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.

Individual Comic Book Pages

I do not know if pages that discuss individual issues of comic books are wanted. For my own personal reference, I have made summaries of many comic books, and was considering posting them. Pages for comic series, i.e. Detective Comics, exist, but individual issue pages, i.e. Detective Comics #27, do not. Are these wanted, or not? --TheCoolestDude 16:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Most likely non-non-notable. Maybe ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics about what has happened before with any such articles, an example of which is Dragon Ball Z: Volume 1. It should be better to combine individual summaries into the main article, as long as it doesn't get too long. –Pomte 21:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I am dubious about articles for individual TV episodes, or fictional characters, see WP:FICT, which i generally support; and this seem less desirable than those. i would think this would be a bad idea except in some extraordinary circumstances (if a particular issue is very famous, perhaps because it sold for a very high sum, or was very different from other issues and had significant mainstream media coverage). But normally i don't see why mentions in an article about the series isn't sufficient. There are other wikis where more detailed coverage might be plausible. DES ^(talk) 22:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think starting a page on Detective Comics 27 with a summary and prices it's sold for would be a valuable addition to Wikipedia, but I think the vast majority of comic-books are not individually notable and as such probably shouldn't be added. -Halo 19:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for a new Category

I propose a new topic called "Internet Video" just like there is a "Voice over IP" Category. Currently there are a lot of apparently unrelated articles with overlapping information such as Internet TV, IPTV and even Internet video which for some surprising reason redirects to Video clip. The "Internet Video" page should contain basic information and then should link to the above mentioned pages. I can start editing the Internet Video page if that is OK. I am new to this level of contribution, so please tell me wha to do next. Oh, and if I have put this in the wrong place, please let me know where to put it. I searched all over for "Category request" and found nothing. Agupte 06:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Be bold and create it yourself. Add the articles you want to the category by adding [[Category:Internet video]] to the bottom of the article. Click on the new red-link and create the category page by, at least, adding a parent category. Look at some existing categories to see what the source is like. --Kimon^talk 13:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Agupte it sounds like you have done the research and you have a good idea. I echo Kimon's response above, be bold and build it. Jeepday (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Changing <references /> to {{reflist}}

Just to get a wider consensus, User:Vishwin60 has proposed* a bot that will change all <references /> tags to {{reflist}} tags in articles, as of now only in articles within the scope of WP:USRD. There are advantages to {{reflist}}, such as the ability to use multiple columns, but most articles don't have enough references to split it up into two columns anyway. It also makes the references small, but if this is done everywhere we may as well just change the stylesheet to automatically display references in a smaller font. An obvious disadvantage is the thousands (potentially hundreds of thousands if all articles are changed) of edits that would be required for such a change. What do you think? If I've missed an advantage or disadvantage, forgive me. Perhaps another option would be to get a database dump, and find only articles with more than 10 references, and if so, replace <references /> with {{reflist|2}}, otherwise leave the article alone. —METS501 (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC) *Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Rschen7754bot 3 - Request was rejected, but may of course be resubmitted should consensus change. --kingboyk 23:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Assuming they don't use multiple columns, the extra edits seem like an unnecessary waste of server resources to me. --Ybbor^TalkSurvey! 18:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

WTF??? Unnecessary server resources? Compared to Wikimedia's huge server farm, it's barely a blip. Also won't cause any database locks either.  V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 18:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if you say so, I really have no expertise in the area. I just don't see why it's worth it to instiute such a "change" which won't really change anything. --Ybbor^TalkSurvey! 18:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ybbor. It won't cause any database locks, but it's just a waste of resources. —METS501 (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind also that according to the bot policy, the onus is on the bot operator to show that the bot is useful. A change that would require thousands of edits that could be done with a simple stylesheet change is not useful. —METS501 (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[double edit conflict] The change is for a first step in GA/FA noms. It is also for standardization of all USRD articles, not all of Wikipedia. And please stop complaining about extra edits; it's making the resolution process a hotbed of anger. Mets501-Please do not make a big fuss over this; it is driving everyone at USRD crazy. Unfortunately, you are making the Highways department a hotbed of anger, so please chill.  V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 18:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I was under the impression that this might soon become the case for all of Wikipedia ("as of now only in articles within the scope of WP:USRD" emphasis mine). Pardon my ignorance, but how/why is the change to {{reflist}} a first step toward GA/FA? Does it really impact the quality of the article? Why does standardization of the method for displaying references matter if the way its displayed ends up the same? --Ybbor^TalkSurvey! 18:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Right now, USRD is in a state of trash. Therefore, we need to start to clean up these articles by doing the conversion. The underlying reason for the conversion is that 99% of all GAs/FAs have this or something similar to this. And yes, how the refs look have a bit to do with the quality of the article. The section should be non-intrusive to the rest of the article.  V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 19:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Mets501 - why are you making a big deal out of nothing? Server resourses aren't a big deal - if these guys want to do it, let them do it. Unless there is a hard-line rule set down by the wikipedia governing bodies, don't worry about it. -- master_son^{Talk - Edits} 18:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

One could argue that the OP is making a big deal out of nothing by wanting to change, using a bot, to the template where, in most cases, it's not needed, and where it is could be done manually as-and-when required -Halo 19:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

For the benefit of those who haven't seen the previous discussion: what is the benefit of this change? Can you provide a link to the proposal? The last time I checked, the <references/> method was not deprecated in any way. Does WP:FA? actually forbid it? CMummert · talk 19:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

WT:USRD houses the original proposal. What I am trying to say is that 99% of GAs/FAs have something similar to {{reflist}}, in which those articles must have lots of references, reliable sources needless to say. See DNA and (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction for examples.  V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 19:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've written several FAs and commented on other FACs, and I've never heard of this template. It's most certainly not a requirement for FA. --kingboyk 19:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Then that's considered the 1%, then?  V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 20:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Where on earth has this 99% figure come from anway? Is it hyperbole? Martinp23 20:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I know. WP:FA? says that meta:cite is "recommended". That's the cite.php <references/> system. CMummert · talk 20:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The documentation for Template:reflist says If used with no parameters, it will simply produce a reference list in a small font. Small font is certainly appropriate for FA articles that are supposed to have dozens of references. But small font is totally inappropriate for articles with only a few references; it simply makes the references difficult to read without saving a great deal of space. If you want to set a reasonable minimum (I'd say 15 rather than 10, myself, but don't feel that strongly), I have no objections, but please don't suggest changing every article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how a small font is warranted, especially if the motivation is to "save space". This is not a paper encyclopedia, and space is not an issue. CMummert · talk 18:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see the purpose for a mass implementation of this. The reason most GA/FA quality articles use {{reflist}} is not because it is so much better than <references/> but because they have so many references, (2 dozen+) that reflist just makes it easier to read, as the casual reader doesn't look at the references in great detail. For most articles with 3 or 4 references (that usually aren't in in-line style anyway), readibility isn't as much of a concern. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It may well be true, but where did you get the statistic that most GA/FA articles use reflist? CMummert · talk 20:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be the argument presented in support of this proposal; I was illustrating why that is somewhat faulty logic. I have no idea where the statistic came from. It used to be 99%, now its just generalized to "most." Though 4 of the first 5 articles on WP:FAC now do use reflist. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest first getting consensus at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. That consensus then can be used to support the bot's task. (SEWilco 17:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

For the sake of information, {{Reflist}} appears to be used in about 34000 articles. Of all 1342 FAs, 417 have reflist and 925 do not. Gimmetrow 15:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we all agree that any article with no references section should be given {{reflist}}? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this would be not be a wise thing to impose on people, and no existing list format should be changed without the consensus of the people at that article. People get very touch about references. DGG 08:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't you do a trial run on 925 the FA articles and see the responses by users? And refere them to this discussion? --Shines8 21:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Many editors won't care or won't notice, but some editors strongly dislike "small" refs even for long lists. It's unfortunate that reflist wasn't written such that {{reflist}} simply produced <references/> (without font resizing), {{reflist|1}} produced one-column small, and {{reflist|2}} produced two-column small. Gimmetrow 00:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

So you would normalize one possible stylistic variation while hundreds of others would persist. Seems kind fo futile if you ask me. --Infrangible 23:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Upgrading the references seems like a good use of resources to me. The importance of references can't be underestimated. If the improved functionality encourages a few people to add a few more references, then go for it. Savidan 18:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has often reverted people changing "my" references to reflists before, I still agree that standardisation all over Wikipedia would be good. MadMaxDog 10:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the reason for the standardization? {{reflist}} is a nice shortcut for the lazy, but I can't see how it is any better than using <div class="references-small"><references/></div> (or variations of this for multiple columns). If anything, {{reflist}} should be the thing that is getting replaced. --- RockMFR 19:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Spelling standardization talk header

I am very much tired of seeing and or or reverting changes to Orange (colour) and similar pages where some editor, usually an anon, has gone through and substituted every "colour" with "color". It is equally frustrating (although less for me, I admit a bias) when an editor on an American English-standardized article to see someone change the article to Commonwealth English (I'll revert that too, though.) It also violates WP:ENGVAR when someone does that, and editors can be quite touchy about people trying to standardise a mixed-spelling article, even in good faith. Since that's the case, wouldn't it be a good idea to create a talk header template for such frequently-abused articles indicating that the article should generally keep using whichever variation is established? I designed a template for this idea:

{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
|-
|[[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|50px]]
|This article's spelling has been standardized to {{#switch:{{lc:{{{spelling}}}}}
|american='''[[American English]]'''.
|british
|commonwealth='''[[British English|British]] or [[Commonwealth English]]'''.
|#default=a variety of English ('''Please clarify by specifying a variety in the template.''')
}} This spelling is established{{#if:{{{revision|}}}|, and has been established since <span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title={{PAGENAMEE}}&oldid={{{revision}}} revision {{{revision}}}]</span>|<!--no revision specified-->}}. {{#if:{{{reason|}}}|{{{reason}}}|<!--no special reason specified-->}} As such, '''please do not change the spelling standardization!''' Changes to the spelling variation to the article, including moves - if the article's title has a variation - may be reverted on sight, according to the [[WP:MOS|Wikipedia Manual of Style]]'s [[WP:ENGVAR|policy]] regarding [[American and British English spelling differences|national varieties of English spelling]]. If consensus on the article's spelling becomes unclear, please remove this notice.
|[[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|50px]]
|}

Example:

This article's spelling has been standardized to British or Commonwealth English. This spelling is established, and has been established since revision 121515871. In addition, it is so because Nihiltres thinks that it should be so, and because he wants to give a silly example special reason for spelling standardization. As such, please do not change the spelling standardization! Changes to the spelling variation to the article, including moves - if the article's title has a variation - may be reverted on sight, according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style's policy regarding national varieties of English spelling. If consensus on the article's spelling becomes unclear, please remove this notice.

What do you think? Nihiltres 23:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea, in theory. However, most of the editors who will change English styles are the editors who will not read talk pages or know the guidelines (anons, newbies). I would just revert the changes and warn the user with the {{lang0}} - {{lang5}} warnings. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I like this. However, I agree with the comment above that it would not reach the audience before the act; but rather I think its key use would be in quickly tracing the history and/or during legitimate spelling/grammar/punctuation corrections. For the former situation, the tag should consider subject (is it generally specific to a geographical location and/or dialect) as well as the original dialect it was written in; and in iffy situations (read: most situations) it should be clearly discussed on the Talk page before officially adding the tag. The tag, when added, should be done via a single edit with an all-caps edit description so that it can stand out as to when the tag was added. Now during disputes, it'd be easy to see what consensus was reached. Also, during legitimate reviews of the article, it'd help me easily choose which spelling/grammar/punctuation checker I should have selected.

Some extraneous thoughts: given my above concerns, the tag should be smaller as it serves more as reference rather than deterrence. Perhaps a small item along the side of the page rather than a banner across the width. If only we could protect specific segments of articles or perhaps sections (or can we?), it would be handy if this tag could be protected after consensus was reached as to what language the topic should be in. This would avoid confusion arising from editors changing the tag after it has been added. One last thought: the tag should provide for a link directly to the archived discussion regarding what spelling form is to be utilised. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 23:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding "small" capability is easy. I'm working on a version that will have a double setup for talk page revision and article revision, and for protecting the template, it can be used on a protected talk subpage and that page can be transcluded to the main talk... that's an admin issue though, I don't want to make more work for them. One moment while I finish the double version by working out a little bug. Nihiltres 02:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd think a comment in the article (near the top) would be more likely to be noticed than anything on the talk page, e.g.

