Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

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.

« Archives, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212

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.

The first entry of what? FirefoxMan 16:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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. —Dgies^t c 05:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

See #Transclusion of templates for why we can't. —Quiddity 09:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

{{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)

Don't forget the 5 tildes that produce the timestamp only. It could be {{User:Username}}~~~~~. NikoSilver 12:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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. --antilived^{T | C | G} 20:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

Nice signature. -- ReyBrujo 01:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. That's to the point where I'd edit his sig down myself if he posted it on my page. --tjstrf talk 12:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Lucky for you then I've changed my signature now so its far shorter :) RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a 250 chars limit would filter out most monstrosities, leaving the 'grey' area sigs for case-by-case evaluation. I also liked proposal above for transcluded userspace sigs that can be edited by the user themselves and admins only. NikoSilver 12:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer just name and talk link per Zoe. A max one line sig would be good, but no more than two. Tyrenius 16:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My sig's about 180 characters in the preference box (update: I actually counted, it's 193), but shorter on the edit screen (because I type {{subst:CURRENTMINUTE}}, etc, to mess around with the date/time string). Mine's pretty short, and so I'd support the limit being something like 250 characters (or possibly 200, but I prefer 250 (three lines)). --ais523 16:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Your sig is the most perceptive sig I've ever seen, which is one more reason why our brain activity should not be limited by irrational WP:CREEP-like authoritative extreme measures. I stand by my 250 chars proposal, as the optimum solution that filters out most monstrosities, while it allows people to not feel like members of the Outer Party (and therefore inspires them to produce more)! NikoSilver 23:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Exact same discussion being held at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Signature length.

I proposed that templated sigs at {{User:Username/sig}} be allowed, but treated specially to avoid the server load problems, but at least one developer doesn't like this idea. — Omegatron 15:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But to get to an agreement we need to decide what will be used as criteria for the limit. Here are some diferent options:

1. bytes (ex: the limit would be xx bytes)
2. lines taken up in a screen of a chosen size (ex: x lines in a screen of xx by xx pixels)
3. content (ex: maximum x links and x different colours)
4. a combo of 2 or 3 of these options

Once we have chosen one (two, or three) criteria, we will be able to choose the actual limits. Chris5897 (T@£k) 13:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

1 and 2 technically amount to the same, and are what the bug request is currently aimed at. 150-250bytes has been suggested by many, and will likely be re-raised once it becomes a technical option/implemented.

3 is more easily addressed by the guideline WP:SIG, unless something specific like "all html" is disabled technically, in addition to the byte limit. I'd like that, but it seems unlikely to gain consensus. --Quiddity 08:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

See a Gallery of the most extreme signatures. Making it almost competitive to have the most eye-catching (and hence annoying) sigs possible. --Quiddity 18:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree to just about all caps on signatures. The arguments have been presented. I prefer stricter caps, but also prefer any cap to no cap. -Pgan002 01:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The limit has to be in terms of the number of characters, not number of lines, because both the display and the edit area can vary in width. -Pgan002 01:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we absolutely should limit the length of signature to no more than about 200 chars. I'd really like to see background colors eliminated also as these are quite garish and distracting. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What many people find difficult to read are characters of dark backgrounds. They should really be disallowed simply because of usability considerations. WP should start paying more consideration to such factors.DGG 03:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Medical Disclaimer Discussion

Copied from WP:RT Proposed Medical Disclaimer Template

I think that articles on medical conditions and treatments should bear a disclaimer. Particularly if it is deemed that people might use the information provided in lieu of seeking proper medical care. I made a template in my user space that I think addresses this concern: Jerry lavoie 01:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

{{User:JerryLavoie/Templates/med}}

Which looks like:

File:Bitag medical icon.gif

Medical Disclaimer

Wikipedia (including its related projects and mirrors) is Not Intended to Give Medical Advice. The contents of articles on medical conditions, treatments and devices, (including text, graphics, and other material) are for informational purposes only, and may not have been reviewed by competent Health Care Professionals. This article is not intended as a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of a qualified healthcare provider with any questions you may have regarding any medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of Content found on Wikipedia. If you have a medical emergency, call your physician or Emergency Response System (eg. 911) immediately. Wikipedia does not recommend or endorse any specific third-party tests, physicians, products, procedures, opinions, or other information found in its articles. Reliance on any information provided by Wikipedia, is solely at your own risk.

The replies I got at templates proposals were:

This is a bad idea. See WP:NDT, but in essence, the problem is that we already have a Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer, and tagging specific articles will cause problems with articles that are not tagged. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the rationale in WP:NDT for medical disclaimers is a bit weaker, but still applies. If out of "common sense" or whatever you think we should start adding medical disclaimers, gather some support at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and see if you can convince people. —Dgies^t c 07:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to generate a huge list of articles here, because I do not think that people would appreciate it. Suffice it to say that if you wikisearch for "treatment" "home remedy" "cure" "diet" "prevention" "drug" "non-prescription" etc, you will find numerous wikipedia articles that do tell people to do something at home without their doctor's consent to help with a medical condition. Some even suggest that people can diagnose themselves using other wikipedia article content.

IMHO This is dangerous, irresponsible, and threatens the project from a legal standpoint. Our General Disclaimers found through clicking on the single word disclaimers at the bottom of each article is in no way adequate enough to reasonably preclude people using our content in a manner that could cause them great harm.

Here is a snippet from Herbalism which I arrived at by entering Herbal remedy:

Mixing Herbs. To counteract the various complications and side-effects of an ailment, or to produce a more rounded taste, a number of herbs may be mixed, and formulas are the preferred method of giving herbs by professional herbalists. A well-known mixture used against a cold includes eucalyptus leaf, mint leaf (which contains Menthol) and juniper berry. Another is the age-old favourite "dandelion and burdock", from which the popular fizzy drink was derived.

Fresh or Dried? Many flower and leaf herbs lose volatile compounds within a few hours, as the juices and oils evaporate, the scent leaks away, and the chemicals change their form. Drying concentrates other compounds as water is removed. Most herbal traditions use dried material and the reported effects for each herb tend to be based upon dried herbs unless otherwise specified.

If you are using fresh herbs, you will need more of them, and the tea will have a somewhat different effect. Finely chop the leaf immediately before using it.

Does this article not tell people to treat themselves a certain way after self-diagnosis?

I think that my Medical Disclaimer template proposal should be considered seriously, and the fact that WP:NDT exists should not be used as the sole basis for the discussion. Jerry lavoie 14:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with you, per WP:NDT. The example you bring is no different than any article that may be improperly sourced or not neutral. If an article is properly sourced and neutral, i.e. follows WP:V and WP:NPOV, plus perhaps a modicum of notability (per WP:NN), we would cover all bases. The omnibus clause at Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer is already there, and should cover us, the same as no legal advice, no financial advice, no personal relations advice, etc. If we present things properly, no problem exists by definition, IMO. Crum375 14:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that somebody considers this necessary is a sad statement on the litigious nature of our society. I propose that we include a template instead

General Disclaimer

If you are not competent to act within the bounds of common sense, and are likely to perform any action which a disclaimer template might be required to prevent, then you should leave this site.

perfectblue 14:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I would Support this (perfectblue's) disclaimer. Caknuck 07:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that much of an issue to have a small template at the top of some pages, one that wouldn't mar the reader's experience, but would be more direct than the tiny "disclaimer" at the bottom of the page that leads to the medical disclaimer only after passing through the general disclaimer. Something like this, perhaps:

This page contains information of a medical nature: see our medical disclaimer.

That said, while I hate to suggest that this discussion be moved again, if you want to change the policy at WP:NDT, the place to discuss that is really Wikipedia talk:No disclaimer templates. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 15:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I will consider moving this discussion, but for now I feel it is getting good feedback here, so I'd like to leave it here for the moment. I will not comment on the sardonic reply from Perfectblue97. I agree that the template I proposed is perhaps too obtrusive, and I like the idea of a shortened version as sugested by John Broughton. Jerry lavoie 16:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and for the other comment that I did not mention: As far as citing the existence of existing policies in a discussion about the merits of said policies and proposed changes thereto; I find that a little too illogical to really participate. (I know that's a split infinitive.) To me, it's like saying "There should be a law against speeding, because under the law there is a speed limit". I do not understand this approach. Jerry lavoie 16:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be giving advice of any kind, let alone medical advce. We're WP:NOT a howto (treat yourself). Don't tag it with a disclaimer, remove it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Although that sounds nice, what do you do in this situation: medical condition X has symptoms Y, and a recommended treatment Z. All sources (let's say) unanimously agree on X, Y and Z. Many people could construe this unanimity as 'advice' of using treatment Z if you have symptoms Y for condition X. Do you suggest removing the article? under what grounds? Crum375 22:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say use attribution to make it clear where the treatment recommendation comes from. Medical articles need to be especially well-cited. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, we can attribute it from here till next year[1][2][3]...[1000], but you still end up with what could be seen as advice by some, especially if there is apparent consensus among the sources. Hence the main point raised is valid; the solution IMO is as I noted above to rely on the overall WP disclaimers, which as you noted would also apply to anything else that could be construed as advice in any topic. Crum375 22:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

My definition of advice, which I believe is his, is something which says "Do X", or any conjugation thereof. Wikipedia should not be saying "do X", although we can still say "People Y and Z say to do X". -Amark moo! 02:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the WP wording would be: "Medical condition A occurs when the body's ability to produce B is diminished[1]. Common symptoms are C and D[2]. The prefered treatment is E[3][4]." or some such. We would not normally use the words: "people do A for B". We try to make it sound encyclopedic when there is consensus we just say what it is and cite the sources. Crum375 03:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this discussion is going great. Lots of valid points out there. Let's see if we can get some other people involved (not to stack the vote either way, but to seek consensus from a broader group). I'd be surprised if this was the first time this has come up. Anyone know of any archived discussions we can review? Here are some questions for use to think about:

• What do we do to existing articles that seem to give advice or seem to 'promote' a particular product, device, therapy, or provider?
• How do we keep such content from getting back in?
• Should there be a category for articles with this potential so someone could easily browse them periodically?
• Of course the obvious: To have or not to have a disclaimer template.
• Is anyone interested in forming a wikipedia project to standardize and patrol articles for no medical advise
• Shoule we have a specific policy that addresses this? eg. WP:NMA
• Where do we go from here? Do we take the discussion somewhere else with a goal in mind?

