealing with him. Thanks! S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 21:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help in posting my theory this forum. I am working on the Fast Eddy Wheelie Theory. To other Wikipedians, I bid hello. If you post Wickey Selpub Factor in the Edit Summary, I will see your comments and respond if necessary (the big black dog likes to obey and sit up as an editor)! Ronbo76 21:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping search engines out of user space?

Note: this is related, I think, to the section immediately above, but originated from some other edits and work I've been doing here.

Has there been any previous discussion about the wiki software adding "No robots" to the HTML code of all userspace pages? I know that the wiki software adds "No follow" tags to all external links on talk pages and userspace pages, which helps fight spam, but user pages are still getting indexed on google and other search engines, and the results can actually show up fairly high. So before I float a proposal about removing user pages from search engines (I know there are disadvantages as well as advantages), I thought I'd check here first. Any pointers? John Broughton | Talk 16:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiQuestions

Dear guys,

What would you think of if, at the end of each article, there was a spot for questions or requests for additional knowledge that could then be subsequently added to the article. For example, let's say an article is about a naval battle, and states several important figures. However, there's some information omitted. So a curious party submits a question to the tail end of the article, say, "How long did Captain Such and Such serve in Her Majesty's Royal Navy?". At this point, anyone who knows the answer to it can submit an answer in that section.

Tell me what you think. This would be great for pretty much every article, in my opinion, as long as it's used with respect.

--B —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.168.56.160 (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Without saying yes or no, I wonder if this purpose might also be accomplished through better advertising and accessibility of talk pages, the reference desk, and Wikipedia:Requests for expansion. Melchoir 04:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every casual Wikipedia user I meet seems unaware of talk pages. I've learned more from some talk pages than I have from their articles. Perhaps every page should have a link on the bottom of the article that says:
To read the discussions by the editors of this article, see the talk page or click on the discussion tab on the top.
-- Samuel Wantman 07:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a question or suggestion regarding the content of this article, please post it at [[Talk:{{{PageName}}}]].
It would also be nice if talk pages had, at the top, a "click here" sort-of-banner (I have one on my user talk page, as do many other editors) that is a mini-wizard for creating a new section. If nothing else, since there are way too many editors who think that new sections go at the top to talk pages, or insert their posting into an old section, such a "banner" would improve how talk pages get laid out. John Broughton | Talk 16:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a good idea, adding a direct mention of the talk page into the footer, perhaps? Something like "For further questions or to suggest improvements, see [talk page]" Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...or to suggest improvements, see [talk page]". This makes it sound like the user should seek approval on the talk page before editing. Any wording would need to be very exact. LukeSurl 00:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