<!-- This article uses [[British English]] spelling, not [[American English]] spelling.

DO NOT CHANGE THE SPELLING!

Please see [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English]] -->

Such a comment could be added by a template that was subst'd (and the links would not be "clickable". -- Rick Block (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's two combinations to address Bossi's concerns.

{| class="messagebox small-talk"
|-
|[[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|50px]]
[[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|50px]]
|This article's spelling has been standardized to {{#switch:{{lc:{{{spelling}}}}}
|american='''[[American English]]'''.
|british
|commonwealth='''[[British English|British]] or [[Commonwealth English]]'''.
|#default=a variety of English ('''Please clarify by specifying a variety in the template.''')
}} {{#if:{{{revision|}}}{{{talkrevision|}}}|<!--null-->|'''This spelling is not established.'''}} {{#if:{{{revision|}}}|This spelling was established in the article at <span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title={{PAGENAMEE}}&oldid={{{revision}}} revision {{{revision}}}]</span>.|<!--null-->}} {{#if:{{{talkrevision|}}}|It was established in the talk page on <span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}&oldid={{{talkrevision}}} revision {{{talkrevision}}}]</span>.}} {{#if:{{{reason|}}}|{{{reason}}}|<!--no special reason specified-->}} As such, '''please do not change the spelling standardization!''' Changes to the spelling variation to the article, including moves - if the article's title has a variation - may be reverted on sight, according to the [[WP:MOS|Wikipedia Manual of Style]]'s [[WP:ENGVAR|policy]] regarding [[American and British English spelling differences|national varieties of English spelling]]. If consensus on the article's spelling becomes unclear, please remove this notice.
|}
{{-}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
|-
|[[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|50px]]
|This article's spelling has been standardized to {{#switch:{{lc:{{{spelling}}}}}
|american='''[[American English]]'''.
|british
|commonwealth='''[[British English|British]] or [[Commonwealth English]]'''.
|#default=a variety of English ('''Please clarify by specifying a variety in the template.''')
}} {{#if:{{{revision|}}}{{{talkrevision|}}}|<!--null-->|'''This spelling is not established.'''}} {{#if:{{{revision|}}}|This spelling was established in the article at <span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title={{PAGENAMEE}}&oldid={{{revision}}} revision {{{revision}}}]</span>.|<!--null-->}} {{#if:{{{talkrevision|}}}|It was established in the talk page on <span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}&oldid={{{talkrevision}}} revision {{{talkrevision}}}]</span>.}} {{#if:{{{reason|}}}|{{{reason}}}|<!--no special reason specified-->}} As such, '''please do not change the spelling standardization!''' Changes to the spelling variation to the article, including moves - if the article's title has a variation - may be reverted on sight, according to the [[WP:MOS|Wikipedia Manual of Style]]'s [[WP:ENGVAR|policy]] regarding [[American and British English spelling differences|national varieties of English spelling]]. If consensus on the article's spelling becomes unclear, please remove this notice.
|[[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|50px]]
|}

Example:

This article's spelling has been standardized to British or Commonwealth English. This spelling was established in the article at revision 121515871. It was established in the talk page on revision 123456789. In addition, there's a good reason, like this example one. As such, please do not change the spelling standardization! Changes to the spelling variation to the article, including moves - if the article's title has a variation - may be reverted on sight, according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style's policy regarding national varieties of English spelling. If consensus on the article's spelling becomes unclear, please remove this notice.

This article's spelling has been standardized to British or Commonwealth English. This spelling was established in the article at revision 121515871. It was established in the talk page on revision 123456789. In addition, there's a good reason, like this example one. As such, please do not change the spelling standardization! Changes to the spelling variation to the article, including moves - if the article's title has a variation - may be reverted on sight, according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style's policy regarding national varieties of English spelling. If consensus on the article's spelling becomes unclear, please remove this notice.

Nihiltres 04:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC) (updated to fix a sentence structure bug 12:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

• Personally, I prefer a comment in the wiki code for such articles, because the people who change it would have a hard time claiming they didn't notice it. - 131.211.210.18 13:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• I support this. I'm tired of seeing editors waste time discussing how to spell an article's title on the talk pages. I'd also like to see WP:ENGVAR expanded to a separate page to be more detailed about its rationale, and then all those who wish to discuss color or colour etc. to the end of time to be sent to its talk page and ignored.. LukeSurl 00:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, I would suggest removing the flags had having something which is more to do with language than nationality, otherwise it looks like claiming territory, possibly provocative. LukeSurl 00:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Certainly. The images I used, I used partly because I couldn't think of anything better - if this proposal is supported in general, I'm sure that there are many different appropriate images that could be used - perhaps a globe icon of some sort? Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 15:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Seems like a great idea to me, although I'd prefer to see a template for placement on the talk page; it would help with articles such as Orange (colour) that aren't naturally more British or more American. Nyttend 22:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Uh, this is for the talk page. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 22:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that this may be cleaner on a full proposal page - I'll prepare one. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 22:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion may be held at Wikipedia:Proposal for a spelling standardization talk header. If you are interested or opposed, please participate in the poll there, or make suggestions for the improvement of this template. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 02:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. This problem isn't severe enough to warrant yet another enormous talk page template, so wordy that no one will even read it. If a noob or PoV warrior comes along and Americanizes or Briticizes an article inappropriately, simply revert with an edit summary of "Rv. reversal of dialect, per WP:ENGVAR" and move on. PS: If a template could logically be applied to every single article on the system, the template is a bad idea. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'll have to admit, I didn't actually read the whole template. (Or really any of it for that matter.) I think it's too big and unsightly, as well as it promotes a segregation among editors of different English speaking countries (the flags...). I just don't think it's appropriate, and as SMcCandlish said, it's really not enough of a problem. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A simple way to deal with this problem will be to first reach consencus on the spelling, and then reverting any subsequent changes unless it is discussed on the talk page.--Kylohk 22:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Better make sure any British version of this template says "standardisation", eh? ;) FiggyBee 19:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Please post further comments on the relevant talk page. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thisisbossi (talk • contribs) 20:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Image thumbnail for A class articles (Americas next top Barn star)

Quality

FA

A

GA

B

Start

Stub

The Feature Articles (AF) have a ()Star thing and the Good Article (GA) class articles have a round stamp image, but nothing for the A class articles (or B class). I thought that there could be a little Thumbnail photo/image for class A articles like the others, this may help motivate some people to work harder to get there article form GA up closer to FA class, because I know for many people the Jump from GA to FA class is a big one that requires a lot of work and more knowledge of the subject and Wikipedia. I see so many people with the little FA and GA Thumbnail pics on their user page showing off how many articles they have worked on and such. They have become a little like the Barnstars people give one another, becoming a little like bages of merit. “Keeping people around is harder than recruiting them; bored editors quickly leave” . I think Wikipedia most Valuable resource would be the people that edit it. Not the only the people that edit one line of text, but mostly the people that have passion for a subject and given the right positive reinforcement will become vary productive Wikipedians. So do any other Wikipedia members have ideas or experience with some thing like this. We could have people submit their own original take on what the A class Thumbnail Image should look like, and then vote on the entries. Max 16:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

--What do you think?--

If so, why not make symbols for each article class and display them all on every page? I can imagine that indicators for articles might be a good idea, especially for readers who could get an idea of how complete or incomplete the article is considered. It would take a lot of work, though - on that basis I'm not sure about it. Nihiltres 16:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. see commons:Category:Vote symbols, in particular Image:Symbol_possible_vote.svg, Image:Symbol_opinion_vote.svg, and Image:Symbol_keep_vote.svg. Nihiltres 16:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Symbol_keep_vote.svg () would be good for A-class, and perhaps Image:Symbol_opinion_vote.svg () for B-class and Image:BA candidate.svg () for Start, though I'm skeptical that symbols for Start and B would actually be useful. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I passed my Idea by Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} and the good news according to him "it is technically possible to change it Wikipedia-wide (talking about the adopting of symbols or Images for A-Class, B-Class articles), if there's a consensus to do so, as it only requires modifying one template. "

it could look some thing like this, But this is only a thought:

1. Featured article: The best of Wikipedia's articles.
2. A-class: Essentially complete; a few omissions may be detected by a subject expert.
3. Good article: Well-written, nearly complete coverage of pertinent topics.
4. B-class: Useful for most readers, but needs expanded coverage.
5. Start class: Provides a significant amount of information, but serious gaps remain to be filled.
6. Stub class: A placeholder for future work, usually a few paragraphs introducing the topic and/or a few external links.
7. NIL: No directly corresponding Wikipedia article.

How would some thing like this be? Every page could have it's "class" shown in the top upper right hand corner of the page, like the Feature Articles()Max 00:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A-class is attributed one a project-by-project basis, whereas Good and Featured article follow a defined process. For that reason, I disagree that A-class articles (or classes below Good, actually, as the boundary are always sort of subjective) should benefit from any

icon. Circeus 23:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think that articles below the "Good Article" class will actually, benefit from the icon, it will draw people to the pages that need the most help, Because there is vary little editing to do to a FA or GA page, But with pages below GA, there is much work that can be done as the Article is needing much more work, and this will get people to see where there efforts will be best spent Max 00:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This proposal will make more sense after we've implemented stable versions. Until that happens, article quality, especially for the less-watched articles which haven't achieved FA or GA, will remain, well... unstable.--Pharos 00:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think this will show that there is a "Grading scheme" not only for FA and GA Article's but Class A, B the start class and Stub, so it would not be to hard to find where the articles place is. Max 00:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• One thing, though: don't expect to have Template:FA stars or the like on the top-right corner of articles any time soon. GAs already tried that, and it was deleted, setting precedent against these things. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• I like that idea of expanding from FAs and GAs to A and B classes. Like it a lot... bibliomaniac15 00:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, no top-right stars or any thing like that. But if we expanded the Article classes to include A and B class, can we then start tracking the number of A and B class article’s? I was just thinking this because it shows how many FA Article’s there are in relation to all of Wikipedia’s Articles. Now If we could know the numbers of article’s in the different Article graded classes we could start using the numbers to track Wikipedia’s Quality Growth and completeness. Wikipedia has to be proud to have 1,745,000 article’s, But at the same time start to improving what we have By developing a better “System” of Grading that reaches all across Wikipedia pages and sections, with standard criteria that helps move Wikipedia away from rapid expansion and dissimilar criteria to a Grading system that helps make the focus on the Quality of Wikipedias work a Top Priority . I think it would also be helpful because more articles would be peer reviewed, helping to avoid the negative attention Wikipedia gets when Articles are found to be slandering a person or un-encyclopedic. The more Popular Wikipedia Becomes the more the need grows for Wikipedia to be seen as a creditable source of Knowledge. With an Expanded Article Grading System the growth of Wikipedia will be in the right Direction, no longer the massive spreading out, but focusing on Increasing the Quality. Max ╦╩ 22:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If we limit ourselves from corner badges, we'd need a spot to put these new rating images. If we made a general article quality template for talk pages of articles outside any existing WikiProject, then this proposal would make sense - but we wouldn't need a full badging system. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 00:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Need Help I have been trying to make a Template to help rate Article quality. And after many hours I see that I have no Idea how to make a template. Can some One recommend a pre=made template or even better have a Idea of how to build one? Max ╦╩ 15:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I found this and think something like this would be great Max ╦╩ 15:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Project	Active	Assessment	Peer review	Collaboration	Portal	Notes
Anthropology	yes

I like the idea of adding small symbols. On that note, there is a problem with A-class - some projects have a good peer review for it, but many don't, and I have seen articles A-ranked that wouldn't pass GA...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What about using the thumbnails right on the article page just like in case of FAs.?Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 16:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact IMO by definition A-class articles should've all passed GA. Therefore the GA icon serves well as the "article status identifier" on those articles. The A-class is simply an extra attribute above the GA mark stating that the article is a high-class GA. It's like FA is scoring an "A*" in public exams, while A and GA are both "A"s. But there exists "A1" and "A2" under the item "A", where "A1" is the A-class and "A2" is GA. --Deryck C. 09:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for consensus: External Links => Incline Citation Bot

• In many wikipedia articles, there are external links after a sentence which is used in a number formating (so the external link has no extra info attached to it); example [1].