Thanks, Jerry lavoie 03:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that NMA would follow from the basic WP tenets. I personally have not seen any example that shows that any change or addition is needed - but I am open minded. Crum375 04:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

While I have no firm opinion either way about this topic, if it is decided that it is necessary the disclaimer should be much smaller then the one presented at the beginning of this discussion. Maybe two sentences. --The Way 07:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a medically-qualified person, I feel that any article which gives medical advice should ideally, in theory, carry a disclaimer template of some kind. The debate on the exact form of the template pales into insignificance, it seems to me, in the face of the question as to who will apply templates and who will police articles to ensure their presence. But leaving that aside for the moment, and speaking in medico-legal terms, my understanding is that in the event of legal action being taken on the basis of an article contained in Wikipedia, the liability rests with the author and not with the encyclopedia. Am I wrong?--Anthony.bradbury 16:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Does EB carry a separate disclaimer template on each entry that relates to medicine? How about entries for legal issues? investment related? Flying? Diving? Skiing? Crum375 17:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't add the warning in the WikiProject box? Oh, I remember when articles about hurricanes had a big disclaimer there. -- ReyBrujo 17:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the difference between taking medical advice and taking investment advice is that if the medical advice is wrong you might die. But skiing too, I guess. And diving. My point remains - if an article proffers advice the legal liability rests with the author, not with the encyclopedia. Possibly more people might turn to Wiki for medical advice than would for legal or investment advice, but I have no data.--Anthony.bradbury 17:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. "medico-legal terms"? What does that mean? Are you initiating an attorney-client/physician-patient relationship based on your post? If so with whom, everyone who reads it? Where's your disclaimer? Are you admitting malpractice by asking whether you are correct (didn't you research the matter yourself)? Are you authorized to practice both medicine and law in my jurisdiction? Are you going to compensate me if I detrimentally rely on your advice? (etc. etc. etc.) ...

Hopefully you see the point here. This is a slippery slope, you can't put infinite disclaimers on every molecule of thought that someone may unreasonably misinterpret. Besides, the matter is already addressed by the link that appears at the bottom of every WP article. dr.ef.tymac 17:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you are starting to see the picture: any encyclopedia is going to include a lot of information, some of which some people will construe as 'advice', no matter what you say. And risks exist in many areas: even bad investments can lead to suicides, and of course there are lots of risks out there in life in almost every area. I think it's clear that if we were to add a warning template for one topic (e.g. medicine), we would be remiss if we avoid it on other risk-related topics. And 'risk-related' would cover a large proportion of our articles. Again, use EB as a reference (no pun intended), they've been around for a while. Crum375 17:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"the legal liability rests with the author, not with the encyclopedia" ... If you are offering this as legal advice, I hope you have your malpractice insurance paid up. If you are not, then you might want to check the validity of your statement; especially since the very definition of author is not a trivial question that laypersons can be expected to resolve while munching on a bagel at the internet cafe. dr.ef.tymac 17:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Since medical articles are prohibited from containing WP:OR, wouldn't it be the person who gave the advice in the first place (eg the WP:V sources from which any medical page is constructed) who are liable?

perfectblue 17:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

As I do not give medical advice in Wikipedia, my malpractice insurance is not an issue. Though it is paid up, and I thank you for your concern! My statement is based on legal advice received, but I am not legally qualified and do not really wish to get into an argument on this point. User:Perfectblue97 may be right, but I suspect that in his scenario it might depend on whether attribution was quoted.--Anthony.bradbury 18:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point. You and I both recognize that your post was not intended as professional advice. Sure, perhaps *someone* might have, in which case all those questions would have been relevant, and a disclaimer would have been necessary. Fortunately, for the astoundingly credulous people out there, the disclaimer is already there. dr.ef.tymac 18:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• WP:NDT. >Radiant< 15:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What about putting the disclaimer on the article talk pages where medical advice seems to be given? It would be nice if this was a simple template shortcut format ie: WP:NMA. The template could have the "this template is misplaced" feature of other talkpage-only templates if it was inadvertantly placed on an article. Jerry lavoie 02:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a simple question to answer: why do we use copyright disclaimers? The same rational to use them for using images/music files online applies to medical advice by non-professionals. The disclaimer is appropriate, and I give my humble approval - as the internet isn't a place to seek medical treatments, but info to discuss with your family MD/DO (as they're the only people qualified to practice medicine, by law and with actual knowledge). I know a lot about medicine, have even taught a MD a thing or too, but I will never claim to be a physician, nor offer any advice without disclaimers (because folks are indeed gulible and I won't play with shotguns in public). Hiding behind some porous law that claims that sites are free from liability, is the same in-your-face attitude that recently got at least 10 people fired from that radio station claiming, "they signed release forms" thinking that was enough protection. A young woman died, and things change quickly when the media exposes it in it's ugly light (have to be pretty crass to wave a disclaimer as the lady was saying her last words to the world). The law is fickle, and changes as quickly as the political winds blow. For those reasons, it's better to be safe than sorry, because "freedom of speech" isn't going to mean much when a company has lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, in members in jail, or it's readers dead.FResearcher 21:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional disclaimer notices are an unnecessary complication and a special case. Wikipedia does not give professional advice in general, and this should be clear. The most I would support is ten-word general message to this effect at the bottom of every article, or a place that is equally non-distracting. -Pgan002 01:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimers are annoying to the extreme. It suggests that I'm better off ignorant, or that such articals are for some kind of entertainment, which is nonsense. I believe wikipedia forbids how-to's and advice, as opposed to information. That's enough. --Insect 20:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Boo to tags in general! There is already a disclaimer on every page, and that's enough!+mwtoews 01:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

'No to tags--In the USA t is illegal to give medical advice with a commercial transaction. Since Wiki is nonprofit, it is not illegal for us to give medical advice. But I would be happy is wikipedia was full of "how tos" :) Puddytang 02:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Salted pages

[moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard]

It's been proposed that we replace all of our "salted" articles (currently tagged with Template:Deletedpage) with redirects to a page in the project namespace containing similar text (thereby removing salted article pages from the random article pool and total article count). I believe that this would be an improvement, but the main disadvantage would be that users would no longer be able to view useful links unique to the individual pages.

Now that cascading protection has been enabled, it's finally possible to protect a nonexistent page (simply by transcluding it onto a page with cascading protection directly applied, thereby causing it to appear as a red link). I propose that we switch to a system in which a series of project pages (perhaps one for each month) is created and used for this purpose.

I've created a demonstration template and added a couple of transclusions to a demonstration page. The syntax is as follows: {{protected title|page title|optional reason}}
For non-articles, the namespace should be omitted from the page title and appended as the conditional "ns" parameter (ns=[namespace]). To omit the talk page link (handy if it's a likely vandalism target and there's no realistic legitimate use for the page name), append the following parameter: talk=no

I've tweaked some MediaWiki code to display a {{deletedpage}}-style notice (along with advice to check for additional information on the page to which cascading protection has been directly applied) when a non-sysop attempts to edit (or follows a red link to) a nonexistent page with cascading protection applied. If a non-sysop merely attempts to view such a page, he/she sees the standard "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name..." message (which could be modified to reference instances in which "view source" is displayed instead of "edit this page"). Clicking on "view source" displays the aforementioned {{deletedpage}}-style notice and accompanying link/advice.

A bot could be used to convert all of the salted pages to this format (automatically sorting the titles chronologically—likely based on the pre-existing list—and inserting the most recent edit summary as the reason).

Opinions? —David Levy 06:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a very intelligent solution--and certainly we've all agreed for some time that the holy grail would be some way to protect articles in a genuinely deleted state. The only problem I can see is that it will have the same effect if a non-existent page is (for whatever reason) transcluded on to some other page with cascading protection, but perhaps that doesn't matter (it seems like it would be rare). It would also require admins to change their behavior in a more drastic way, which is also always a challenge. :) Chick Bowen 06:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've given this some thought, and I've been unable to come up with another situation in which we'd want to transclude a nonexistent page on a page with cascading protection enabled. —David Levy 17:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Typo on mainpage links? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah--it would be from a screwup of some sort. If a template were deleted and the admin forgot to check whatlinkshere, it might appear to another editor that it had been protected against creation. As I say, though, not a big deal. Chick Bowen 18:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I misunderstood your comment to mean that we might actually want to do this for some reason. —David Levy 18:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to make the "This page has been deleted and protected to prevent re-creation" message not show if the cascading protection is only semi-protection? That would make eliminate the likeliest circumstances. Chick Bowen 18:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised to learn that cascading semi-protection is possible, as this enables anyone with a non-new account to semi-protect pages. That's a far worse problem than the display of that message (which would require developer intervention to change) and I don't believe that cascading semi-protection should ever be applied for any reason. In my opinion, it should be formally prohibited via the protection policy. —David Levy 18:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for noting this. In fact, when semi-protection cascades it becomes full, so the problem is even worse. I've filed bugzilla:8796 about it. Superm401 - Talk 20:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, I didn't realize that! I'm going to go ahead and add an explicit prohibition to the protection policy. —David Levy 22:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a really good idea. —Centrx→talk • 17:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not really against it. So, instead of adding the {{deletedpage}} or {{spambot}} templates to the pages, we would include the page in a list. Gives us better control than just a category for sure. -- ReyBrujo 17:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a great idea, but when someone attempts to edit a non-existing, cascading-protected page, I think as well as the message you added, there should also be an empty, disabled text box on there, to make it clear that they are on the edit tab, there is no text on the page and to keep with convention, e.g. with non-existent MediaWiki: pages. Also, the 'edit this page' tab should be replaced with 'view source'. Other than that, yes, this is a great idea. Tra (Talk) 19:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a "view source" tab instead of an "edit this page" tab. I don't believe that a disabled text box would be of any benefit, and I also see no means of adding one. (We're working within the confines of MediaWiki:Cascadeprotected.) —David Levy 19:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If you go to this page (from one of your examples), the title of the page says 'View source' but the tab at the top says 'edit this page'. However, yes, I can see now, you didn't edit any code, you just customised MediaWiki:Cascadeprotected so unless it allows raw HTML, I agree a text box wouldn't be possible. Tra (Talk) 22:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'd only viewed the page while logged out (which results in a "view source" tab). —David Levy 22:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, wow. This is brilliant. -- Steel 19:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I really like this idea. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If this is what I think it is, Wikinews has been doing it for ages with noxiously recreated pages, see n:Wikinews:Protected deletions. 68.39.174.238 22:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

They're using protected redirects to a project page. (The pages aren't actually in a deleted state.) As noted above, this is something that we've considered doing. —David Levy 01:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I dislike that idea. It decouples the protection from the page, which means that, for instance, the protection will not be recorded in the page's history or logs. It would be a better solution to change the code to allow nonexistent pages to be protected (if it displays a special message in that case, we could simply change it to be identical to the current {{deletedpage}} template). --cesarb 21:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The page must be re-deleted before it can be protected. If the sysop includes a comment along the lines of "salting page," why would this (combined with a clear recording in the history of a specific project page) be insufficient?

Yes, a function created specifically for this purpose would be preferable, but that isn't available (and it isn't as though we haven't asked the developers to add it). Until it is, we have to choose one of the available methods. —David Levy 22:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That would, assuming the admins specifically say so when deleting (which I doubt; the delete reason is to write the reason for deleting, not what you are going to do next), only record when the page is protected, but not when it's unprotected.