I am missing a possibility to add original research on Wikipedia. I am mainly working on non-western cultures, especially african cultures. Some interesting topics are severely under-researched (e.g. african dance), so there is little scientific literature about them. The bias seen on wikipedia also exists in science and research (funding) itself. There is a lot of knowledge about Africa and other topics that just disappears unrecorded. My idea about this is the following: besides the article, the history and the discussion (and maybe a peer reviewd stabilized version) each article should have a section for original research. I observe that many people acutally do put original research on the pages that is not covered by the references (if there are any). I think this is necessary and there should be a place for it. Wikipedia would then become a two- or three stage "knowledge distillery" in which material can enter as original research or unreferenced material and be moved up when references are found or be moved down if doubtful, while now, such material, although it might contain important information, is sometimes deleted or it ends up in discussion pages which are actually not intended for this purpose. For a severely under-researched and under-documented topic like Africa this could be of great advantage. The good stuff could be kept even if references are missing and only the trash would be deleted. Users could better distinguish between peer reviewd and original material because editors could better separate it, researches could identify underresearched topics because editors would have a place to put things they happen to know. What do you think? Nannus 18:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a lot of cases that would just encourage a junkyard of poor-quality soapboxing; in the few cases where peer-review OR might be scholarly and verifiable, why can't you just use the talk page? —Dgiest c 18:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is so (and I am not convinced it is), that poor-quality soapboxing is now happening in the main articles (or on the talk pages). Talk pages are for discussions about the articles, not for unreferenced parts of them. Nannus 20:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're producing research, why not write up a paper or a book and publish that, then cite it here? We have no problem with citing your own work, it just has to have been previously published in a reliable fashion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an amateur, I don't have access to the journals. An example of what I mean: I have learned from somebody from the Kom people of Cameroon that they have a dance called Samba, not the same as the Brazilian Samba (a different rythm with a different music) but interestingly sharing some features with it (e.g. the use of a friction drum (also called Samba in the Kom language)). A search of the internet about this has yielded absolutely nothing. A search in the libraries available to me has yielded nothing. It looks as if no musicologist has ever researched this. There are many kinds of music, (dance, language etc.) that are totaly unresearched and this is one of them. There are not enough funds to do all that research. Languages and cultures disappear before anybody has worked on them. But I am a computer programmer working in Germany. Which scientific journal is goining to publish an article I provide. If I could publish this bit of information in an original reserach section in wikipedia, a musicologist could become interested and research it or he could provide a reference from some specialist publication I could not find. Nannus 20:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, although what you want to do is outside the scope of wikipedia (we're here to collect existing knowledge, not produce new knowledge), Wikiversity is currently developing procedures for original research right now. You might want to get involved there and set up a system to allow you to publish your information. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy location proposal

I copied this proposal over from WP:BUFFY because nobody seems to be around to go one way or the other on this. I put it there because I don't know anything about Buffy stuff, and I wanted to give people who know the material the right to voice their opinions on the subject. As the proposal says, after debate across the four below articles this is what I propose:

The following below 4 articles have been nominated for deletion. As these articles stand now they are un-referenced (making verifiability difficult) and full of what is arguably original research. After a discussion on the varied AFD pages, we are now talking about making a single page where they may better be looked after under one roof. This would enable important locations in the Buffy world to be added and cited properly.

The proposal includes the above text, and the following:

We hereby propose redirecting the old below articles to a new single central Buffy location article, and starting anew. The new article, with a title suggested by NeilEvans of Locations in the Buffyverse, would be a new article detailing the central locations in the Buffyverse. It is our hope that by consolidating the important locations of the Buffy world we can start anew with references and proper citations. We would then redirect the articles old individual names to the new article dealing with Buffy locations.

This is a compromise proposal and a work in progress at that. It was brought here for the people who know the subject matter. Hopefully we can shape a proposal and then move forward with a consensus. I would ask for Support, Oppose, or Comment. KnightLago 21:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added notes to each article's discussion page about this proposal. KnightLago 21:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the articles such as Hellmouth, or Sunnydale are an integral part of the plot, and not something that could be covered in a central article I would be ok with keeping them as stand alone articles. If, and only if, they can be re-written with sourced and cited material. If we want to go with this proposal I will withdraw my AFD for Hellmouth and add the appropriate unreferenced and cleanup tags and see how the article develops from there. KnightLago 22:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The locations with their own articles are very important in these series (with the exception of the newly-made "The White Room"-article which featured in a dozen or so episodes and probably had a combined screen-time of around 30 minutes). The rest of the location articles feature in dozens and dozens of episodes, accumulating literally hours and hours of screen-time that was/is seen by millions of viewers. However I would agree with KnightLago that these locations need work. I think that we will see improved referencing. I agree with withdrawing all AfDs and instead tagging them and letting editors improve these articles in the coming weeks. WikiProject:Buffy is gradually helping to improve citing across the appropiate articles, and in the coming months I expect to see Buffy articles be raised to a standard much higher than the average article. It's easy to sneer at popular culture, but the fictional narratives that millions share say a lot about us. A group page maybe useful for keeping standards and formats consistent, but that does not mean that all the locations need to be merged there if they already have plenty of content. - Buffyverse 05:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&oldid=98810881"