• Would it be possible for a bot to remove "[" replacing with "<ref>" and remove "]" replacing with "</ref>"?

• After that the bot would search if there is <references/> in the article.

• If it cannot find it, the bot would make a new sub-section "==References==" and place "<references/>" below that.

• The bot would have to make a list from the last dump of all the mainspace articles, and perform the operations (hopefully it will get over within one week).

• Example Nonvolatile_BIOS_memory

--Paracit 23:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In my view, end of section references are preferable when there is a textual description of the reference. For a pure html link, the reference section just obscures matters, requiring an extra click-through. However, putting raw links into a reference section might encourage people to change them to proper citations. That's a testable proposition, and if it's true this would be a good idea. Derex 00:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Some editors might consider it controversial to change an inline link to a cite.php reference. Even if it encourages adding full citation info, some will view this as a short term detriment, by making the link one step removed. Gimmetrow 01:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to create such a bot and not very complicated actually. But I share the concerns mentioned above. Maybe you should see if you can reach a consensus in a discussion on this question at WP:CITE. Perhaps this has already been decided on and you can provide a link to it? I'd be interested in helping with the bot / programming it, if there's such a common agreement. I suggest continuing to talk about a bot when we are sure your suggested changes are supported by the community. — Ocolon 08:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've run across other articles where an editor has manually (I assume) converted embedded links to references/footnotes, without adding anything else. I suppose that encourages editors to work the references to improve them; I'm not sure (because I didn't systematically follow up over the months) that anyone actually did.-- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would almost suggest to just be bold, and manually do a few articles and see the reactions. Do the links get improved? Do you end up just annoying people? etc. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Check this out so many external links converted to inline citations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clinical_depression&diff=118654983&oldid=118576074

--Parker007 21:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Clinical depression article *did* benefit from converting the external links to inline citations. A problem that this conversion did not address is that the reference sections contain a lot of raw link text that ought to be replaced by useful 'metadata' in the form of authors, titles and complete names of publications. (Each raw link could be replaced by a citation template, and the link itself could be filled into the 'url' field, so the citation would be clickable). Someone could go through manually and fix that. Another more general problem is that this article seems to be overwhelmed by its excessive references. Wikipedia is not a directory or a bibliography. Not sure what your tool could do about that, but it might suggest to us that manual fixup can do things that a bot cannot. EdJohnston 16:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for consensus, please. --Paracit 06:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful if a click on a citation which is a bare URL went to a screen that prompted for the rest of the citatation metadata as an encouragement to get it collected. I dissent in part from EdJohnson that the Wikipedia is a not a bibliography. The Wikipedia only has credibility or encyclopedic authority to the extent that it can reference the secondary sources which compose the articles. After all, the article authors are not experts but anonymous compilers of information available in secondary sources which are attributed and can be verified. Something which appears first or only in the Wikipedia is called original research. patsw 12:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposals such as this should be discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals); consensus on on a talk page is not usually considered adequate justification for highly visible bot operations. CMummert · talk 12:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for consensus, please. --Paracit 21:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Bad idea. Raw number external links are not an ideal form, but hiding them behind a ref tag isn't the answer, they need to be replaced with properly formatted citations. That's not really a bot task. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I too have misgivings about the idea - whilst I personally would like to see all inline html links replaced by properly cited footnotes, this would be against current guideline of forcing a change of footnote/citation style - see WP:Footnotes#Converting_citation_styles which states "Converting citation styles should not be done without first gaining consensus for the change on the article's talk page.". So whilst I would dearly personally like this, I would bow to the wider community's relunctance for this.

Minor point from WP:MOS, surely "References" are used for sources researching the whole topic, whereas what we are addressing here are footnotes supporting or elaborating on specific points. Hence the <references/> tag (despite its name) should be under a "Footnotes" or "Notes" section. David Ruben ^Talk 22:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've used [2] type links in the bodies of articles deliberately on several occasions. A semi-automated bot maybe, but not automated. LukeSurl 00:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Define what you want done. Automatic or semiautomatic doesn't matter if nobody knows what is acceptable. Under what conditions is a direct Wikipedia link useful as a direct reference? Usually Wikipedia is not a reference. (SEWilco 05:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC))

It's worth pointing out that bare URLs are an acceptable reference style, so long as they are complemented by full citations in a separate reference section. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? A bot can also create missing citations. (SEWilco 05:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC))

The point is that how will a bot recognize between bare URLs used incorrectly and correctly used embedded citations. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The simplest test is to look for the same URL in both the article text and in a citation. If the place where citations are listed does not have a URL, then that URL does not have a citation. (SEWilco 00:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC))

This strikes me as a bad idea too. I think there are times when an editor wants to link to an outside source inline without sticking it in a footnote. --Selket ^Talk 06:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

A detailed citation is required; see WP:CITE. For example, if you don't document the title of the web page which you are linking to then it becomes much harder for someone to clean up your link when the page gets moved on the external server. (SEWilco 04:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC))

This is a very good idea, take Tar_sands for example, where instead of a reference section it has external links after the sentence. I strongly support this proposal. --Khunter 16:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This cannot be an automatic process, in articles such as Enzyme kinetics the square brackets are used to denote concentration, eg "At low concentrations of substrate [S], the enzyme exists in an equilibrium between both the free form E and the enzyme–substrate complex ES; increasing [S] likewise increases [ES] at the expense of [E], shifting the binding equilibrium to the right." A bot would replace this correct formatting with ref tags. TimVickers 00:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A bot should not. [ES] is not an external link, and you can see Wikipedia does not show it as a link. An external link has to have "http:" or another protocol after the opening bracket. (SEWilco 05:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

this is a useful proposal in the case where an article has a mix of ref-style citations and inline external links. in these cases one style should be used - ref-style. i have tidied-up mixed up articles like this several times, and it is invariably an improvement, encouraging further ref-style citations to be added by other editors. 86.31.103.208 12:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Support - Standardization is good. I would just say either require human intervention before proceeding to edit/replace a [http://link with] text in it & make sure it ignores the contents of the external links sections. MrZaius^talk 16:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose; this is a bad idea for all the reasons above. This is the sort of change that almost always requires a human hand. (A citation with no details is no better than a numbered link, and not all numbered links are citations.) — The Storm Surfer 20:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose; Reference adding is by nature a human task. On the other hand, if you want to tag external links outside of reference/external links sections with some small ^{[Inline citation format needed]} type template, that might be OK. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 21:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Where to discuss long-term systemic problems with Wikipedia?

I noticed that there are many long-term systemic problems with Wikipedia, which are not dealt with because some will "cover their backside", pretend the problems don't exist, and discussion eventually dies out, only to start up again a week or month later.

For example, on the talk page of AIV, there are complaints that we are too soft on vandals. A couple of users will pretend this problem doesn't exist, and let discussion die. A week later, someone will raise this complaint again.

There are also many who believe that some processes, such as RFA and AFD, are broken. Yet nothing is done to reform them.

If you check the list of missing Wikipedians, and read the reasons why established users leave, you will see the same few problems being mentioned over and over again. Why are these problems not resolved?

Other sites criticise Wikipedia for allegedly being anti-elitist, lacking credibility, and some admins abusing their powers. Shouldn't we do something to address these concerns?

I think we need a place for centralised discussion on such issues. This would ensure that discussion does not die out just because some pretend the problems don't exist. By creating a place where we can openly discuss problems with Wikipedia, contributors will be less tempted to join Wikipedia Watch and other anti-Wikipedia sites.

Wikis are meant to be dynamic, so problems can be quickly dealt with. However, with systemic problems, this evidently isn't the case. While unlike some, I don't believe Wikipedia is irredeemably broken, I believe that it eventually will be if we don't quickly deal with these systemic problems. Please note that I am not anti-Wikipedia - I believe it has great potential and that's why I hope these systemic problems can be dealt with.

--Kaypoh 07:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(sticking fingers in ears)... La La La... I can't hear you... La La La La  :>) Blueboar 16:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

On a more serious note, this page is OK. You can also write an Wikipedia:Essay in Project space or your own userspace and ask users to comment on it. x42bn6 Talk 17:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the discussion will quickly die out, the thread will be archived in a week or so, and nothing will be done to deal with these problems. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please write an essay on this, with some brief examples. Then the essay's talk page can be the centralized discussion for this meta-issue, and hopefully the discussions won't die out there. Get the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost to cover them. –Pomte 09:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Wikipedia:Reform. All comments, edits, and additions are more than welcome. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

number comments on that page to date: zero. heh heh heh. 86.31.103.208 12:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject X

Can we please get rid of these templates already? See Talk:Gibberellic acid, for one of many examples. — Omegatron 16:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There exists a Template:WikiProject Banners which can combine multiple banners into one to clean up talk pages a bit. Dr. Cash 00:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no other content on that talk page, so the banners are not being disruptive there. –Pomte 23:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the banners are disruptive altogether.

Especially so when they're the only thing on a talk page and prevent the talk from being a redlink. — Omegatron 18:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject reform. –Pomte 20:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

its very annoying to see article's "talk" button in blue, expecting there to be some discussion there, only to discover some wikiproject banners - you have just wasted your click. the banners provide very little benefit, and could easily be replaced by lists held in the wikiproject's space instead of spamming every article's talk page. 86.31.103.208 12:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Audio

I just want to bring attention to this template used to listen to an article's title pronunciation. My main problem with it is that it includes nothing less than three links —"pronunciation" or "listen," "info" and "help" (example here)— which are very distracting and add unnecessary clutter, where a simple audio icon linking to the Image (file) page would suffice. All the needed help and information can be placed there, so there's no real reason to clutter the article with "microsoftian" links. I've been trying for months to remove the links, but the talk page is not exactly bustling with activity. I would like to get this issue resolved once and for all. Thank you for your help and support! ☆ CieloEstrellado 09:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should only be the image of the speaker thing that is already there. No parentheses, no links, just that. That makes the most sense. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  01:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Antidisestablishmentarianism already has {{inline audio}} at the top, I've removed the (info) links. I see no reason for someone to need to get to the Image: page of a pronunciation other than maintenance or to find who uploaded it, which can be done by looking at the wikilink and they'd know how to do this. I think it's better to keep (info) for other cases such as song clips, and (help) provided {{inline audio}} isn't nearby. –Pomte 09:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

We need to provide an easy link to show who uploaded it, to comply with the GFDL. There's no guarantee that no GFDL audio files will be used with Template:Audio. More talk at Template talk:Audio-nohelp. --Kjoonlee 11:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

*Falls on floor* Seriously, I'm talking about having less links, not more! ☆ CieloEstrellado 12:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The links aren't really that obtrusive and of course we shouldn't violate the GFDL just to make things look prettier. To get rid of the info link, you can direct the main link to the info page, but that would make it more tedious to access the audio file. –Pomte 12:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm dead serious as well and we can't get rid of the info links. The help links can be reduced if and only if we can provide an alternative help link. Hence Template:Inline_audio, and the -nohelp audio templates. Other than that, I agree the help/info links aren't really that obtrusive. --Kjoonlee 14:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you dislike the links so much, you can put ".audiolinkinfo {display: none}" (without the quotes) inside your monobook.css page and they won't be displayed at all. --Kjoonlee 15:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not looking at a private solution here, I believe the links should really not be there. We don't do this for images and we do not violate the GFDL by not doing it. Really, how many people actually listen to these files? It just doesn't justify the cluttering for the rest. ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

But we do link to the image page from the images. It's impossible not to link to image pages. And please don't say people don't listen to the files. That's insulting to all the people who work hard to record and upload their files. Also, it is a private situation you're facing here. --Kjoonlee 16:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks as if you're trying to coerce your own preferences onto other users. That doesn't seem very compatible with the NPOV policy. --Kjoonlee 16:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If people do think info links are cluttersome, they can hide the links themselves. --Kjoonlee 16:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Senior Editor

And yes, I've read the FAQ. And I did see it posted. However I don't the reason for objection is strong enough.