I know it might not be easy to create a function like I described (in particular, it's quite probable that either the database layout would have to be changed or a "phantom" row would have to be used... which would be quite similar to what's currently done with {{deletedpage}}). But it's the right way to fix the real problem, which is that we have a page at the article namespace which should not be counted as an article (the same happens with things like the Main Page and redirects; in fact, something similar to what is done with redirects could be a reasonably elegant solution). --cesarb 23:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

1. The designated project page would contain a record of both the protection and the unprotection.

2. Again, the fact that it it may be possible to implement a better solution in the future doesn't change the fact that we need to implement something now. We currently have no perfect option, but I believe that the use of unorthodox bookkeeping is an exceedingly minor issue compared to the problems inherent in the available alternatives. —David Levy 23:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Pending the implementation of a feature to protect nonexistent pages, using cascading protection to create protected redlinks seems like a good idea to me. As for the 'this page has been deleted, and protected to prevent recreation' message, it would be possible to prevent confusion in any other cascaded-redlink case by changing it to something like 'this page has been protected against creation' (which is much the same thing, but slightly more general). --ais523 15:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The one time I landed on a delete-protected page via Special:Random is enough to make me love this proposal, barring future improvements to directly protect non-existent pages. Flyingtoaster1337 02:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent excellent idea. Take a look at Reality. (while logged out if you are an admin) to see this in action. Prodego ^talk 02:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And the final step would be a bot run with admin rights that deletes {{deletedarticle}} and adds the article name transcluded to Wikipedia:Protected titles. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I counted about 1200 transclusions. So next step is to start another bot RfA, say "no, it's not open source" and wait if Werdna comes up with a MediaWiki solution :-) (I'm just kidding, please forgive me). Other options would be to employ a horde of admins with AWB or just ignore the current transclusions and use the new system for new salted pages only. --Ligulem 16:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

We should simply run the bot under the owner's sysop account. —David Levy 16:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

In that case one such bot comes to mind. Flyingtoaster1337 17:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor quibble... the deleted title message currently says, "Specific information may be found by... contacting the administrator who protected the page." Since the logs for the page itself may not list any protections, I suggest that "who protected the page" be changed to "who deleted the page". Flyingtoaster1337 16:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Good catch! Fixed.  :-) —David Levy 16:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought the above would be the last "minor quibble" I had but there's another... I notice you removed the link to Special:Undelete. However, if the page has ever been deleted even once there'll be no easy access to deleted versions. For that reason I think the link is worth retaining. (Perhaps change "view the page history and content" to "view any deleted page history and content" so the sentence is ambiguous on whether the page has been deleted before.) Flyingtoaster1337 17:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed that line because the message isn't visible to sysops (who are presented with such a link in the text that they see). —David Levy 17:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Activity log link is borked for pages with spaces in the titles but thta is a minor quibble :-) Guy (Help!) 17:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor indeed. The parameter that gets put into the link just needs to be {{urlencode}}d. Flyingtoaster1337 18:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this when I created the template (which is why I included a conditional parameter for the page title with underscores in lieu of spaces). I'm working on a better version now. —David Levy 18:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reworked the template accordingly. The underscored title parameter has been eliminated and the optional reason parameter has been shifted to the second position (which is more intuitive). Thank you, Flyingtoaster1337! —David Levy 19:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Go vote for Bugzilla:2919. I left a pointer there to this discussion here and noted David's cascade protection trick. --Ligulem 17:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the planning stages a real delete-protect feature, possibly being smarter, and allowing a "title blacklist" that prevents non-admins from creating a page with titles matching a regex, or moving to illegal titles. I'll probably do this after per-page blocking. — Werdna talk 05:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Werdna, you are a god among men. Thanks. Philwelch 05:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Which should stop those spambots creating Talk:Foo/w/w/wiki/index.php/Asdf/index.php style pages once and for all. Yay! Flyingtoaster1337 09:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Are we ready to make the cascading protection-based deletedpages system official? It probably will make it easier to migrate to Werdna's system once that gets rolled out. Neither system needs any boilerplate text in place at the deleted title. IMO, if we delete the {{deletedpage}}s now there won't be any left when we switch to the blacklist system. Flyingtoaster1337 09:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm putting new ones in there and when I find the salt on a vandal magnet deleted I'm adding that as well. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• They've been doing it on wiktionary, but it there a blacklist page on wikipedia and are page blacklisted permanantly or is there a process to get these page out if their if a legitimate editon is released? BuickCenturyDriver 11:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:DRV is the process to use if you want to have an article at any of the blacklisted titles. Tra (Talk) 15:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Photography contest

I was interested in setting up a contest for the best pictures personally taken by wikipedia members that had been released into the public domain and added to important pages (such as core topics or featured articles) within a period of time (such as 2007). The winner would be selected by a panel of wikipedia individuals (perhaps administrators) that had some expertise in photography. The winner would be awarded a barnstar and given some amount of money (like $100 which I would put up). I was wondering if anybody had done anything like this and what the community thought about it. Remember 12:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice idea, but I don't think you need to offer money: If you see the heraclean efforts that some editors put into getting their articles to FA status, just bragging rights alone should be enough impetus. --Slashme 13:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

True, but I think a nominal money award lets the entrants know that it is a legitimate contest with some heft and not some guy and his friends just handing out barnstars to people. Hopefully, if we get the right reviewers involved it will be considered as prestigious as winning other photo contests. Remember 13:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware of Wikipedia:Featured pictures? --ais523 13:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I think featured pictures is a wonderful policy. But featured pictures doesn't encourage people to contribute to core articles, doesn't rank the pictures in order in terms of the best picture for a certain time period and doesn't actually have to be taken by the person who submits it. That's why I proposed this contest. Remember 13:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition, prizes seem to encourage better participation and more innovation. See NY Times article on prizes to reward innovation Remember 14:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not just make a post on the Bounty board or Reward board? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I could do that. But the idea is to set up a repeating award, not a one-time payment in return for a specific task. Remember 14:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the incentive of ones work becoming a "featured photo" is enough. But I think some people upload and nominate their own good photos which don't contribute much to article. Nice photo, but I didn't learn anything. --Indolences 17:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

A similar competition is running on Commons at the moment. Have a look at Commons:Picture of the Year 2006 --MichaelMaggs 22:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Permit personal attacks...

...Against the subjects of articles, so long as said attacks:

• Are clearly made by specific users
• Are opinion, not slander
• Are made in user or article talk space.
• Are not intended as sly ways of attacking other wikipedians.

Your thoughts, ladies and gentlemen? Dave 21:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Why should we be a platform for hate? We're not a soapbox for positive or negative opinions. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA seems to only refer to personal attacks against other Wikipedophiles. Am I missing something or is there policy against badmouthing (expressing negative opinions about) the subjects of the articles on user or talk pages? dreddnott 22:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that the above is merely an attempt to create faux Greek for "people who like Wikipedia" gone horribly wrong, but you may want to pay attention to possible alternate readings in the future. Kirill Lokshin 23:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP, WP:CIVIL, and just general consensus. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Are we talking about information criticizing, say, Hitler, or a living person who is controversial? I'm not really sure what you mean here, but it doesn't sound good. I've seen plenty of negative comments about George W. Bush on userpages (hell, we even have a userbox about it), but if you launched a string of complaints on Talk:George W. Bush, it would not be considered good form. GhostPirate 23:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have confused Wikipedia for a discussion forum. --Golbez 04:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines make it clear that talk pages are to be used only to discuss improving an article. We have enough problems accomplishing that with such a policy in place. Why in the world would we want to fill up talk pages with comments by anyone with a strong opinion about a subject, pro or con? We're here to write an encyclopedia, not conduct opinion polls or provide a soapbox (see WP:NOT). -- John Broughton (☎☎) 05:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not, of course, talking about giving ones opinion for the sake of giving an opinion. I'm simply talking about allowing normal speech patterns on Wikipedia talk pages. E.G. "Althogh I think that X is a horrible person, I have removed XYZ section from the article as it is not properly sourced". Dave 13:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Same reason we don't use profanity or slang in our article prose: it's unnecessary, distracting, and detrimental. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Weird - so this proposed change would allow, what - short attacks against someone, but not long ones? (Try writing that into a policy.) More importantly, a lot of figures are controversial, and a lot of editors are more than happy to attack someone expressing an opinion about a subject with which they disagree. I can just see admins trying to break up a fight by telling editors that one of them is allowed to say that X is a horrible person, but the others aren't allowed to defend X? In fact, the example you gave is a perfect one to illustrate the folly of this suggestion - remove the first nine words (the attack), and the sentence is improved. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 18:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Libel: It is Wikipedia policy to delete libellous material when it has been identified. -- ReyBrujo 18:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I cannot agree at all with any such abuse on Wikipeida. See my proposal of this date below. Fergananim 11:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

An idea?

What would other Wikipedians think of someone who started a business selling t-shirts? On the front of the t-shirts would be various of Wikipedia's featured images, along with the caption that appeared with them when they appeared on the Main Page. There would also be some with WikiWorld comics on the front. There would also be a line on the front of all of them that said, "Image courtesy of Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. www.wikipedia.org". On the back, in its entierty (yes I know it's a long document, but it would be in small font) would be the Text of the GNU Free Documentation License.

Perfectly legal under the GFDL, yes; but would this upset members of the community? What if, oh, say 10-20% of any profit were kicked back in the form of a donation to Wikimedia Foundation? Moreover, if this profit-seeking venture wouldn't upset you... would you want to buy such a t-shirt? Do you think such t-shirts would sell? Or would our hypothetical entrepenur be eating his or her losses? Just an idea I've come up with and thought I'd kick around. Anonymously. 70.239.89.111 01:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, if you used PD or CC images, you wouldn't need the GFDL. And, putting these images on T-shirts, posters, or anywhere else that they're being spread around and taking knowledge with them is within the mission of wikipedia. You can profit off them as much as you want; spreading the knowledge, even for profit, is the whole point of using licenses that allow commercial use. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I, personally, would love such a venture. We already have something at CafePress that sells Wikimedia-related items, and you may wish to see if they're interested. Donating back a percentage of the profits would be great! (Note that even if the image is PD or CC, I believe that the caption used for the picture of the day would still have to be GFDL. I might be wrong on this, though. It would be best to consult Brad Patrick, the Foundation's general counsel, or a private legal professional to make sure you have all of your bases covered.) Keep us updated and let us know if this becomes reality. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You could print the license on a peice of paper and ship it with the T-shirt. Im sure that would meet the requirements. You could staple it to the tag just to make it one product just to be on the safe side. The UPC has a smaller version for things like gum. Why not allow a short reference to the license for small items. --Gbleem 02:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia store at http://www.cafepress.com/wikipedia is great. I wonder how management (Wikimedia foundation) feels about commercialization. I suppose there is a whole debate on whether going mainstream is a good idea. Too much growth all at once can be overwhelming. Growth inevitably requires change and that takes time. Maybe the policy is to let growth and mainstreaming happen at it's own pace. Of course, if money becomes an issue, someone will think of this. --Insect 21:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

unwatch

How about adding a button on the watchlist like diff and hist that would unwatch a page? Would save the step of going to the page to click it out. Tvoz | talk 09:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This functionality (and more) is in WP:Popups. I'm not sure whether it's necessary to put it in by default: We have lots of links in the watchlist already, and new and unregistered users (i.e. those who don't use popups) typically don't have big watchlists. --Slashme 15:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm neither new nor unregistered, but I don't use pop-ups. And I have hundreds of articles in my watch list - would seem like an easy enough fix and not controversial, but then, when is anything here not controversial. Guess I'll take a look at popups, so thanks Tvoz | talk 00:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There is some code you can add to your monobook.js file to add an "unwatch" link to your watchlist. You can find it here. I installed it a few weeks back, and haven't encountered any problems to date. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for new table class in .css

I propose adding a class to the CSS to support formatting of tables used for layout to give them the same background as the content body. Currently, the default background of a table is while, while for example the monobook.css content background is a light green/blue (color #F8FCFF). This means that when a table is used for layout purposes (as opposed to creating a table for presentation purposes where class="wikitable" might be used), that the "invisible" table changes the background color.

So for example this markup:

 {|
 |-
 |[[Image:Chemistrylogo.svg]]
 |Laying out some images using a table
 |[[Image:Gnome-system.png]]
 |-
 ! colspan=3|looks like this (notice the table background)
 |}

produces this:

	Laying out some images using a table
looks like this (notice the table background)

If the following is added to WikiMedia:Monobook.css:

table.layouttable {
  background: #F8FCFF;
}

then this markup:

 {| class="layouttable"
 |-
 |[[Image:Chemistrylogo.svg]]
 |Laying out some images using a table
 |[[Image:Gnome-system.png]]
 |-
 ! colspan=3|looks like this (notice the table background)
 |}

produces this:

	Laying out some images using a table
looks like this (notice the table background)

I'm not sure what changes might be required to the other CSS skins, or if there is a general way to add this to WikiMedia:Common.css, but I'd obviously like to fix this in a way that works for all skins. —Doug Bell ^talk 11:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm, sounds interesting... why don't we just do "background-color:transparent;", though? Same effect, but it also works for tables in the mainspace, so that people doing copy-and-paste table code won't run into some foreign blue background, and why hardcode when the alternative works just as easily?

Using this code on two backgrounds...

{|style="background-color:transparent;"
|-
|I'm a table.<br />I won't [[WP:BITE|bite]] :)
|[[Image:Gnome-system.png]]
|-
! colspan="2"|look at meeeee!
|}

...yields...

I'm a table. I won't bite :) look at meeeee!

I'm a table. I won't bite :) look at meeeee!

Wikipedia's namespace coloring is mostly useful, though... and the French have taken it much farther than we have; if they needed to implement a similar table thing, they would definitely use transparency. Finally, I'm not positive that a class is needed for this (no specific usage, and easy to copy and paste), but I'm merely pointing out that this option would work also. Gracenotes^T § 03:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The transparent fix works fine. I swear I tried this and was getting white. Sigh, there must have been a typo in it or something. I was thinking that there had to be a better way to do this. Thanks, —Doug Bell ^talk 04:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe all tables, by default, could be made transparent, rather than having an optional class for it. Gracenotes^T § 01:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Project idea

Hello Wikimedia/Wikipedia?

Hello Board of Trustees, my name is Justin Hadcock, recent graduate of State University of Oswego, NY. I received a BA in Public Relations and Communications. I've been evaluating the wiki projects and have had great interest in the whole program. I believe in free knowledge. I believe it is worth more than real currency. However, I'm kind of confused what the parent name of the project is, is it wikipedia? or wikimedia? Also, from experience out of my degree and basic expertise into marketing and mass communications I have been thinking lately about some serious improvements to your wonderful project. Well I mean an extension and adding of another major project(s). The project I had in mind was a geographic information system (GIS). It would be kind of like Google Earth, but it would be free. I think it is unfair that to get geographical knowledge of Earth you have to pay for it. I mean yes you could get information on every country in the world using "list of countries on earth" through wikipedia search, but I mean wouldn't it be cool to actually have a GIS system linked to wikipedia. Maybe call it WikiEarth or WikiGIS. Maybe even buy out google Earth. Maybe through setting up another fund raising program. Buy it out and take the "proprietary" claim off from it. However, Google probably would not sell it and if they did they would try to make a huge profit out of it by overselling for like a billion dollars and I'm sure fund rasing for that much is out of the question. However, google does not have the only claim to satellite images, NASA might be of good assistance in collecting maps of Earth and putting them together to make a GIS system. Also another system I had in mind that could really cool and very interactive with the very much needed users of this project would be a WikiReward and WikiDeduct program. Where people who are wrong or misusing the system can be tracked through IP or user name and penalized by adding or subtracting WikiPoints through the WikiAdd or WikiSubtract. Wiki points are points users get when they are doing good deeds on any of the Wiki projects. You guys said something like 1,000 dedicated wiki users keep the system really up to date with information. Well by offering a reward program more users will get involved. Turning that 1,000 number to 1,000,000 in a very short time. I know that such a interactive program would work because I have a bachelors degree in PR, and I know the psychology of marketing mass media. A rewarding system is a win-win situation. It can be easy to work with. Giving users a sense of comfort. Yahoo Answers! uses a simple reward program also. In their program, the more questions and the more answers you do, the more points a user gets. However, WikiPoints can also be earned through revising faulty articles. So you have a constant loop feedback system. People are encouraged to write new articles and people are encouraged to fix and revise new and old articles. It keeps the system going and advancing. It also significantly improves the articles information accuracy. You could also use instead: Wikidollars and/or WikiCoins instead of a WikiPoint system.

Furthermore, regardless if you used Wikipoints or Wikicurrency, you will or should at least expand on the users account information, you might want to get a more detailed "my account" section for your records and for the users records. People would be tempted to create bot profiles to collect the vast Wikimoney. Because Wikimoney can buy you Wikicredits, which is the credibility program that this whole wiki project runs on, can get the wrong results. A strong account system is needed if you want people to get involved in the new reward system. People could complain syaing there points are missing or gone or whatever. Without credibility nothing on this site is valid. People could get the wrong information and do something stupid. There are tons and tons of ideas you can do to make a more efficient WikiKingdom. You can create Wikigames, Wikicontests, wiki anything that gets people involved. You could also make another huge wiki project called Wikiworks, which is kind of like howstuffworks.com works. It tells all and everything how things are made and work. You could get a huge demographics if you get creative. Just get people (computer programmers/volunteers) involved in a prototype Wikipoint Wikireward system, extend your servers capacity for new projects system.

As in regards to the WikiRanking System. When editors edit articles there user names will be posted at the bottom or top of the article they edited.

For example, it will say edited by "JohnnyBeGood21" at 14:31:36 United States Eastern Time. It will also post his/her amount of Wikipoints, or Wikimoney, or overall WikiCredibility ranking through the number of obtained stars out of total stars. This tells the reader that this article they are reading might be very reliable when this "JohnnyBeGood21" has 9 out of 10 stars attached to his profile. Which will be the truth because "JohnnyBeGood21" has spent much time writing, revising, editing, rating, articles. Its absolutely endless. And you just need some creative computer programmers and open minds. Please don't disregard my information I am giving away free advice which would otherwise be worth at least 55 dollars an hour.

I have tons and tons of more ideas if you want to hear them. Don't even need to pay me. I just want people to be smart. I could be poor for the rest of my life and be happy that people around me are not dumb and they are smart. And if I had anything to do with that then I would love it.

My name is Justin Hadcock. I graduated from the State University of Oswego, NY with a BA in Public Relations. I did a similar marketing program at Fair Haven Beach State Park in NY during my summer internship, administrators at the park asked me to put together a creative PR campaign on campers needs and wants. Through my research I found out that many of the campers just wanted to be included in the parks programming and operations. Basically the campers wanted to be regarded more than a camper they wanted to be felt like they were family. They felt apart of the family through various programs we let them create. The park became one of the best visited parks in the United States. Thanks one again. Please email me or call my business phone 315-806-4580 anytime. Thanks once again. I praise your project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordhaddy19 (talk • contribs)

However, I'm kind of confused what the parent name of the project is, is it wikipedia? or wikimedia? The parent organization of Wikipedia and numerous other collaborative projects is the Wikimedia Foundation.

Maybe even buy out google Earth. The foundation has less than 10 full time people, an annual budget on the order of $2 million, and is funded through donations. I don't see buying out any part of Google (market capitalization of what, $100 billion?) anytime in the near future.

Where people who are wrong or misusing the system can be tracked through IP or user name and penalized by adding or subtracting WikiPoints. Ignoring for the moment the issue of who decides that one user is "right" and one user is "wrong" when there is a content disagreement, we here at Wikipedia have a more straightforward approach to those misusing the system - we explain what they are doing wrong, and if they don't stop, we block them.

In closing, may I suggest that if you are interested in improving Wikipedia, you take some time to actually understand it (editing articles for at least a month would be a good way to start), and that you follow the norms here. For example, you'll probably notice that there are no other users posting long messages with multiple suggestions that mention their name and qualifications in both the first and last paragraphs; rather, each idea gets its own section, and ideas stand or fall on their own, not on their owner's credentials. You might want to read Wikipedia:How to create policy for starters, for example. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 18:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There is of course a free alternative to Google Earth: NASA World Wind.--Pharos 08:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Using WikiPoints as a way to reward participants in answering and questioning any topics and articles on Wikipedia.

Using WikiPoints as a way to reward participants in answering and questioning any topics and articles on Wikipedia. Enough Wikipoints buys you a rank, rank is used within the WikiKingdom. A rank of King can even be achieved. A rank of Queen. A rank of knight. A rank of bishop, etc... Or any type of ranking system. For example, major, secretary, colonel, president, etc... Or whatever.

Lordhaddy19 01:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia... not a game. The only rank that I would accept is: "Editor". Blueboar 02:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You're joking, right, Blueboar? Wikipedia is an MMORPG, duh. /me ducks into a secret area Gracenotes^T § 02:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You want Wikipedia:WikiRPG Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should come out with an annual readable version of itself

I may be reading Wikipedia in its entirety in the future; by this I mean that I go from page to page (in ABC order) reading or skimming, like you'd read a book. But in order to do this, I have to have to keep going back to the pages that list all the pages on Wikipeida in ABC order, so I can click on the next page I want to see.

So I thought 'it'd be cool if Wikipedia had a forward and backward button at the top of each page, so you could go to the pages before and after the one you're reading (ABC order).' But of course, this would only benefit the rare geek like me who wants to look at all the Wikipedia pages in ABC order.

But maybe Wikipedia could come out w/ a CD that contains all of the pages in wikipedia (at the time the CD was made) in a readable format, with the forward and backward buttons I mentioned. It would allow the reader to view pages in ABC order, or in order of how many people have looked at the page, or in order of how long an article is, etc. etc. You could come out with this CD program at the end of this year; then, each year after that (2008, 2009, so on), you could come out w/ another CD of the same type but that contains only the pages made on Wikipedia that given year.