For most people on Wikipedia their are I.P. users, Registered Accounts, and Admins. I think their needs to be a middle level between Registered Accounts and Admins. For example, admins may page protect, delete pages, block users, ect. Most users often come across situations were they might need to protect a page or if they are monitoring AfD and an article needs deleted, they instead have wait for a Admin to delete that article. A middle level, which could be called a Senior Editor, would be able to delete articles and protect pages. The process would work like:

Editor ———> Request for Seniority ———> Senior Editor ———> Request for Admin ———> Admin...ect.

The senior editors would NOT have the power to block a user, but they would be able to make edits to protected pages, protect pages themselves, delete articles (including speedy) , restore deleted articles, ect. They would have to go through a process that would be similar to RfA. I don't have any ideas on this, but it could be possible to become an Admin without being a Senior Editor. I don't know. I'm just throwing the idea out there. Thanks! Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^{Talk to me} or _{learn something new!} 01:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea, but what with the whole admin rehaul thing going on, this may be the last thing that those people there would want to think about. What I might suggest, though, is that you run the idea by at WP:RfA or tell them to come here. I might also suggest that the process of becoming a "senior editor" (or an alternative name) might be similar to the current GAC process, whereby a user is put on a list and reviewed by one admin, and if he or she deems that person acceptable, then they would get the status. Maybe to make it sound more appropriate, we could only give these people the rights to do certain things, like protect and maybe delete. Or maybe a page may be deleted fully if two "Senior editors" press the delete button. Who knows. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  01:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Admin rehaul? Where is this being discussed? Corvus cornix 01:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Admin overhaul. See this signpost article. Also, I was thinking that Wikipedia:Limited administrators would be a good place to start looking, and possibly the talk page, for suggestions on what to do. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  01:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to peruse Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform, to see if someone has already suggested this, or make a new proposal there. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  01:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Possibly a board of Admins (say 5) who could approve "Seniority." The purpose of the "senior editor" should be encyclopedic. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^{Talk to me} or _{learn something new!} 01:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah. It's Requests for Adminship that is being discussed (although perusal of the mailing list indicates that this has been discussed ad nauseum for months now), not Adminship per se. Corvus cornix 20:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose granting delete powers to users through a less extensive review than the current RfA process. The word of one or two current admins is nowhere near enough. Look at various recent failed RfAs. DES ^(talk) 01:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I sort of agree. But what's outlined at Limited administrators is appropriate, I think. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  01:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It says articles created within 3 days. That would prevent a person avoiding AfD and would allow Speedy Deletion for vandalism. I think they should also be allowed page protects. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^{Talk to me} or _{learn something new!} 02:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly, vociferously, vigorously oppose. The last thing we need is yet another class of users around here. This is overly bureaucratic and serves no purpose. If a person can be trusted to delete something or protect something, they certainly can be trusted to block someone. We don't need yet another class of users. --Durin 02:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? The standards for adminship are insanely high! Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^{Talk to me} or _{learn something new!} 02:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The only standards that should exist are that the community trusts the editor to not abuse the tools, and that the editor has enough experience on Wikipedia to be able to handle most admin situations that come along. There are some editors, unfortunately, who apply ever-increasing personal standards to the position, which only causes reactions such as yours. It's really too bad. One good bit of news: there has been a recent upsurge in the number of people requesting adminship. Hopefully that trend will hold steady. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

So change the standards. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. If we can trust someone not to go insane with two extra buttons, we can trust them not to go insane with one more too. If not, they shouldn't have any extra ones. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• The merits of having limited administrators aside, there is no reason to believe that people will not just bring their absurd standards to this, as well. The only way to avoid that is to have that aformentioned "Senority board", which is a very bad idea. The community should have the power to decide who gets tools, not a clique of five people. -Amarkov moo! 04:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• There are so many things a non-admin can do to help out, that it doesn't help much to create limited adminship. Either the community trusts you, or it doesn't. All admin functions should be limited to admins, with the possible exception of closing XFDs as keep/merge/redirect/no consensus. YechielMan 04:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

YechielMan is right. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 05:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. Adding another class of editors will just confuse the general process more. The Wikipedia community as a whole must be able to confirm if the person is trusted or not. We can't have a class which has half of the admin tools with approval from a clique of admins. And yes, I'm sure that RfA is a grueling process, but it is a step that must be taken in order to trust someone with the tools. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 11:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the ideas used at wikiversity is probationary admins. Basically, if one admin thinks someone would make good admin, the take them on as a apprentice. The bureaucrat promotes the user to a admin, and the trainer keeps a eye on them for a week. After a week, the community votes on how well they handled the trial period and gives a yes or no on full adminship. --Rayc 05:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Rayc, your suggestion would encourage cliques and admin abuse. A rogue admin could take a friend on as an apprentice, and ask them to make an inappropriate admin action on their behalf, hoping that it will be hidden among the friend's hundred appropriate admin actions.

Perhaps, under certain circumstances, probationary adminship could be granted through RFA (and perhaps it could even be an option along Support, Oppose and Neutral). For example:

• An RFA where there is a numerical consensus to promote (80% or more), but the opposers raised one or two serious concerns that were not adequately addressed by the candidate or the supporters (possibly because they were raised too late). Probationary adminship should only be used if the RFA would easily pass if there were no serious concerns. What constitutes a serious concern is left to the closing bureaucrat's discretion, but I'm thinking along the lines of diffs which suggest the candidate would abuse the tools, or glaring inexperience with an area in which the candidate has indicated they wish to use their admin tools (when the candidate has indicated at least two other areas where they have sufficient experience).
• An RFA where the candidate indicates that they wish to focus on a severely-neglected but important area (such as image backlogs), and there is about 70% support (slightly falling short of numerical consensus), with the supporters applauding the candidate's contributions to that area, and the opposers mainly stating that the candidate should not focus on only one area.
• An RFA where the candidate is a bot focusing on a severely-neglected but important area, and there is about 70% support (slightly falling short of numerical consensus), with the supporters hailing the benefits of the bot, and the opposers mainly stating that bots should not be granted adminship.
• An RFA where the candidate is a former administrator who was desysopped for abuse of admin tools, and there is about 70% support (slightly falling short of numerical consensus), with the supporters stating that the candidate should be given another chance given their past history of positive contributions, and the opposers harping on the incident that got the candidate desysopped.

Probationary adminship should last a week or two, after which another RFA is run where the community decides whether the candidate passed their probation or not. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• No to what encourages more stratification within the community. - Mailer Diablo 17:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Who gets to decide the board of 5 admins? The Senior Junior editors? And who gets to choose them? :) No more layers needed, please. Aim to make things simpler, not more complex. – Riana _ऋ 17:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• I think powers should be individually assigned, on request, for performing specific tasks. There's no need for it to be all or nothing, and this is already possible with trivial software modifications to create a group for each power. This would hopefully also defuse a lot of the hullabaloo around RfA, as we wouldn't have to be as careful about it if we weren't giving out as much power. Besides, it's good as a matter of security principle to follow the principle of least privilege, and it would allow people to gradually phase into adminship while under observation. Dcoetzee 17:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not, as currently worded. Probationary periods are easy to fake-out, and we've seen recently how much damage a rogue user with the extra tools can do in 17 minutes. There are any number of things that person could have done that would have been even worse, moreover. Meanwhile, I don't even trust our current administrators enough right now to mentor new admins on a one-on-one basis; the only protection we have against more rogue actions is the global scope of RFA, and that anyone (even an anon. user) can participate to alert us. That's how the 'pedia as a whole works, and that's how the granting of (the dangerous) powers and tools should work. Is RFA's culture sprained? Probably, but doing an end-run is not going to solve that. Change the culture. Support decent users who are on the borderline. Encourage users to run. Nominate someone you think might pass. -- nae'blis 17:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• This is not a good idea. It's a perennial issue for a reason. >Radiant< 10:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Potentially a very bad idea indeed. And I say that even though the idea of having a middle point at which to aim without trying for adminship was appealing for a moment. Until sense reigned. All of the above objections are valid, so I won't bother repeating them. Adrian M. H. 19:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, then the less complicated on the structure, the better. Hence there should not have any extra tiers of users.--Kylohk 14:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Pimp my village

Did you know that the village pump is really hard to find? Unless you know the shortcut you generally have to scroll up and down in the community portal hoping you'll spot the link. And when I type 'Village pump" into the search field I am redirected to an article called 'water well'. Maybe Village Pump could be made more prominent and easier to find. Lgh 04:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• There are links on the main page below the featured picture, and at the Community Portal near the top. Changing these might be hard to sell people on; the simpler strategy is for you to link WP:PUMP from your user page. YechielMan 07:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• There is a link here from Village pump. WP:VP is a shorter shortcut. –Pomte 07:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Actually, for all Wikipedia space pages, you can access them by typing "Wikipedia:" followed by the name of the page you would like to find. So, you type Wikipedia:Village Pump to get here.--Kylohk 21:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to "Template:Unreferenced"

{{Unreferenced}} is a high-profile template that is currently used on thousands of different articles. I tried to start a discussion on the talk page to make an edit that I think might actively prompt people to go hunting for sources. However, due to concerns that it might constitute advertising and due to the high-visibility of the edit, it was suggested to bring the discussion here.

Here is my original proposal:

I was wondering if the template could include links to the three big search engines (Yahoo, MSN and Google) to prompt people to start searching for sources. I chose those three search engines, because those are the search engines that Wikipedia already chooses to use as part of its searching system: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=googleblat

I've created a proposal so that people can see what I mean before implementing anything: Template:Unreferenced/Proposal

The template essentially plugs the article name into the search engine as a search term. Could lead to useful results, or at least represent a good starting point to refine the search terms used...

I suggest keeping the discussion here rather than putting it on the template talk page. Looking forward to comments.GDallimore (Talk) 13:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If worded carefully, this might be a useful change. It would have to be very carefully worded to avoid advertising though. What sort of language were you thinking of? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see the link to your proposed wording. I don't care for that language - it does sound advertisy and makes it look like only internet sources are required. How about something more along the lines of "You can help! Google, Yahoo and MSN might be good places to start." Though I still think that's a little ady. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it. It sends the wrong message - Internet sources should not be used exclusively, and are indeed generally somewhat unreliable. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 18:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a template can be created to search http://www.worldcat.org/ and then be added to Template:Unreferenced alongside the Internet search engines. --Iamunknown 18:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Most readers know how to use general search engines so linking to them isn't very helpful. More specific ones that they may not be familiar with, such as Google News and Google Scholar, should be much more useful for finding reliable sources. The template currently links Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. Instead of linking one specific WikiProject, there should be a central page on referencing with convenient links to other pages like Wikipedia:Newspapers and magazines request service and Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. –Pomte 19:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't find Google Scholar to be all that helpful as I usually only get abstracts rather than full text of the papers. But I like the idea of pointing to resources that can be used to find potential sources, and maybe pointing to resources that can help them figure out the how of citing ones sources in Wikipedia (something like Wikipedia:Citation templates). We don't want the template to get too crowded though. Maybe we should put together a page of links that are helpful for finding sources and link to that page. It could link to the "big three" search engines, Google Scholar, and more specific things like Chronicling America, and internal links like to the citation templates. However, that would eliminate the usefulness of the posters original idea, which was to format the links in such a way that clicking automatically takes you to relevant search results. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made a couple of changes to the wording of the template. This isn't intended as final, but is just a first stab at softening the wording. Maybe a fourth link could be added to the list of other resources that are being suggested.GDallimore (Talk) 21:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Had a thought and made a couple more edits to {{Unreferenced/Proposal}}. It now uses exactly the same wording as the Wikipedia search screen and includes a possible way to link to an article that suggest other resources. That article should include at the top "your local library" or something. :) GDallimore (Talk) 21:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

To me Search for "article title" on Google, MSN or Yahoo!, implies the search will result in finding Reliable sources which is far from the case. If an editor knows what a reliable source is they will know where to find it. If they don't know there is no reason to point them towards a million unreliable sources. Jeepday (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The template already includes a link to explain what reliable sources are. If people find unreliable sources, they'll be removed, that's the way Wikipedia works, but at least it will prompt people to start looking. GDallimore (Talk) 08:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at today's featured article, William Monahan. Almost every reference in it is an Internet reference, with online articles by the Boston Globe and other reliable sources. The Internet is invaluable for articles about relatively recent things, people and events so it's hardly a useless thing to do to include links to search engines to be able to find whether it was the Boston Globe or the New York Times that printed an article about Mrs Jane Untermyer and her unusually large cat. GDallimore (Talk) 09:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

not wise. Internet sources are notoriously unreliable. Further, this sends the message that online sources are more important than offline sources (the reverse is usually true), and that just using the internet to source your article is sufficient. 86.31.103.208 12:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat disagree with the last comment. Internet transcriptions of reputable sources (newspaper articles, scholarly documents) should always be online if at all possible. Its all very nice to put a book as a reference, but 99.9% of all Wikipedians (and even 99% of all Wikipdians watchlisting the article) are unlikely to posess said book. Online sources are a good way to add to the hard-to-check other references.