That'd be cool, and you might make some money off of it. I mean, companies put out new encyclopedias each year, so why not put out a new CD each year like I suggested?Andrewdt85

• Check out Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. >Radiant< 10:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• You want Special:Allpages Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• It only exists in German: de:Wikipedia:DVD. Kusma (討論) 17:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Volunteer artists.

I was wondering if there existed a place in Wikipedia, or its sisters, where artistically inclined Wikipedians can volunteer their services to other Wikipedians with regards to public-domain image creation for articles? If not, I think perhaps a WikiProject regarding this might be a good idea? The basic points would be:

• Artists list their specialty, which may be 3D graphics, hand-drawn images, photography, etc...
• They also list their current workload (ie: how much time they can spare).
• Users could either directly request assistance from the individual they feel is best suited or perhaps make an announcement in a dedicated area which can be picked up by a volunteer who wants to participate.

I would also like to see a special "geographical" photography section, where volunteers can list their geographical area and, on request, take photographs of a particular notable monument, structure, or whatever the article calls for.

If this resource exists, it isn't easy to find, so it needs to be promoted more! If it doesn't exist, would I have support in starting it?

-- Qarnos 10:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There's Wikipedia:Graphic Lab. But we also have something that takes the opposite approach, Category:Wikipedia requested images. There pictures are requested and people who can make or take the pictures can sjop the list, if you like. Steve block Talk 12:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You also might want to try Commons, they might have something like that. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested pictures too :) (which I've just suggested should be partially merged with Graphic lab) --Quiddity 04:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Setting up a talk page for a future but not yet created article

I'd been in the habit of using a template Template:Future article talk page, to start a talk page before an article is created. After applying the template to the talk page, I'd use the talk pages to post what source links I had, why I thought an article should exist here, it's notability, etc.. It seemed that wiki policy at the time served created talk pages before the article was created, if the talk page served to help create a notable article.

Either I misunderstood wiki policy of the time, or it has changed since. The template got deleted, etc. The primary reason for the deletion was the possibility of abuse I think. I still don't see that as likely. By applying a template and categorizing future article talk pages it was easy to track them, and delete them if abuse became an issue. I'd been using said template for months, I didn't see a significant amount of abuse happen.

Anyway I'd like to reexamine wikipedia's policy on talk pages that are for articles that do not exist yet, or were deleted, for each of the possible methods of deletion.

I have tried to discuss this area of wiki policy on a lot of different pages, before I got directed here :) The list of those places is here Template_talk:Future_article_talk_page.

Talk pages that exist without article pages seems like a controversial topic here. I'm betting wiki veterans have legitimate reasons for opposing the idea. I'd like to here them, because the idea worked fine for me for a few months :) Mathiastck 15:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Current style seems to support creating an article in userspace instead, or at least posting a stub as soon as you have enough content. PRocess around creation is pointless, might as well just be bold and go ahead and write the article already. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried the go bold approach first :) I do most of my wiki editing at work, and I can't justify spending enough time to create an article that can defend it's own notability. There is already process around creation, the requested articles process. I just really dislike that process, and I'm betting new users don't much like it either. Userspace pages are fine if you want to remove your efforts from the collobarative wiki process, but I would prefer a method that allowed collobaration on initial article creation, and preserved discussion on why or why not an article is notable. Mathiastck 16:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Defending notability is not hard, just write the most important facts in a few sentences. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Night Gyr. I really see no situations where it would not make sense to first write a very short stub and tag it with {{inprogress}} if need be. Pascal.Tesson 17:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with writing a short stub, and a larger talk page filled with less verifiable information. Mathiastck 15:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Add a "reverting vandalism" checkbox to the editor screen

Currently, getting administrator attention for cases of vandalism is a somewhat time-consuming process, which includes a need to place notices on the page of the culprit, etc. My suggestion is to add a checkbox to the editor screen to explicitly flag certain edits or sets of edits as vandalism when cleaning it up. The idea is that when this checkbox is used, it will result in a notice being created and posted to special page that can be watched by sysops and/or a warning placed on the user page of the editor.

I am hoping that this will make vandalism reporting and tracking easier, and will also result in more timely blocks of the culprits. "The burned hand teaches best". Often a vandal will be around for 10 minutes or so hitting as mamy pages as they can before getting off. Sometimes a notice is all that is needed. Other times an admin needs to get involved. However, while one is setting up the message or sending a cry for help to WP:VANDAL, the vandalism continues. by speeding up the process, those editors who can be stopped by a simple notice will get the word sooner, and those who cannot be stopped that way will get blocked sooner. Both will make Wikipedia much less fun for the vandals.

The one problem that I can see with this is that vandals and edit warriers may latch onto this feature and start flagging legitimate edits as "vandalism". So a page is needed to track complaints in that regard, as well as a policy for deaing with it. My suggestion is to consider obviously malicious use of the vandalism flag to be serious violation of WP:POINT and the offending editor blocked for at least a week. (A confirmation page with a warning that the use of the vandalism flag can result in the reporter being sanctioned if its use is not appropriate is a related idea. That way, such reporting is discourages and the reporter cannot easily argue that their report was an accident.)

I also call for the imposition of the blocks to be done manually, albeit with appropriate tools to streamline to process as much as possible. It seems to me that any blocks need to be based on a competent administrator having looked over the issue determining if it is true vandalism, an attempt to subvert the flag, or being just plain mistaken on the part of the initiating editor. Also, it means that there is someone who can be held accountable for the block if it should turn out to be inappropriate. --EMS | Talk 16:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

getting administrator attention for cases of vandalism is a somewhat time-consuming process - actually, posting at WP:AIV is among the easiest things to do at Wikipedia. I also call for the imposition of the blocks to be done manually - well, they are done manually now, and no one is proposing that this be changed, so that's a rather moot point.

As for the "click and post" approach to vandalism, the problem is the one size doesn't fit all - sometimes it's appropriate to start with a level 3 or 4 warning, sometimes level 1; it really depends on what kind of vandalism is involved. Similarly, if the user has done some constructive edits, some leniency might be shown in the escalation of warnings. Anonymous IP editors need different handling than registered users (for example, for school IP addresses). And there already are automated tools that make vandal-fighting easier - see Category:Wikipedia counter-vandalism tools and Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 18:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are missing the point here. Most of the time I just revert and move on. Sometimes I will track down the vandal and leave a message. On still fewer occasions I will check the vandals contributions and do a revert campaign, and if the person remains active I will post a notice. Still, those things take time. For a generated message, it should be short, sweet, and fatual; and should probably include a link to a page where one can make a case for the edit not being vandalism. Alternatively, no message would be generated, or a screen present to the reporter making a set of related tools available to him or her. (The screen could include selections to see the vandal's history, see the vandal's talk page, post one of the several warning templates, and even report to WP:AIV.) Remember, the goal is to make vandalism reporting and handling easier and more efficient. --EMS | Talk 17:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

An RVV checkbox would have some advantages over the present ad hoc reversions. People use various phrasing to indicate vandalism, and the checkbox could add a default phrase to the edit summary (perhaps if the default message is not changed). A checkbox would also allow automatic marking of an RVV, perhaps for uses such as a Pages recently vandalized report. (SEWilco 20:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC))

I think that'd be an excellent flag to add, but it should have a check to make sure that the page is actually being restored to a previous version's exact state, to ensure people don't use it to hide sneaky changes. A filter on histories to remove reversions would also make it simpler to read some heavily vandalized pages. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That semms reasonable to me. Indeed, the flag's applicability should be limited to reverts of one or more edits by the same user or IP as well as where no edits are being done on the text being reverted to. The former restriction permits automated tracking of the editors involved in this activity, thereby enabing the possibility of early admin intervention. --EMS | Talk 17:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I too have no objection to a checkbox/flag. But no one else has commented on this: The idea is that when this checkbox is used, it will result in a notice being created and posted to special page that can be watched by sysops and/or a warning placed on the user page of the editor. What EMS seems to be proposing is to use the checkbox as an alternative to this: Sometimes I will track down the vandal and leave a message. On still fewer occasions I will check the vandals contributions and do a revert campaign, and if the person remains active I will post a notice. Still, those things take time. In fact, the listed actions: (a) leaving an appropriate message (except for hit-and-run editors), (b) reviewing other editor contributions and reverting other vandalizing edits that haven't been reverted; and (c) posting a notice (at WP:AIV, I assume) if this is a case of repeated vandalism (level 4 warning already in place) or a vandal-only account - are exactly what should be done in all situations. Yes, they do take time.

In short, any "hit a checkbox and move on" approach simply can't determine the appropriate level of warning, won't revert other vandal edits, and leaves someone else (who?) determining when to make a request to WP:AIV for blocking. I don't think that is a good approach. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 15:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If there is too much work involved, nothing will get done. That is the long and the short of it. We have volunteers who are willing to be on vandal/cruft duty. Let's find the best way to make the best use of that resource and the time resourcee of the regular users. I have also put forth later in this thread to option of immadiately presenting the user flagging the vandalism with a set of tools for tracking down other vandalism by the user, sending messages to the talk page, and sending the case to WP:AIV. Perhaps that is the way to go, but if you disagree at the least please present an alternative that will help to achieve the goal rather than complaining about people moving on. --EMS | Talk 21:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Foreign language titles

WP:CAPS does not currently address the issue of foreign language titles adequately, and there are many pages that use naming conventions for English or for the native language. I've made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Proposal for foreign language titles to address the issue. ShadowHalo 21:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Game-cover Merge again

Some may recall 2 months ago when I posted something about a merge proposal for game-related fair use templates. After waiting a while with no objections I performed the merge. It has now been reverted by someone who thinks I did not make enough of an effort to contact interested persons to obtain concensus. So here we go again. ANYONE INTERESTED IN Template:Game-cover, Template:Boardgamecover, OR Template:RPG-artwork IS INVITED TO JOIN A DISCUSSION AT Template_talk:Game-cover#Merge ABOUT MERGING THESE THREE TEMPLATES. I'm cross-posting this to all the Village pumps. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for default monobook.css for nowrap span.texhtml

Hi,
I've noticed when using math in <math></math> mode that when rendered to HTML, the white-spaces are "breakable" (as opposed to non-breaking spaces). As a suggestion, I'm proposing to update the default monobook.css to include:

span.texhtml {
        white-space: nowrap;
        font-family: serif;
}

I've done this in my personal monobook.css, and it works great in Firefox (although I'm certain there are browsers where this will have no impact). This idea was hinted to me here.

To demonstrate this, observe these equations, and adjust the width of your window. Try it with and without this set in your monobook.css: "$a^{2}+b^{2}=c^{2}$" and "$3+5=8$" and "$P_{0}=\max(p(t))$" and "$x^{3}+200x=20x^{2}+2000$" and "$\sin ^{2}A+\cos ^{2}A=1$" etc.

These equations should not "break" in between the quotation marks if you have configured your monobook.css properly and you have a good browser. One caveat I've noticed in Firefox is that sometimes longer equations continue on towards the right (where you would then have to scroll right), and other times they wrap normally to a new line (is there better CSS to fix this? i.e., behave like an inline picture). IE 6/7 does not have this problem, and actually renders it slightly better than Firefox (!).

In all, I think this is an improvement, as equations should not be broken up like this (similar to the PNG versions of equations). +mwtoews 00:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Older"/"Newer" navigation for watchlist

Would it be possible to add navigation to the watchlist, similar to the "History" and "Contributions" pages? With large watchlists that feature very active pages, the "last x changes" setting in "Preferences" can often fall short of when you last logged in. That means going into the preferences, changing the size of the watchlist, and then either having to go back and reset it OR forgetting (and then facing the increased load time every time one calls the watchlist). Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have the option to collapse multiple changes to the same page turned on? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I did use that feature for a while, but found that I was able to do more with the non-collapsed version. (It often saves a lot of time in checking frequently updated pages, as you can see the context for edits rather than just the last one.) I would think that adding navigation shouldn't be all that difficult, given that the code already exists for the other pages. However, if there is some reason that it isn't doable, another option might be to add an "override" feature on the Watchlist page (much like the "Last 50"/"Last 100"/etc. choices on History pages. That way, you could choose a temporary increase in the number of edits, without having to adjust your default setting. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Umm, there is a manual override at the top of the watchlist page. It says "Show last 1 | 2 | 6 | 12 hours 1 | 3 | 7 days all". ;-) --Quiddity 01:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Tried that. It limits your watchlist, if the setting goes too far back for your liking. However, it doesn't extend it, which is what I would like. If, say, you're set for 500 changes, and that times out 18 hours back, adjusting the settings you mentioned still only goes back the same amount of time.

Ah, well that's probably more a WPtechnical question. Or try searching bugzilla. --Quiddity 19:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article Podcasts

Hi, I have a lot of snippets of time during the day in which I have free, quiet time. I typically play a podcast to learn a thing or two while I have no other preoccupation. I was listening to a Berkeley Physics for Future Presidents podcast and thought a 20 minute long podcast (similar to a radiocast on NPR) in which a narrator goes over a Wikipedia article of popular interest (or in observance of a current event relating to the article.) I thought perhaps the Wiki admins could maybe even have time to interview the headliners and people of considerate interest and information pertaining to the article. I think, with a streamlined format, relatively brief duration, and the added ease of listening to the article in lieu of reading it (which I'm not discouraging) Wikipedia article podcasts could summon an active interest in learning.

You may wish to look at the discussion here at the Wiki Project Radio on Podcasts. Podcasts fall under that project. Maybe the suggestion could be refined there and expanded here with their help. Ronbo76 04:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. [OrderlyRoom82] 13:26, 9 February 2007

With your permission, I think this should be called Digital Audio Articles, since "podcast" is a neologism, and it implies that only IPod is compatible. BuickCenturyDriver 11:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Spoken articles -Will Beback · † · 00:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

part of a spam solution

Articles currently under AFD should temporarily be added to robots.txt to stop them google from giving pigeonrank to their subjects, for the duration of the AFD. A lot of spam is caught quickly, before it is indexed by google, and this will mean that it won't get indexed at all, if it does get deleted. Less candy for spammers. If the article survives AFD, then it comes out of robots.txt and it gets treated normally. It would also be a good idea to temporarily remove the article from the default content-dump, so that answers.com and other mirrors don't grab it, or at least incorporate a flag that stops them from using the content automatically unless they specifically choose to disable such flags. That's getting a little esoteric for me but I trust that others reading this will get the gist of what I'm saying. This should all apply to other content besides articles too; I've seen spam inserted in templates in what appears to be an attempt to escape detection. This proposal would make up one part of a zero tolerance policy. — coelacan talk — 04:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

so what happens when good articles get frivolous AfDs to keep them off the ranking index and content feeds? Also, AfD is currently entirely human based; this would require implementing a significant software change. Further, Zero Tolerance is antithetical to wikipedia's principle of WP:AGF. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Good articles would merely not be indexed during the AFD. Unless I misunderstand robots.txt, doesn't it just stop google from making a new copy? So google would still have its older index. AFDs only last five days, google probably doesn't touch every article that often anyway. I don't think this would be a significant software change; I don't know but it doesn't seem like it would be a big deal. It would be invisible to humans anyway. We know for a fact that spammers are using Wikipedia to drive up their ranking, zero tolerance against them is not a violation of AGF. This will have no effect whatsoever on good new articles; anything that passes AFD gets removed from robots.txt and starts getting indexed. So at worst it only amounts to a five day delay before the first indexing, for new articles that are nominated for AFD promptly (this doesn't happen to most good new articles anyway). I see no negative side effects to this, but it would impede the results for spammers and thus reduce their incentive to spam here. — coelacan talk — 06:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Could we change search options?

When I search for something, I (most of the time) go straight to one article. Could we have it where a search page comes up and gives a list of related articles?

Jeremyp1988 18:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Jeremyp1988

I don't know if this is what you mean, but if you click on 'Go' or press return, it jumps straight to an article if there's one with that name, or if there's a redirect in place from that name (people add the redirects to help out the search engine, among other reasons), and if you click on 'Search', you'll always get the list of search results. --ais523 18:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

English translation of Italian tv show Don Matteo

I'd like to suggest an English language translation of the Italian television show 'Don Matteo': http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Matteo

As it's just started a run on Australian tv (SBS) this might be of interest to readers. --Robert Fraser 06:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Robert. This request would probably be better placed at Wikipedia:Translation/*/Lang/it, specifically set up for translation requests of Italian Wikipedia articles into English.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

ddafd

thank you

Jeremyp1988 17:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)jeremyp1988

two proposals: use of wikipedia materials as course material for universities or schools, listing of most visited(say 10) pages on the front page of wikipedia

it would be a good idea to advertise the use of material from wikipedia for schools or universities. I know that such an activity is active for school children, however i dont know of anything similar of higher education. a lot of colleges/university professors, write there own notes, which are then given out to university people, much like mit ocw. so you might have a project where you have various courses which are provided for in the universities. these course materials would be edited only by professors or people of good knowledge of their subject, so that it can be used for course work. it would be very useful for people from backward nations, where there are not enough educated professors, or good professors. also since most universities teaching the same level course have a similar syllabus, it would standardize the courses over the world, so that people in backward nations are at par with the information available to that available to better off countries.

a second proposal would be to have a list of the most accessed topics(say 10) on the front page of wikipedia. this would be mainly for information purposes to the casual visitor. i saw that a proposal for a similar thing might lead to vandalism. however since you are listing the most visited pages not the least visited pages, it shouldnt cause any problem

Most schools do not accept Wikipedia as a reliable source, and rightfully so, since anyone can edit and throw in misinformation. There are statistics listed at Special:Statistics, especially under "Other statistics" that you might find useful. I don't like the term "backward nations" either. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I cant understand why most wouldn't accept a possibly wrong information source, but what I proposed was a expert written text, not something which will be readily edited by every body. so you can have a list of ips of reknowned educational institutes, whose people would be allowed to edit topics. undoubtedly you can never prevent vandalism,(even if you some way to ensure that it is a professor who edits a particular article, his id can also be stolen) but it is definitly a good way to increase the accurate ness of articles which are most necessary for learning. as a student i have seen, almost all of my batchmates using wikipedia for information, it would really be helpful for a lot of people to have a better information source.

also if you look at the number of science or humanities topics that are being accessed by people you will realise that most of them would be from college going students

Yes, it is certainly a good place to start—to get an idea of a topic. However, textbooks and academic journals are more appropriate resources in an academic setting such as a university. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

what i am saying is to have a mit, ocw version of wikipedia, only that it would contain a much wider variety, of content but related to academics. OCW is a quite a good concept, and the purpose of that is very similar. But the problem is that various universities, (like a stanford ocw, a beijing university ocw etc) have there own versions of ocw, why cant there be a single repository of information. I am not talking of academic journals, anyway if you are doing research academic journals are the best way to go, they are peer reviewed, and you will definitely have a better source of information.

We already have Wikibooks to write textbooks and Wikiversity to do academic stuff like research and writing teaching materials. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note that many of our "most visited" pages relate to sex. Listing that on the front page is not likely to fly well with schools. >Radiant< 12:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

change the format of this page

i dont understand why the format of this page is like this.

a new topic should always come first. if a new topic is listed at the bottom most people will never read it. why not make it the way it happens in most forums. there is a reason why it is like that in forums. a hotly debated topic will always remain on the top, while a subject in which nobody is interested anyway, will always go down. however every article has an equal chance of being visited by people. if it happens that people become so engrossed in discussing a few topics, they might easily miss any new proposals that come up.

Most people reading this page go to the bottom for the most recent comments. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

i fully understand that, it must be have become a habit for people who have been here longer. but for people who are new, this is the most logical and intuitive way, to have the most recent post at the top, not at the bottom of the page. and the community want new people doesn't it. it would help a lot in the early times.

other than that, do you like scrolling to the bottom of the page to see whats new?

Yes, I just hit the "End" button on my keyboard, and it goes right to the bottom. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In most forums new threads are defaulted to the top of the page (with most forums providing an option to change the default ordering in preferences to reverse this), but the thread itself, where the text appears, is in the format we read in, i.e. top down. The pages on Wikipedia are much closer in form to a forum thread itself than they are to a listing of threads.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

ok...i havent seen many forums in the way you are mentioning, i do know that there are options to reverse the ordering, but most people dont do that because, the default (i.e. the newest post first) is the most convenient. but maybe I am wrong...it would be good to know what other people think. the other thing is why have all the articles in expanded form in this page. why cant we have the topics in a single link, so that if you are interested you can always visit the particular post, but you dont have to unnecessarily browse through posts you are not interested in.

Well, no, to me (and I'm sure many others) the most logical and intuitive thing to do is to read the end of the page to see what's new. After all, we read from top to bottom, so logically the last topic comes last, not first. Anyway, haven't you noticed the table of contents, which means you don't have to browse through everything to get to the topic you want? -- Necrothesp 22:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

New paragraphs to the infoboxes.