As regarding the original proposal, may opinion is: do NOT provide direct links, but the idea of linking to a main search help page on Wikipedia is a good one. Just don't clutter up the template too much. MadMaxDog 10:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this would most result in people adding bad sources (especially Wikipedia mirrors!) to articles that have no sources, and then the unreferenced template will be taken out, and there'll be no way to identify the articles. — 128.119.127.137 21:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Terrible idea. We don't need to tell people how to search for sources. If anyone looks at one of the search engine links and thinks "OH WOW! I never thought to do this before!", they aren't the type of person I would want editing Wikipedia. --- RockMFR 19:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Vandalpedia"

This may have already been proposed. It may even already exist. But I've been thinking. If vnadalism is such a big issue on the Wikipedia, how about we let it happen, but not ON the Wikipedia. Place a link, easily viewable, on the mainpage, to a "Vandalpedia". This "Vandalpedia" would be a full mirror of the Wikipedia on which people will have the full right to vandalize it in any way. It probably wouldn't deter the problem much, but at least a little bit. Madhackrviper 15:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia probably counts.GDallimore (Talk) 15:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought awhile back about an idea to add links to Uncyclopedia on the user vandalism templates - giving bored people something amusing might deter them from vandalising Wikipedia for amusement. As for a link on the Main Page: Forget it, that's just an acknowledgement of the problem vandalism poses, and who'd use it? Vandals and trolls are rarely rational. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 16:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally I feel that we should not have to assume good faith when it comes to blatant or persistent vandals. Still, until such time as the policy is reverse, I will still show it. -- KirinX 16:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF states: When you can reasonably assume that a mistake someone made was a well-intentioned attempt to further the goals of the project, correct it without criticizing. If it is obviously "blatant and persistent", then you can't "reasonably assume" it was well-intentioned. Thus "assuming good faith" in the face of blatant and persistent vandalism is actually against the guideline, which also states: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. dr.ef.tymac 17:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice, thanks. Now if only blocking admins that remove perfectly reasonable AIV reports, would actually refer to that. Or perhaps blocking policy needs to be changed to reflect that. I don't believe vandals have any intentions of contributing positively, so if an IP is blocked, so what if a user who inherits the IP a month later has to apply for an unblock? This policy of never indef blocking IPs is just contributing to the vandalism problem. It's a big huge revolving door. -- KirinX 17:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalpedia, huh? How about making a large dedicated "graffiti wall" so people can write whatever nonsense they like, and it would all be gone by the end of the day!--Kylohk 21:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

We already have one of those, too: WP:Sandbox. GDallimore (Talk) 21:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the interwiki. 129.98.212.51 01:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you'd be surprised at how organized Uncyclopedia has to be. People get blocked for cracking unfunny or lame jokes, for goodness sake! bibliomaniac15 01:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia takes its humor quite seriously I have noticed when I go there. It greatly looks down on vandal style humor and heavily uses satire or parody. Uncyclopedians don't like vandals any more than we do. Captain panda 02:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, even humor has its quality. Of course typical politically incorrect stuff brings lots of laughs. Just look at Borat! But if what you write isn't funny, then well, you are going to hurt many people's feelings.--Kylohk 22:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I should clarify and qualify what I said: when I mentioned Uncyclopedia, I didn't mean to imply that we should redirect vandalism there - I meant that giving bored people something to do rather than vandalize Wikipedia would encourage them to stop, assuming boredom is their motive. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 15:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder whether there are edit wars in Uncyclopedia. But still, their article on Edit Wars certainly is a humorous but truthful way to assess the situation!--Kylohk 22:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

BirthdayBot discussion

Hello community, I have since been declined my request to run a new bot called BirthdayBot. Firstly, I will tell you a little about it, and then get the community's thoughts about it (as that was the suggestion made on the request).

• BirthdayBot is a new Wikipedia bot created by ST47 for Extranet to run on the m:Toolserver. It's main purpose here is to check the calendar of birthdays for the current day, and sends one of the corresponding templates, either a birthday template, a first edit day template, or adminship anniversary template to that user's userpage on behalf of the Wikipedia:Birthday Committee. Any human user that wishes to contribute further, they can also greet the user with another template (there is a wide variety) under BirthdayBot's contribution.

Now it's time for your say on this. I am really enthusiastic and want this bot running, but many people say it's like a welcome bot - that's not the case - it only greets 5 users per day at a maximum, whereas a welcome bot could do thousands. Looking forward to your thoughts. Many thanks, Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is the mass sending of templatized messages worth the time and server resources? Isn't the point of a birthday greeting that it's done by a person who notices and therefore cares? Λυδαcιτγ 03:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose bot; keep doing it manually. If the Birthday Committee is being inactive, then its purposes should be reconsidered, not replaced by a bot. –Pomte 03:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

sigh...an impersonal waste of server use for something unrelated to the project goal, we've been through similar things several times before. Voice-of-All 04:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine, I just really needed to see what the community thought and it looks like the bot won't be going ahead. Thanks again. Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging New contributors' help page and Editor assistance into Help desk

I propose to merge Wikipedia:New contributors' help page and Wikipedia:Editor assistance into Wikipedia:Help desk. The reason for this is due the more or less similar activities:

• All three have a help desk with possibility for users to leave a question on how to use the wiki, although the Help desk is the most established.
• All three deals with "how-to" type questions; anyone asking for factual stuff is directed towards the reference desk
• In addition, the new contributor's page and the help desk also mentions/links to the {{helpme}} and the IRC client.

There's really not a point in having three similar pages dealing with (as far as I can see) support mainly targeted at new users, and it would probably be better for Wikipedia if we were to have one single page instead of three. Could also be better for those interested in contributing through helping other users.

Also, this would mean the creation of #wikipedia-help and #wikipedia-en-help channels instead of using the current #wikipedia-bootcamp on IRC, as has already been suggested by some of the users on #wikipedia-bootcamp. The current bootcamp channel will be forwarded to one of the new channels. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 00:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• BTW, listed this discussion in the merge tags for all the three relevant pages, as well as a note on Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 00:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with the merger. Strongly. I think differentiating the pages (by linking them on the main help page as different links, as I have done), is necessary. New users: (1) may be intimidated by the technological jargon of the original Help Desk, (2) receive answers that may be hard to grasp given the extreme use of acronyms and abbreviations for answers, and (3) few users (especially new ones) read the backlog of questions as most present singularly unique questions. I look at having two different pages the way a school teacher looks at differentiated instruction. Teaching everyone with the same resource might be practical and more clear cut, but students have divergent needs and skills sets so instruction needs to be different. If there's a problem here, it seems to me that the two pages need to be further differentiated so they better address the divergent needs of different users. SkipperClipper 02:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merging WP:NCH was already discussed, but I don't see how Wikipedia:Editor assistance is mergeable. It has more in common with the Adopt-a-User program than with the help desk, so if it has to be merged, I'd suggest it's merged with the adoption program instead. - 87.209.70.231 04:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree. As SkipperClipper mentioned above, the three pages are like two teachers teaching the same idea with different resources. Moreover there are several major differences among the projects:
  1. HD deals with questions in a single-thread Q-A manner. Old discussions are archived automatically after 5 days. A second follow-up action or response is unlikely. On the other hand, both NUH and EA works in the form of a personal follow-up.
  2. EA and HD is for everyone, while NUH is specialized for newcomers.
  3. Processes in HD and NUH are more well-defined, while EA is comparatively casual.

  Owing to these differences in working principles and style, I believe the three projects should survive individually. --Deryck C. 04:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: As far as I can see, WP:EA does nothing different from the other two pages mentioned; on the requests page people leave their questions, while other users reply, also keeping follow-ups in the same page. That's more or less exactly the same as HD or NUH. As for the level of expertise on the users seeking help I can't really see a that big difference with EA compared to HD! Both pages have questions ranging from brand new and inexperienced users to those with more experience and more advanced questions.

If the original intention of EA was more coaching-thing than traditional Q&A, this should be empathized much more instead of focusing on the Q&A. As an alternative to the Q&A, both NUH and HD links to an online IRC client as well as the {{helpme}} template; the latter primarily for users to put on their userpages in order to get help from a more experienced editor directly. EA has no such alternatives, and only focus on Q&A. I also don't understand the problem of mixing questions from inexperienced users with other questions from somewhat more experienced users; this has been done on all three pages, although there is generally a lower level of expertise required to answer questions on NUH. If it turns out that the differences are really small, why not expand one of the projects instead of having three different? Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 10:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply: if a Wikipedia project page can solve a problem, why bring it offsite to IRC, complicating things? Moreover, EA is not just Q&A; it also lets people discuss stuff. See some more complicated cases out there. It's just the simple cases that look like Q&As. --Deryck C. 14:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree, and would note that a failed (and I mean failed, only one person supporting) merger proposal happened around a month ago. EA's been working just fine as a separate project, let's leave it alone. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not convinced there's enough of a difference between WP:NCH and WP:HD to keep them separate, but the arguments I've heard to prevent the merge seem reasonable. The problem is that WP:NCH is not that well-known; new users often find the Help Desk instead, and NCH doesn't have as many users answering. So maybe better advertisement, rather than merging, is the solution. --ais523 12:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree. ASSIST is working nicely as it is, and is performing an additional role in getting newbies' heads around policy, so that they actually do what they're meant to, rather than get the AMA to wikilawyer for them. Moreschi ^Talk 14:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree with the merge, but perhaps some sort of restructuring of the New contributors' help page, I keep both watchlisted, but the problem with the NCHP seems to be that it's not very well publicized, maybe it would help to add a few more links to it in the various banners and page headers designed for new users--VectorPotential^Talk 14:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Agree in part - I concur with ais523's comment about the need to promote the WP:NCH page properly; but it suffers from alarge degree of redundancy, so it should be merged. I have only recently begun to monitor it because I didn't even know about its existence, but it suffers from very low traffic. I and at least one other editor raised the same point in the previous merger discussion. WP:EA, however, should not be merged, but its intended use needs to be emphasised and/or repositioned to reflect the differing nature of the assistance on offer. I often work one-to-one with new editors about specific queries/issues and WP:EA is the ideal forum for their requests. As such, it needs to be promoted properly, described clearly, and easy to locate. Adrian M. H. 16:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I would also like to point out that too much merging may result in excess strain being placed on the Help Desk during busy periods, and if that happens, some questions will slip by unanswered and questioners will only find it that bit harder to find their questions. Adrian M. H. 16:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agree in part - I think that WP:HD and WP:NUH should be merged while WP:EA should remain. WP:HD and WP:NUH are the same set-up and used for the same purpose. I think having these two is redundant. If someone is at the mall and needs help they go to the help kiosk; the system we have now sends the new shoppers one place and the established shoppers somewhere else. I don't think that WP:EA should be included in the merge simply becuase it does more than answer questions. WP:EA is used for resolving disputes and is a more personal aid. In summary, I strongy agree that WP:HD and WP:NUH are merged to one page (after all new users come to the help page all the time), and I feel that WP:EA remain as its own page. Scottydude _talk 17:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Agree in part - WP:HD and WP:NUH should be merged while WP:EA should remain per above. Agree that WP:NUH has low traffic and so could be merged to streamline our procedures, while WP:EA is working ok and merging could over-load WP:HD. Addhoc 23:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• I definitely support the merger of NUH and HD, EA is an essentially an unnecessary fork of the Adopt a user program (or perhaps just the same thing with less "cute" title). Maybe they should be merged. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Reaves (talk • contribs) 23:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