I want to add these paragraphs:

• Based on: Link to original media. (Example: In The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, it is filled by The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe)
• Related book(s): Novels, non-fiction books, factual books.
• Related comic(s): Comic books, comic strips, graphic novels, Webcomics, manga, light novels
• Related film(s): Feature-length films, short films, animated films, direct-to-videos, OVAs, V-cinemas.
• Related TV series: TV dramas, animated series, TV anime, TV comedies, sitcoms.
• Related video game(s): 2-D games, 3-D games, anime games, all computer and video games.

to:

• Comics infoboxes
  • {{Infobox Comic strip}}
  • {{Graphicnovelbox}}
  • {{Supercbbox}}
  • {{Infobox Webcomic}}
• Book infoboxes
  • {{Infobox Book}}
  • {{Book Series infobox}}
• TV and film infoboxes
  • {{Infobox Film}}
  • {{Infobox Television Film}}
  • {{Infobox Television}}
• and {{Infobox CVG}}

to inform related medias.--JSH-alive^{talk to me}_{see my works}^{mail to me} 15:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

These could be added to the infoboxes by putting in the following lines of wikicode into the correct positions:

{{#if:{{{based on|}}}|<tr style="vertical-align: top;"><td>'''Based on'''</td><td>{{{current}}}</td></tr>}}  
{{#if:{{{related book|}}}|<tr style="vertical-align: top;"><td>'''Related book(s)'''</td><td>{{{current}}}</td></tr>}}  
{{#if:{{{related comic|}}}|<tr style="vertical-align: top;"><td>'''Related comic(s)'''</td><td>{{{current}}}</td></tr>}}  
{{#if:{{{related film|}}}|<tr style="vertical-align: top;"><td>'''Related film(s)'''</td><td>{{{current}}}</td></tr>}}  
{{#if:{{{related TV series|}}}|<tr style="vertical-align: top;"><td>'''Related TV series'''</td><td>{{{current}}}</td></tr>}}  
{{#if:{{{related video game|}}}|<tr style="vertical-align: top;"><td>'''Related video game(s)'''</td><td>{{{current}}}</td></tr>}}  

They are all optional parameters so they won't break any existing articles with the infobox that have not added the parameters. To specify the values of each of these parameters, you could then add the following to where the infobox is referenced:

| based on =
| related book =
| related comic =
| related film =
| related TV series =
| related video game =

Tra (Talk) 16:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems unnecessary; doesn't related content generally go at the bottom of the article, with the see also links, rather than at the top? The infoboxes are pretty big as it is. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Based on" line sounds good, but otherwise, what Night Gyr said. Infoboxes are meant to be concise summaries, and their size is a point of contention already. "Related" items do belong at the end of a subject's article. --Quiddity 01:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, frankly, I want to disable {{Infobox animanga}}. In my opinion, TV anime should use {{Infobox Television}}, manga should use comics infoboxes, OVA and film should use {{Infobox Film}} and video games should use {{Infobox CVG}}.--JSH-alive^{talk to me}_{see my works}^{mail to me} 02:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Notes Page to go along with discussion and edit and history pages.

The notes page would contain elements that have not yet been incorporated into the actual article, but which have relevance and should probably be incorporated into a later version. This would correspond with an encyclopedia's files related to an article without falling into content discussions and messy archiving.

Examples of where a notes page would be very useful.

pre-editing controversial subjects (keeping flamewars off the main page and allowing a stronger article element to be built and agreed upon in a temporary area where editors can access and refer to it easily)

adding elements in discussion in scientific journals without adding items of questionable but valid veracity to the main page

alternate elements that may not be appropriate for the main page but may come in handy for future edits. (i.e. pictures and stuff that'd be a pain in the butt to dig out of the talk archive.)

interviews/hearsay/relevant but non-encyclopediac data that isn't archived elsewhere on the web.

71.102.28.61 21:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This is what talk pages are for already. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Except the fourth, which shouldn't be anywhere. -Amarkov moo! 22:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If the archives are a pain to dig through you can make a special talk subpage for a particular issue. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"Invert selection" option for watchlist

In Special:Recentchanges, there is an option to "invert" the selected namespace. I think this means it will show edits in all namespaces except the namespace selected, whereas it would normally show only the selected namespace.

If this is correct, I think it would be useful (thought not imperative) to have this option available in our watchlists. Is there a more appropriate place to bring this up? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 11:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Infinite Ban on all Wiki Abusers

I have being distressed, especially lately, but in fact throughout my tenure as a Wikipedian, by the number of fellow Wikipedians who have left our community. By that I mean those who have chosen or being forced to leave due to personal attacks and vandalism, either of their home pages or articles.

Its being my experience that ALL of those who fall under this category have being people who have added tremendously to our project, both in scope and depth. It is therefore a source of anger that ahmadans, who's tenure here is bellicose, offensive and in no way a meaningful contribution to Wikipedia, has driven so many invaulable colleges away.

Therefore, I wish to open a discussion on effective ways of dealing with such abuse. For my own part I would like to see such abusers (as opposed to the general Wiki user and contributor) banned very quickly indeed. Attacks by such abusers usually have being on-going for quite some time before a warning is given, and further time elapses with furthing warnings before a ban is evoked. Yet even then such bans have a finite duration.

My proposal is to replace the first warning with an outright infinite ban on any and all abuse. I would like to see this apply in the following cases:

• 1 - Where abuse has occoured on several occasions (i.e., more than twice) prior to it being brought to the attention of the wider Wiki Community.

• 2 - Where an apology for bad beheaviour and promise of future good conduct has being asked for and not given within a set time-limit.

• 3 - Where an apology for bad beheaviour and promise of future good conduct has being given and broken (no time limit on such a promise).

In my own experinece, an Infinite Ban on abusers is the only course of action open to us. We have all seen that if a given 'contributor' begins such beheaviour they will continue with it whenever and wherever they please. Therefore, simple warnings are just not good enough. Action must be taken as soon as any abuse is detected. As with illness, prevention is better than cure. And while we cannot perhaps repair the damage abusers have committed (and which we were unable to prevent) on our fellow Wikipedians in the past, it is only in our common interest for each other and Wikipedia that we do so in future.

I would very much appreciate the thoughts of other Wikipedians on this subject. Is mise, le meas mor, Fergananim 11:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There are already Community bans for people judged harmful to the community. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

etymology field to the anatomical entries

I would like to suggest adding an etymology field to the anatomical entries of Wikipedia which are in Latin. For example: "latissimus dorsi" Etymology: New Latin, literally, "broadest (muscle) of the back"

GFDL image tag depopulation

While stumbling around a few pages, I came upon this, which says that all instances of the (current) {{GFDL}} tag should be migrated to {{GFDL-with-disclaimers}}. Then after the tag is depopulated, the code from {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}} would be copied into the GFDL tag, and then the GFDL tag would be repopulated through transferring the instances of the no disclaimer tag to the new GFDL tag (or simply keep the transclusions in place, either works). I am planning to do this by adding another task to my bot, VixDaemon, but I want to make sure there are no concerns with this before I submit the task for approval. I have compared the current GFDL tag and GFDL-with-disclaimers, and the text matches down to the letter, so there would be no change of license with the migration.

Since Dragons flight who originally proposed this plan to standardize the usage of the GFDL tag between the projects has "basically abandoned" the plan, I am planning to pick up where he left off. Does anyone have any concerns with, or support for this? Kyra_~(talk) 23:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I'd like to expand this to include the {{GFDL-self}} tag, as it has disclaimers too; those instances would be migrated to {{GFDL-self-with-disclaimers}}, and then it would subsequently be replaced with {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}}. A change to MediaWiki:Licenses would be advisable as it would prevent new instances from arising during the time when the templates would be migrated, as well as currently. Kyra_~(talk) 08:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

a better portable wikipedia device

my name is nick church and I am aware of the tomb raider version of wikipedia, however I believe I have a better idea. I have seen many electronic dictionaries which are very popular over in japan. What about a device very similar to the electronic dictionary, yet with wikipedia on it. I realize that wikipedia as a site must take up quite a bit of space, but if you cut out all the user pages, and the talk pages, it could be made to fit on a 30g drive which would definitely fit in something the size of an electronic dictionary. along with this you could include a docking station which will update all the pages automatically, as well as charging it. You could also include basic functions such as a calendar, clock, etc. Also if possible you could consider hooking up with google maps/news to include area maps and news. perhaps an sd card reader would be a good idea so that one may use it to watch videos or play mp3s as well.

you could probably get a good deal on the manufacturing, sell it for about $300 a piece and use the profit for wikipedia expansion...or whatever you want.

Anyone can take a data dump and stick it on such a device. Quality control is an issue, not size. All the text for the current version is only a couple of gigabytes. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of the more expensive dictionaries I saw at the E-Mart also doubled as a book reader but I think they were around $350 US. My dictionary was on sale for about $89 but I can't change the contents. I would think one could make a cheap book reader for around $50 that could have just about anything you wanted on it. --Gbleem 03:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You could just browse it from a cell phone with an appropriate skin. If you want a local copy, you run into the trouble of downloading all that data every time you want to update. Unless the servers make up a custom set of diffs for you, you'll need a couple of gigs of data, and that's not going to be done in the time it takes to charge the battery. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Unique display format for Wikipedia

E-Book Systems Inc., would like to share with the Wikipedia community - a unique display format for Wikipedia purposes.

Founded in 1998, E-Book Systems’ patented Digital Flip® Technology provides a unique way to organize and view digital information. Our solutions bring life to digital content with its ability to integrate multimedia, and display it in a realistic 3D page flipping interface.

With Digital Flip® Technology, Wikipedia can provide its users a true encyclopedic experience. Users can browse through Wikipedia like they would a hard copy encyclopedia. They can flip individual pages, grab a few pages to flip, lift a page to compare with contents on the proceeding or preceding pages, flip through pages rapidly, zoom in or zoom out on a page, jump to a desired page, click on links to navigate to desired page, search content for a desired search term (where feature is available).

We would like to work with Wikipedia to create Wikipedia FlipBook. This Wikipedia FlipBook should adopt the same concept as the existing Wikipedia site. Please click on the following link to browse through the sample Wikipedia FlipBook created for the editors' evaluations : Sample Wikipedia FlipBook

Please note that the Wikipedia FlipBook is only for demonstration purposes. It contains only an extract of the contents in Wikipedia site. The links (in black underline) included in the demo Wikipedia FlipBook have not been enabled. However, please note that we do have the ability to enable the links and ensure that all links navigate to the relevant pages.

About E-Book Systems E-Book Systems is a private organization, with offices in the U.S, China, Japan, Korea, Europe, and Singapore. Investors in E-Book Systems include Creative Technology Ltd, and SOFTBANK Media & Marketing Corporation, a subsidiary of SOFTBANK Corp.

I'm not speaking officially here, but you're just as welcome as any other of the Mirrors and forks to copy the content under the GFDL and use your interface on it. I doubt it'd catch on here, because it requires downloading addition software, and doesn't sound like it adds enough to be worth it. We try to keep the technical requirements low here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We would like to work with Wikipedia to create Wikipedia FlipBook. The Wikimedia Foundation, which controls Wikipedia and a variety of other free-access projects, has a policy of not using commercial (aka "pay-for") software unless absolutely necessary. So if you are proposing some sort of business proposition whereby you would pay the Foundation for a specialized feed, for example, feel free to contact them; otherwise, you're probably wasting your time. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Practical jokes in "new message" boxes

Not sure if this is the right place for this, but here goes. Are there any restrictions on off-site links - and if not, should there be? Many editors have probably seen the practical joke imitation "new message" banners that redirect to the Wiki article on practical jokes, or something similar. However, yesterday I came across one that redirected off-site to a blog page. I asked the editor to reconsider the setup, since there was no indication to a casual user that such a jump would occur. He appreciated my concerns, and reworked his pages accordingly. However, at the same time, he pointed out another user's "joke" nm banner, advising me to "Make sure your anti-virus is up to date." I didn't actually click the link, but found that it linked off-site to a CGI titled "brain.cgi" - which apparently has some reports of virus activity connected to it. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Malicious links have no place on wikipedia. (even articles like shock site need to make it explicitly clear what lies on the other side.) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I'd ban every single one of those silly immature new message joke banners. It isn't funny, the joke wore thin ages ago and they are just plain annoying. But, it isn't up to me. pschemp | talk 09:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Let's get rid of them. There is a page somewhere saying that userpages are for the purpose of writing the encyclopedia (not an exact quote). I always took this to mean that anything off-topic can be brought up for discussion and possible removal. Along with userboxes, this seems to be a prime example. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've disabled the external link in question [1]. I didn't dare look at the link in question but a peek at it through on online web checking tool confirms the presence of a script. Very naughty. Megapixie 10:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hah he reverted it back. On closer inspection it is harmless - but it's very naughty disguising an external link as an internal one. Megapixie 10:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

So everyone agrees that it is acceptable to delete fake "you have new messages" boxes? CMummert · talk 12:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think all we need to do is adopt wording in policy somewhere that spoofing the MediaWiki UI is not allowed and it will be open season on the little buggers. —Doug Bell ^talk 13:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a paragraph at Wikipedia:User page (here) and pointed discussion this way. CMummert · talk 13:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have never supported a change more than this one. Said elements are annoying. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also agree with disallowing this sort of practical joke. I think there was a situation in which one of the userbox migration bots kept stopping because it came across fake new-messages banners and thought they were real, so this is more important than just the annoyance value. (It's kind of ironic that users sporting such banners had their userboxes gradually degrade due to the bots not being able to replace them, but this interfered with other users too.) --ais523 15:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the fake 'You have new messages' banners should be banned. However, with the bots, if they come across a false-positive new-messages banner, they can always check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php?what=userinfo&uihasmsg to see if they really do have messages. Tra (Talk) 15:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The annoyance factor certainly high, but I didn't think about the potential for username phishing and other fraud before this morning. Since these fake messages have no positive function, the easiest thing is just to make them deletable on sight. CMummert · talk 16:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Not all UI changes are disruptive or confusing. This wording needs to be rethought. Take a look at User:Coelacan, where I have a username overlay. Nothing wrong with that. — coelacan talk — 21:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course not everything is disruptive. The sort of page the wording is intended to cover is User:Drahcir (this version). It isn't going to be possible to define "disruptive" objectively, so some common sense will be required in applying the policy. I don't expect an automated "user page bot" to go around scanning for unsuitable user pages. CMummert · talk 22:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Faking the UI is intentionally creating confusion where something looks like clicking on it will give you one thing when it gives you another, or producing a page that looks like something it isn't (like creating a user page the looks like the page you get when there is no user page by that name). Decorative changes that don't impact how someone interacts with the UI wouldn't meet this criteria. As CMummert points out, however, trying to define this too narrowly leaves the definition open to abuse. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Lone voice of dissent here. I think declaring open season on a harmless joke (I'm only talking about the harmless versions, like the one that was just removed from User:Certified.Gangsta's userpage) is unkind and petty. It sorts oddly with the next sentence, which has been there for a long time, and which I really like: "As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit." The new suggestion also fits badly with all the other matters under the heading "What can I not have on my user page?", because those all have very good reasons. For instance, putting extensive personal information, or fair use images, on userpages is readily seen to be actually harmful. The fake New Messages box thing is the only single one that's merely based on irritation. I ask people to please reconsider. What happened to "The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant"? Also, it seems illogical to bother to say "please", if the jokes are actually going to be vigilantly removed and "should" not be put back. That's not "please", that's an order. If y'all want to include advice against joke messageboxes in this guideline, OK, but could we please at least leave it as advice, rather than encourage other users to go on removal rampages? Because that's going to upset people. Bishonen | talk 01:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree, as annoying as I think they are, I think it's better to mention it as advice not order. It's not THAT annoying. If they are disruptive (linking to a virus/script) yes, then obviously they have to go. Garion96 (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

We tolerate silly user page content up to the point at which it becomes harmful. Deliberately misleading people in this manner impedes their efforts to build an encyclopedia. These pranks are flagrantly harmful, and I would have attempted to outlaw them long ago if I'd realized that so many others agreed. —David Levy 16:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Bishonen here. I find the fake messages stupid and annoying but I don't see much gain in outlawing them. I do however see one serious concern- there are occasional new editors who don't click on new message links since they think that the links are some sort of spam. This may be more likely if they were to click on one of the fake links before getting any new messages. However, this circumstance seems unlikely. JoshuaZ 01:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are the two reasons the reason that I support the change in the User page guideline.

1. Suppose that user A makes a fake UI that points to external site X. Then the person who controls external site X can, without the help of user A, turn site X into a phishing attack by making it a copy of the "You are not logged in" page.
2. There is no positive, or even good-faith, reason to put fake UI on your page. Its only purpose is to harass other users. Given that it is also a potential security risk, we might as well say that it "may" be removed.

It is true that there is great lenience about user pages, but it seems reasonable that the guideline can ask users not to engage in behavior that is broadly offensive to the community. This is underlined by the potential phishing risk of fake UI - it should not benecessary to doubt every UI link when editing a user's talk page. CMummert · talk 01:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I realized the issue is already covered by WP:DICK. CMummert · talk 02:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Gee, it's hard to think of things much worse to put on your user page than things that undermine the trust we expect people to have in the UI of the site. Much more disruptive than a nasty statement on their user page that we wouldn't allow. Why oh why we want to tiptoe around letting people spoof the UI so that we don't cut into the freedom of expression allowed on their user page I don't get. It's a small curtailment of what people are allowed with a better reason than much of what is on the current policy. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Last night I removed this very fake-banner suggestion from the 'motto of the day' project. That would have added the fake banner to dozens(hundreds?) of user pages. Ick. Barring it altogether gets my support. It's a bad meme, and should be snuffed out. However, I think the section currently at Wikipedia:User page is in violation of WP:BEANS...? --Quiddity 02:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BEANS is always a Catch-22: if there is no written guideline, then it is much harder to argue in favor of removing things, but every guideline in oppositon of some behavior violates WP:BEANS. Still, when I wrote the current wording, I made it as vague as possible because I respect the idea behind WP:BEANS. Can you rewrite it to be even more vague while still being comprehensible to the average editor? CMummert · talk 03:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point; struck. (I guess I was hoping there was a solution to that, which I just hadn't thought of. ah well) --Quiddity 06:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There is one useful benefit to the practical joke you have messages. It lets the reader know that the user whose page they're looking at is, more than likely, a dick. I don't think they're worth banning on that ground alone, there are plenty of other cases of things that are rude and stupid but legal. And so there should be, because creating thou-shall-nots all the way to the border of good behaviour will inevitably mean that we overshoot sometimes, and ban some good behaviours. But given that the messages will cause some bots to stop, I agree with the prohibition, at least until there is another equally simple way for bots to know that they really have message. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a simple way for bots to find out if they have new messages. In fact, it's even simpler than screen scraping as it's an api. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php?what=userinfo&uihasmsg will show if the bot has messages and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php will document this function. However, a down side of this is that an extra server request must be made every time the banner appears to check if it's legitimate. Tra (Talk) 11:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that a fake new-messages bar is worth complicating bot programming for. I also don't think that there's a query.php uihasmsg check built in to the popular bot frameworks, so it would mean changes to existing bot code (which can be a bad idea; imagine if a new-messages banner was confusing an adminbot, it would have to go through a new RfA so that the uihasmsg check could be implemented!). By the way, Tra, you probably want to change the output format of that query.php check from the human-readable xmlfm, which has to be screen-scraped, into something more useful for bots. --ais523 11:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

you probably want to change the output format Yes, I know it would need to be changed; I just left it as xmlfm for this discussion, which is being read by humans, and not bots. Tra (Talk) 12:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still amazed by all the angst this proposal is creating in the name of freedom on user pages. We're not "creating thou-shall-nots all the way to the border of good behaviour"—we're talking about a very specific, practical and non-content-based prohibition on spoofing the UI. There's not lots of gray area here or some dangerous slippery slope. Even without the bot issue I would think this is a no-brainer; with the bot issue this should be a slam dunk. —Doug Bell ^talk 12:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Bots, slam-dunk. Off-wiki links of any sort, slam-dunk. On-wiki practical joke type links, I don't like them. But it feels heavy handed to ban them just because they're childish and annoying. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent idea to finally ban those stupid new message boxes (by which, of course, I do not mean banning the users that create them). >Radiant< 12:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

DOWN with fake MediaWiki UI elements!!! HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with the existence of the joke as it wasn't funny when I didn't click on it the first time. However, shouldn't hiding a malicious link be a bannable offense? MLA 17:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I consider that this div class (usermessage) has been abused, and that its abuse should be curtailed by enforcement, not by a “please don’t” message on WP:UP. Most importantly, the community is able to be elastic about interpretation of WP:UP in murky cases. If consensus is against such orange user messages, which appears to be the case, then they shall be removed. There may also have to be an MFD for all of the user subpages of the general note “Sign here if you’ve been fooled, lol!” Gracenotes^T § 18:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

New Page form to fill before publication?

Sorry, this is User:Chris is me, and I just thought of this idea and am too lazy to log in (I'll verify the account later). What if, instead of restricting page creation to 4-day-old users (which allows a lot of junk), we have users check off a little forum under the "edit summary" button? The reason a form would work instead of the header nobody reads is because the page would not be created unless the boxes were checked. Here's some examples:

• I believe that the subject is notable (has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources)
• The subject of this article is not myself, my close friends/relatives, or otherwise someone I am acquainted with. The article is not vanity.
• The article above is not one of an organization or company I work for or am attempting to represent in a positive light. My article is NPOV written in a tone that favors no side.

_{add more}

How about it? Sure, some junk will still get through, but it'd be nice for those users editing in good faith to realize what Wikipedia is not. 69.19.14.35 21:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC) _{This post was made by -- Chris is me (user/review/talk) when he was unable to log in}

Two concerns: First, people who really are just trying to self-promote will just go and check all the boxes regardless. Second, new people will have no clue what "My article is NPOV." means. --tjstrf talk

...but.. wouldn't it cut some of the junk down from good-faith new editors? This way, we don't have to spend as much time assuming good faith (some time, but less) since a good faith editor would see that their article wasn't right for Wikipedia. -- Chris is me _{(u/c/t) 05:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)}

Only if after completing the form a set number of times you don't get hassled with it anymore. —Doug Bell ^talk 12:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)