• NOTE: (As stated earlier) I have added a separate link on the Help:Contents page. I think this may increae stie traffic. If other locations are warranted, that fine. SkipperClipper 03:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The less confusing conflicting help channels for newbies (and oldbies), the better. 86.31.103.208 13:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Extra comment: One current advantage of EA over HD is that the traffic in EA is not too high so discussions are relatively coherent and easy to follow. Promoting on Help:Contents is good, but beware that excessive advertising could lead to overcrowding of EA, which is not good for this lightweight ask-and-help project. --Deryck C. 15:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree - I am a rather new contributer, and I read everything on the NCHP, sometimes learning new things about Wikipedia in small steps. I tried to read HD also, but most of the questions were too difficult. It's nice for a new wikipedian to have a safe place where you don't have to be afraid that your question is too stupid.
  Just read the way NCHP starts: "A place to get help with editing and finding your way around Wikipedia", compared to HD: "Read this first!...Please check the Very Frequently Asked Questions Page before asking a question here!" You notice the difference in tone?
  No please, keep NCHP for us newcomers! Lova Falk 13:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As demonstrated, newcomers do not expect as complicated and serious a thing as help desk. Something extra should be designed for them. --Deryck C. 07:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree. If I were to say to merge one of them somewhere else, it would be WP:EA, but even that carries considerable overhead for no real benefit, so meh. The Help desk and the New contributors' help desk have different methodology objectives, so they should remain separate entities. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Agree in part. This is the matter of difference in names. The Help desk and the New contributors' help page serve just the same purpose in practice. Given that more than half of the questions at the Help Desk come from the newbies, I believe this page is not too complicated. So WP:HD and WP:NUH should be merged while WP:EA should remain. PeaceNT 12:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Upload wizard

Commons uses a 'wizard' when uploading, to help people identify the correct licence. There is ongoing discussion about doing something on Wikipedia at MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext#Proposal for mass overhaul, matching Commons. Could people contribute to the discussion there? --ais523 12:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Categorization scheme: Nationality -> Country

I have a new bold proposal to reduce controversy in our categorization scheme. I propose we categorize people by "country" rather than "nationality". Nationality does not equal citizenship even if that was the original intention. If one changes citizenship or has multiple citizenship it can be tagged by all that apply. Stuff ambiguous like "American people" would also be gone as a result of this since it is "People from the United States". -- Cat ^chi? 13:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This will not stop controversy... just change it's nature. You will simply get arguments over what country someone is from. This is especially true for historical figures... borders change, countries expand and contract through war, regions break away and form new countries, etc. Do we classify someone by which country controlled the territory they lived in when they were born, or during the majority of their life, or by it's current name? Take for example someone born in Dublin in the early 1800s... would you categorize him in "People from Ireland" or in "People from the British Empire". After all, Ireland was not a "country" at the time. The same would be true for an historical person from Tallinn in what is today Estonia... would you categorize someone born there in 1600 in "People from Estonia" or in "People from Sweden"... what about someone born there in 1800 (people from the Russian Empire?) And forget about trying to categorize someone from the Balkans... Yugoslavia? Croatia? Serbia? Boznia-Herzegovina? Greater Bulgaria? Austria? Hungary? Autria-Hungary? Venician Republic? Roman Empire? Byzantine Empire? Ottoman Empire? Some areas of the Balkans changed "country" multiple times during a single lifetime! Good intention, but it won't work. Blueboar 18:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all this change is to effect current peoples mostly. Historic personalities are a completely different issue. Someone from Ancient Rome should be categorized as being "from Ancient Rome" and not as an "Italian" or being "from Italy".

The intention of categorization is to base it on a legal document called "citizenship" throughout their life. It is not intended to be based on what country owns their birth place today. I am not going to reply to specific examples since that makes it a content dispute. Someone from the ottoman empire who did not carry another citizenship should be categorized accordingly. Einstein carried 3 different citizenship throughout his life.

Ethnicity/race of a person should play no role in ones citizenship. Categories are navigational aids. Nothing else. If the person is Irish or something else it can be mentioned in the relevant article.

-- Cat ^chi? 20:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, nationality is an important thing. Of course, we shouldn't discriminate by ethnicity, but we shouldn't think it doesn't exist. What would be done with any nationality that doesn't dominate any state, such as Kurds or TauregTuareg; it surely makes more sense to categorise a Kurd from Iraq with a Kurd from Turkey rather than with an Arab from Iraq. What would you do with an ethnically Russian person born in one of the other former Soviet republics? What about someone born in Abkhazia: would that person be Abkhazian or Georgian? I echo Blueboar: good intention, but it won't work. Nyttend 00:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What would I do? I guess there is no avoidance of specifics.

• There is no reason why we cant tag an Iraqi Arab, an Iraqi Turkomen, and an Iraqi Kurd under the same "People from Iraq" category. It is completely noncontroversial to suggest such a thing.
• To call a Kurd from Turkey as a "Turkish" can refer to both citizenship (everyone from Turkey is a "Turkish" citizen) but Turkish also means an ethnicity, (not everyone from Turkey is of "Turkish" ethnicity). It is problematic; the way we use it can be self contradictory.
• No comment on Taureg, we do not even have an article about it.

Tuareg - Well, are they Libyan citizens? They can be tagged under Tuareg ethnicity and Libyan citizenship (article says they live in Libya). -- Cat ^chi? 10:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• An ethnically Russian person without a Russian citizenship should not be categorised as being from Russia. Whatever country he/she is from should be the category. If he/she is from Poland categorizing accordingly is nothing problematic.
• Abkhazia is a de facto independent republic. Anything we talk about it will be in the gray area. Defacto counties such as Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, Republic of China, and even Sealand can be categorised like a regular country. There is a verifiable claim that these are countries even if the majority of the world disputes it. In the case of Abkhazia, everyone from Abkhazia can be tagged as "from Abkhazia" and "From Georgia" just like how a territory disputed by two or more countries are tagged as being the territory of those countries

I do not see leaving it "as is" a better solution. Lets either categorize by ethnicity or by country. Lets not mix these two with "nationality". Ethnicity can be controversial since it is a cultural issue and hard to verify. Someone can be 1/4th of a certain ethnicity, should he/she be categorised for his her 1/4th quarter or the other 1/4s. There are those living melting pots you know. Citizenship on the other hand can be based on a legal document. People typically have a single citizenship. Very few has dual, it is nearly unheard of for people to have triple citizenships.

-- Cat ^chi? 02:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

OK... how would you categorize Nikola Tesla? (just to use one that I know is controvercial and argued about a lot)... Serb? Croat? Aurstrian? American? Blueboar 12:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla was born on 10 July 1856 in Austrian Empire. I assume he carried an Austrian Empire citizenship. On 30 July 1891, he became a naturalized citizen of the United States. So he should be categorized under Category:People from the Austrian Empire and Category:People from the United States. I am assuming that these two were the only citizenship he had. Weather he was born in modern day Croatia or weather his parents were of Serbian ethnicity does not affect his citizenship either way. -- Cat ^chi? 18:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a 'citizen' of the Austrian Empire, but a subject. Ditto other empires. You would call someone a 'subject' of the British Empire, but I don't have a clue if these empires had anything like the modern system of citizenship. As for his categories, why on Earth is there a Category:Serbian vegetarians, of which he is the only member? Category:Vegetarians by nationality is also hopelessly subdivided. A list of vegetarians might be interesting, but I'm not going to rummage through 34 different nationality categories to get a list of vegetarians. Why oh why do people insist on seizing on categories that are functioning just fine and subcategorising them into uselessness by 'nationality'? <sigh> Carcharoth 23:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

OK how about this. Would you mind explaining what a "subject of an empire" supposed to mean? Is it like citizenship in a sense that "being a subject" is being from that country? How about categorizing him under Category:Subjects of Austrian Empire rather than "nationality"? We have many people of a certain nationality who have never been to the nation (country/nation-state). Or people from a nationality that does not even have a nation (country/nation-state). Those are especially problematic and makes categorization difficult. -- Cat ^chi? 19:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Protecting the featured article

The feature article from 2 days ago was corrupted with an explicit (gay sex) photo for a short period of time. I could also see someone going into a feature article and incorrectly/intentionally changing something less obvious. While there are many people who could catch it, the most vulnerable article on Wikipedia is the feature article.

It would be great if there were people who could monitor the article...but it would be even better if the article was locked while it was featured. Changes could either be made once the article was no longer featured, or a separate "proposed changes" page could exist while the article was featured, and changes could be made by committee during or after the article is featured.

Johnny1926 14:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death, so here it is in a nutshell. For the duration of its stay on the main page, the featured article probably has a hundred worthy editors checking on it from time to time, who will revert vandalism. Also, protecting our most visible article takes away from the "anyone can edit" portion of the philosophy. --Phoenix (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, front page Featured Articles almost always stay unprotected. As a result, you could imagine the chaos on the Wii article when it was up front. What a mess to clean up, with vandalism popping up every second.--Kylohk 22:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wii was a good example. It was semi-protected in the hours leading up to its main page stay, then was unprotected for the duration, then later reprotected. --Phoenix (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can change. That this has been "discussed to death" is not a valid reason to prematurely close the discussion. In December 2006, several editors conducted an analysis of vandalism to Main Page featured articles. The findings of fact (please note that vandalism by newly registered accounts, self-reverted vandalism and template vandalism are not included in the statistics):

• 70-85% of anonymous edits to Main Page featured articles are vandalism.

  • Featured articles are in a vandalised state for 6-10% of the 24 hours they spend on the Main Page.

    • Semi-protection is used occasionally on Main Page featured articles, and often lasts several hours.

Per the above statistics, I believe we should review our policy of not protecting Main Page featured articles. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

15-30% good edits from anons alone? That's above the "90% of everything is crap" rule-of thumb. Excellent. Let's keep it that way. We still get plenty of improvements.

This does worry me about current demographics for the longer term though. We used to count on 90% of anons being honest (or at least, >50%). In such cases, pages do not actually even need to be patrolled. This is a major problem, because wikis depend heavily on this kind of anon demographics. I have some ideas about what we are doing wrong, but what do other people think? --Kim Bruning 13:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the page history of Gilwell Park, on the Main Page yesterday, it is unacceptable how many reverts had to be made during that 24 hours. IMO, the featured article of the day needs to be at least semi-protected. Reywas92^Talk 14:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Dang! William Monahan's history for its day was much worse, with even more vandalism from IPs (than from logged-in vandals). Reywas92^Talk 14:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion? Yeah, I actually agree with you and think it should be semi-protected as well, but I respect the fact that the arguments against it probably have more merit than those for it. --Phoenix (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone taking into account Wikipedia's credibility? How many people are turned off Wikipedia when they come across vandalised pages? If Jimbo changed stance, you'd all jump ship. How long does Jimbo spend fighting vandalism? Not much. He's probably more concerned with maximum publicity (which can be tapped for his commercial efforts) than with producing a decent encyclopaedia... I'm torn between wanting vandalism to just stop (not gonna happen), and wanting it to soar until the people with their fingers in their ears ("lalalalala, I'm not listening") are forced to pay attention. --Seans Potato Business 13:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarifying binary prefixes in MediaWiki templates

Would anyone object if I edited the MediaWiki templates MediaWiki:searchsize, MediaWiki:size-gigabytes, MediaWiki:size-kilobytes, MediaWiki:size-megabytes, and MediaWiki:longpageerror to use the binary prefixes KiB, MiB, etc. as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Binary prefixes? These messages are used to refer to the amount of storage used by articles, and disk storage is an area where these prefixes cause the most confusion. Krimpet (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Since no objections have been raised, I've gone ahead and made the change. Krimpet (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

T'was reverted, and for the record I agree with the reversion. Carcharoth 23:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Creation of stubs for every human gene and RNA family

At the MCB Wikiproject we are gearing up to import several databases into Wikipedia. These would include families of RNAs in collaboration with the Rfam database and the complete set of publicly-available data on each human gene in collaboration with the Novartis/GNF SymAtlas project.

I'm worried that people may object to the automated creation of these stubs on the ground of notability and wanted to float the idea here. What are people's opinions? Should we restrict this to gene families, rather than individual genes, or should we regard this as the basis for future additions as scientific knowledge grows? Each gene stub would have several references to other databases and information, an example can be seen here.

Thanks for comments. TimVickers 21:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

How many of these are you going to create? I've always hated rapid creation of stubs, especially ones that won't have much of a future. Keep them only to gene families, expanding only if one goes further than a stub. Reywas92^Talk 21:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The number depends on the level that we go into the database. I'd be most happy restricting this to genes with known or proposed functions, as these will have some literature associated with them and can therefore be easily expanded in the future. On the other hand, the simple completeness of Wikipedia having an entry for every human gene is attractive, and could help us recruit more expert editors from the science community. TimVickers 22:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if the bot creating the stubs put a list of known associated sources on the talk page. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, the references in the Entrez gene page could be used. TimVickers 22:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

How many are we talking here, and is there any reason they couldn't be bot-generated into a list by family and then split out upon sufficient development? This was done with "geographic locations" a while back and we've still got tons of botstubs around from that, I don't know about anyone else but that soured me on the idea of bot-generated articles a bit. At least if it were into families there would be some meat to the article, and they'd be more likely to get eyes on them and get expanded. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Depending on which estimate you listen to, there are about 20,000 human genes annotated at present. The bot proposal is for 10,000 of these to be imported, these are the genes for which published information is available. The question isn't really how these articles are created, that's just mechanics, but instead we need to discuss what the content will be and if this content will be useful and notable. For example, is the ITK (gene) a notable subject, or does this stub not contain enough information? TimVickers 23:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. I've added some wikilinks to the sample article, which I think the bot should be able to add, and commented on the talk page for it.-gadfium 00:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be possible to create these articles in a gradual fashion rather than 10,000 at once. For example, maybe the bot could identify the top 100 genes (as ranked by number of GeneRIFs in the database) that have no existing Wikipedia article and create stubs for them. A list of these could be created on a subpage of the MCB WikiProject in an attempt to attract Wikipedia editors to the new stubs. Then after a month, do the next batch, maybe 200 for the second month. --JWSchmidt 00:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The bot won't create all the genes at once, that would be a tall order indeed. The first run is planned to create just 10 new stubs. What I'm trying to do here is get a feel for the community's ideas on the eventual scope of the project, which could run over many months. TimVickers 00:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

20,000 is one in every 88 articles! I really don't think articles should be made for every one. I'm not even quite convinced that the gene families are very notable or encyclopedic. Sorry. Reywas92^Talk 00:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of the example page Reywas? Does this meet the standard of notability in your opinion? Do you think only genes that have been the subject of scientific papers should be included? TimVickers 00:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Your going to need reliable sources for each of these to show their notability, otherwise it's going to put intense pressure on CAT:CSD. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, so far there are three main proposals:

1. Create a page for each gene.
2. Create a page for each gene that has references in the scientific literature (meeting reliable sources)
3. Create a page for each gene family and a list of the individual genes.

TimVickers 00:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd go for number 2, there's 20,000 gene's genes, but there they're not all notable, many of the notable ones are only notable because the are linked to a disease, in which case, a merge with the disease page may be all that is required. Also, don't forget we're an encyclopedia, outside users should be able to understand the articles, not just profesionals on the subject. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I choose number three. How many of them are there? Reywas92^Talk 00:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a problem in that option with classification. If we use Gene Ontology terms, each gene could fit under one of several classifications, as you can see with the ITK (gene) example. This option might seem simpler, but it would be much more complicated than any of the other options. TimVickers 01:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I would support number 2, also, I made a couple of style edits to the sample page. It had some extra line spaces between the box and the start of the prose content, creating extra whitespace at the top. Second, the title wasn't bolded in the first use. Also, most of the links on the template box under "function" and "Orthologs" are external links. Links to Wikipedia articles, if they exist are preferred (a link to an article explaining what Orthologs means would be nice as well, I had to look that one up) Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, we seem to be coming to consensus on proposal 2. This would involve the import of approximately 10,000 individual genes into stubs with 76,000 separate citations added to these stubs in order to meet WP:Reliable sources (numbers from GeneRIF statistics).

That's an interesting point Mr.Z-man, we could create a page for each GO term, and then use Wikilinks rather than external inks to the GO pages, however, then you would lose the classification information you get on GO pages such as this. I think external links are a better choice for the infoboxes (as with the standard Chembox). TimVickers 01:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Having a article for every gene is not so bad? As time goes on, more and more research goes into each, and the articles will definetelly(sp?) not stay stubs forever. I am going for number 2.petze 04:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well...I hate to rain on the parade here, because it's great to see information on genetics and such, but do remember individual articles must assert, and show, notability, since we're not, among other things, a directory. I think bot-copies of a directory of genes, for however noble a purpose, would be counter to that. Now if the various information could be ordered by gene-family, with some additional information on the family, that would probably work quite a bit better. If it turns out later that a ton of information on an individual gene is available, a splitout article can always happen later. Right now, though, I'm convinced a lot of these may remain permastubs. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

How about an entirely new wiki for the genes? GeneWiki ? With perhaps thirty thousand genes, it may deserve its own wiki, and be easier to write articles around each notably gene, around each family, around different theories surrounding certain classes of genes, etc, it will be a lot of articles. DanielDemaret 12:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That's possible, but not what we need to decide here. TimVickers 16:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, I agree that a complete list of all the 20,000 - 30,000 predicted genes would not be notable, mainly as many of these may not be real and they may not be annotated as genes in the future (as noted in this review). Therefore, however attractive option 1 is in terms of simplicity and completeness, I don't see it meeting notability. This leaves us with deciding on our cut-off criteria. Being specific is useful here. Looking at the example posted ITK (gene), I certainly feel this is a notable subject, and with the addition of the references in it's Entrez page would make a reasonable stub. Comments? TimVickers 16:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"Looking at the example posted ITK (gene) [...] Comments?" It needs more context data to be a useful general encyclopedia article. It should in the text clearly specify which species have this gene, on what named molecules, and what genes it is associated with in terms of genes evoluting from other genes. Futher: alternative names if any and if the letters stand for anything - if not then say so. Further: humanize it by adding dates and places and people. Somebody at some time at some place did something that lets us know the data in the article. So tell us the story. WAS 4.250 20:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I know such a page requires more text in order to become a comprehensive article, but these initial entries are intended to be stubs, not fully-fledged articles. In my opinion, a stub containing a short definition of what the gene is, a list of references for more details and a box containing a plethora of links to information in other databases is a good solid stub. Such a stub will form the basis of future additions, such as you describe, and could one day become a full article, perhaps even a featured article. TimVickers 22:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If there are adequate sources to eventually fill out stubs as I suggested, then it is appropriate to create such stubs. My !vote is in favor of creating all such stubs. WAS 4.250 23:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Option #2 looks good to me. I'm okay with stub articles, and think the articles would grow over time provided the particular genes are discussed in enough references. If a particular human gene as been cited a number of times in scholarly literature, then I would consider it notable. In general, I like the idea of bringing this information to the masses, in a more readable and accessible manner, as Wikipedia usually does. --Aude (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Another advantage we haven't touched on yet is the ability to bring Wiki-based annotation to the wider scientific community. With the Rfam RNA database (about 570 RNA families) the Sanger centre would not only put its data on Wikipedia in the public domain under GFDL, but it would also promote this Wikipedia resource at scientific meetings (see here for discussion of this point). This expansion of Wikipedia's coverage of bioinformatics could help us recruit a large number of experts to further expand our coverage - a beneficial cycle. TimVickers 23:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This proposal has a great potential. This may not be the stuff for every Tom, Dick and Harry, but it may attract new scientific contributors. The fact that such a transfer from a database is possible, is proof that wikipedia is gradually being taken more and more seriously by the scientific community. In my opinion, go for option 2, since this conforms to Wikipedia:Attribution. JoJan 19:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Might be handier to cooperate with the knewco/omegawiki/wikidata people on this kind of thing? Though I'm cool with this either way. It'll be fun. :-) --Kim Bruning 19:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi everyone... I've been spearheading the creation of the gene pages (including the example ITK) and so I'm very interested in the discussion above. Thanks all for the great discussion so far... A few additional comments to the above...

• The idea of presenting gene families instead of individual genes is not a good substitute I think. The reason is that there are many layers of how to describe gene function. The biologists in the room will probably recognize the distinction between "molecular function" and "biological processes"; gene families generally tell you something about molecular function (e.g., "Genes in Gene Family X catalyze a certain chemical reaction and bind to DNA"), but genes within that family can have very diverse biological functions (e.g., "Mutations in Gene Y are associated with diabetes", "Gene Z is involved in immune response to viruses", etc.). IMHO, WP pages on gene families I think is a good idea, but not a substitute for indivdidual gene pages.
• Agreed, we can definitely err on the side of creating fewer stubs. As Tim mention above, original bot trial proposal was for 10 genes only. Part of the goal of this was to define a threshold amount of information to make a useful stub (i.e., one that is likely to nucleate further manual contributions). If it's not clear where that threshold would be based on 10, we can make a conservative guess and do 100 in a second trial run. For those who are interested, here are the proposed bot specs.
• Although we could go off and create a completely separate wiki instance, I really would like to do this project with WP. Not only because the obvious domain names have already been registered ;), but I really think there is a huge potential synergy here. As Tim mentioned, our gene portal already has a substantial user base, but our gene portal is pretty much for well-structured content only. WP is the natural home for unstructured information on gene function. (Other biological wikis either have a different focus or lack critical mass.) I view this project as bringing together the critical mass on the biology side with the extensive infrastructure and expertise at WP. Perhaps as an indicator of good things to come, our ITK stub is already the third hit on google when searching "itk gene"... AndrewGNF 01:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew, this is somewhere I think Wikipedia can gain a great deal by drawing in expertise to add content, and the experts we recruit gaining through free and open distribution of the information they contribute. TimVickers 02:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If anybody is interested, I've written an essay on this topic. TimVickers 17:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I would second the comment above about adding more information. Dates and people in particular (ie. history). That may be difficult now, but in the future as more history is written, that may be possible. Take the story of the discovery of DNA for example. If similar stories are written in the future about the research on particular genes, then this should be added. Database and basic scientific information is good, but don't forget to add encyclopedic value (and historical context) to avoid just being a copy of a database. Carcharoth 23:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There is precedent for doing the stub approach in wikipedia. Didn't a bot create articles for all the cities, towns and villages? Many of these have now grown as i believe many of these gene pages will grow.

Consider that there is far more to gain from this approach than just 20,000 new stubs. This is a fantastic recruitment tool for scientists who are very sceptical of the whole wiki, anybody can edit, approach. Just look at how many of the science articles are underdeveloped for proof of this scepticism. While no one wants wikipedia to become elitist it is hard to imagine who else will feel comfortable enough to come in and fact check/improve these science related articles. I think if these stubs are set up there is a very good chance that scientists will come into wikipedia and improve the content of the gene articles related to their own research. I'll bet money that in the process they will improve many of our other science related articles too. Who knows, they may even hang around edit regularly?

In summary, if this proposal happens, and I think it should, wikipedia will get a massive amount of positive press for bringing together amateur science editors with those from academia and biotech. More to the point, i expect the positive press will be where it really counts (from the perspective of recruitment), in the scientific journals. So let's not focus on whether each one of these stubs is notable or not and focus on whether the whole package is notable. Think about where wikipedia heading in the next five years not what wikipedia is now. David D. (Talk) 19:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names merge to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

With the Meta for Deletion entry on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names heading for a keep/no consensus there is a proposal to merge the functions of that board into Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Please comment at WT:RFCN. -M^ask? 22:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Category idea

I don't want to create a category just to see it get deleted, so...Category:National anthem writers? Does that sound useful? Nyttend 00:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great! But how about Category:Authors of national anthems instead? Reywas92^Talk 00:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, anything along that line. Tonight I came across the author of the Aruba anthem, and I realised that there was nothing connecting him with the writers of other national anthems. Nyttend 04:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've created it under my proposed name because those who compose written text are categorised as "writers", not as "authors". Frankly I like the sound of "Authors of National anthems" better, but it wouldn't fit too well with other category names. Nyttend 13:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

numbering posts

On VP as well as in all talk pages it would be good if each post was headed with its number as it appears in the contents/hyperlinking box at the head of the whole page. For example this post's heading would read: 42. numbering posts, ie as it appears in the contents box. This is because I quite often look at a page's contents box and say to myself: I would like to look at posts 3,4,17 and 44 (for example) then I have to either memorise these numbers and the headings or scroll up and down all the time. To summarise: It would be good if the program that created the post inlcuded the post's number in the heading. Lgh 01:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There's an option in preferences (under Misc in the classic skin) to do just what you want.-gadfium 03:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Or, instead of scrolling, you could click the links in the table of contents to get to the sections you want. –Pomte 10:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

apart from being a fine piece of surreal poetry, the phrase "under misc in the classic skin" means nothing to me. lol. On the other hand, my point is that it is easier to memorise or write down a series of numbers rather than a series of headings. Lgh 23:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that you have not customised the "skin" of Wikipedia, go to "My preferences" at the top of your screen. There's a series of tabs, and the last one is called "Misc". On that tab, you'll see a checkbox called "Auto-number headings". Thanks for the compliment about my poetry.-gadfium 08:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Start Tag?

What do people think of this? After a stub is no longer a stub, it can be tagged with a "start tag" signifying that it is no longer short,etc etc(whatever a stub is defined as) but now a start(whatever a start is correctly defined as). There could be the same start tags as there are the same stubs (eg "disease stub" with "disease start", and once the stub gets enough content it can move on to the start tag, where more people will have ability to see it and possibly work on it. Thus once the start taged article is worked on long enough it will then go on to the next up level (but by then the article will be far better than what a typical 'start' type article looks like. I know there are already articles labeled as "starts" on their talk page, but there are also "stubs" labeled as such on their talk page as well (articles that are usually rated by their wikiproject) and furthermore, not everyone looks (or bothers) to look at the discussion page anyway (personal random choice really)(Furthermore this is not to say that a "start" tag will trigger a impulse in someone's brain to say, hey lets make this article beter, but they can also say that for the stub tag as well true?..applies to new users in particular). Unless of course youre thinking that having MORE tags is a bad thing, and now it would take FOREVER to implent into the countless "start" articles, im sure it can be achieved.(Probably with the creation of a new wiki fix up project? or bot?). So yeah, sorry if this has already been asked before or its written in the wrong place. Thanks in advance. petze 03:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There are thousands and thoudsands of stubs, and no matter what you object, it will take a very long time to do that. There should always be an improvement impule in one's brain. Labelling something as Start rather than Stub will do nothing. IMO, the rating of articles with Featured, Good, stub, or none is fine enough, without A or B. Reywas92^Talk 03:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That depends on the individual new users then again. I was on wikipedia for years and years and looking at articles, didnt make me want to improve them even after i signed in with a user name (so as a new user). I would have liked it if someone else did in a few months time but that is not the same. Start from stub wont necessairly do nothing, but it would be a way of beter organizing maybe? And wouldnt having something, be better than nothing? I mean they can be 'nothing' when they are rated B's or A's in their talk page, after the start improvment? And once they are nothing they can be worked at until they become Good Articles? I dunno my random 2 cents. Thanks for the input either way. Oh btw it wont take that long... only as long as every other wikiproject out there individually ;).petze 04:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Any other proposals?Suggestions?Comments?Does silence mean we dont like ur idea, plz go away lol? Give me advice peoplee...hehe. petze 07:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't this just be redundant to the wikiproject banners? For stubs, the tag serves as an open plea for someone to fix the article since nobody is currently editing it, but once a page is start class there is obviously someone who knows and cares about the page so it's assumed that it will improve normally. On an unrelated note, would you please go to your preferences and uncheck the "use raw signature" box, so that your sig will link to your userpage and others can contact you more easily? --tjstrf talk 07:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but why stop at getting it out of stub? Dont we want more than just "start" type articles filling up wikipedia (better than a million stub articles but still..) and you cant say 100% of people who turn a stub into a start, necessairly continue working on it... but i guess I could be wrong. Ah yeah thanks, i had no idea about the raw sig thing... i just assumed i had to type in "four tildas" with the double closed brackets to make a link to my page. Still new to this alll.... Thanks for ur comments either way. Later then.petze 08:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, don't understand. Articles are categorized (stub, start, A, B, etc.) on talk pages - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ. Hundreds of thousands of articles have already been so categorized. There really isn't any reason to duplicate the assessments by putting them on the articles as well. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, any tag that is a quality indicator should be avoided on the article itself, since it may appear unsightly. Only FAs and maybe GAs should be labelled, albeit with a small one, so people can know whether the article is the cream of the crop.--Kylohk 13:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

A new user warning template

I have been working on a new template. It is a communication aid, and not in the same boat as the uw-vandalism things. This template deals with improper speedy deletion tags apllied, which through sifting a bit through Cat:CSD, I find it becomes more and more useful. The template is temporartily here. It is the first level warning, however. I'd appreciate some feedback as to whether it really has any use, and ways to improve, etc. Evilclown93 20:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you already did this, but you may want to post a link to this discussion on WT:UTM (user talk messages) and on WT:CSD and possibly WP:AN as admins are most likely to use this. I'm not sure if this should be a multi-level template or not, that would imply that some users are doing that for disruption, are they? If this is a problem, by all means make multi-level. If not, I would make it a little stronger (level 2-ish) and make it a single level warning. I'm not sure either if I would include the WP:NPP reference. While most speedy tags are put on new pages, being new isn't a requirement for speedy. It is a good idea though. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Even though you describe it as different to warning templates, is there not still some good faith issue with this? I wouldn't want to receive a template just because someone else had a slightly different take an article's suitability for SD. They can just remove the tag as normal. The wording of your template is very patronising in my view. Adrian M. H. 22:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean it to sound patronising at all. That is exactly one of the reasons why I'm bringing it up generate feedback. Out of curiousity, Adrian, how would you like it to sound? Any ideas? 22:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I would rather not see it implemented at all, to be honest. It's unnecessary, in my view. If inexperienced editors get involved in making SD noms, either they will get them mostly right or mostly wrong. If they make a lot of ill-judged noms, a hand-written message is more appropriate, because their intentions are positive. In such instances, a template message may either offend an experienced editor who made an isolated inappropriate nom or discourage those who are new to the deletion nom process. Adrian M. H. 22:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the level two warning. I'm working on a different version of the one template, but it's not working just know. Gimme a couple more minutes, and I link it here. Evilclown93 22:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the new level one template. Evilclown93 22:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion---don;t say reverted, say removed. And give a link to WP:CSD for the rules. I think I would personally rather use a custom-written message most of the time, but there are times when a formal one does the job--it can actually seem less rather then more confrontational. I suggest this also be discussed on the talk page for WP:CSD DGG 05:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

if you disagree with the placing of a CSD tag, remove it, explaining why in the edit summary and talkpage. dont use warning templates in edit disputes and remember WP:AGF. as a long-term editor who prefers anon-editing, i have encountered several over-zealous editors who immediately assume bad faith and begin firing off vandalism warnings - its a surefire way to rile a newbie. 86.31.103.208 13:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What if there was a newbie notice, guiding them to WP:CSD, another notice (probably 1.1) as a quick note telling that someone removed the template, and a level 2 more vandal-warning-like notice. For level 3 and 4, it's more classified as vandalism. These notices are more quick easy notices, but you could always provide more comment (example: In Twinkle, you can add an extra comment to an AIV report, for example.) Evilclown93 13:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• It would help if the language was less condescending. Imho. >Radiant< 10:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

AN rename

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Requested move. --Random832 23:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Open external links in a new tab/window

This seems really obvious, so I'm sure it must have come up before, but I can't find it on the Perennial proposals page or elsewhere. It's really annoying to lose one's page when following links to external articles (eg from the references section), so why not force them to open in a new tab or window? Maybe by changing the way the software handles links, or by adding it as an option in the user preferences? EyeSerene^TALK 10:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

As a workaround for the time being, you can use shift-click on the links in Firefox or IE. If you just want this feature for yourself, you could make a request at Wikiproject User scripts' request page for a script that would do this on your account; otherwise, it will need a software change, and you can ask at bugzilla:. --ais523 11:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I already use shift-click in Firefox as a workaround, but I was wondering if this is would be generally regarded as a user-friendly idea for people less familiar with Ff/IE. As you point out, I suppose I should have posted this at Bugzilla as it's essentially a request for a software change. I thought I'd sound out opinion first though. My personal preference would be to add Open links in a new tab as an option in the User prefences menus (under 'Misc'?). EyeSerene^TALK 12:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm used to holding the Control key while clicking a link (Shift opens a new window, not a tab), but it would be preferable to have an option to automate it. Links in new tabs/windows can be controlled by Javascript, which can be written in such a way that the link still works when scripts are blocked. If external links were given an appropriate Javascript class, it would be easy to incorporate it into a user's .js file or make it an option in Preferences. But we end users don't have the necessary control over the MediaWiki software to go around changing or adding classes to the markup. Take ais523's advice to ask at Bugzilla. Adrian M. H. 13:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Request submitted at Bugzilla. EyeSerene^TALK 15:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose forcing this, the user should have control -- and the user does no have such control, as every brrowser that I am aware of has a way to do this with any link. If it were a preferences item, that would not be a problem, but why bother, since the user already has control anyway. DES ^(talk) 15:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

As a preference item, it's superfluous but non-harmful (except in developer time). I would oppose making this the global default, as many people find it annoying, and as already mentioned, it's doable on the part of the user through most modern browsers. -- nae'blis 15:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In firefox, middle-click opens a page in a new tab. You already have full control yourself. I would be very irritated if you *removed* my ability to left-click and made it the same function as middle-click. :-/ The rule is: Let the user and their client determine what to do, not your site. --Kim Bruning 15:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of times where it is useful to have an external link open in-window, such as when providing diffs, or other in-wiki links in the form of an external link--VectorPotential^Talk 16:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone suggested that it should be the default option (not here and now, I mean). This issue always seems to provoke more negative votes than positive (whether raised on/about Wikipedia, or in any other situation), and I don't know why. There is some question over whether it is disadvantaging to users with cognitive disabilities, but that is hardly applicable here if it is an option. Editors won't be forced to use it if they don't want to; they can view diffs in the same tab. I prefer to view anything that relates to what I am currently reading, such as diffs, in another tab. And a lot of PC users do not have anything to "middle-click". Adrian M. H. 16:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case, as long as it isn't set to default it seems like a good idea--VectorPotential^Talk 16:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This was my point. The request I submitted on Bugzilla was for options added to the preferences menu that allow users to change the default behaviour to open (internal or external) links in either a new tab or window. I realise that most browsers can have this set from their own preferences menu, but that would mean setting it for all sites visited, not just Wikipedia. I also realise that many users would not want this behaviour, so I haven't suggested it as being a default. It just seems to me that, for the sake of convenience, it would be a nice choice to have available. Anyway, the current status of the request is at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3213 - I don't fully follow the jargon but it looks like nothing's going to happen. What do I know... I'm only an end-user ;) EyeSerene^TALK 19:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [addendum] There is however a script available at the above link to do this, if anyone is interested EyeSerene^TALK 20:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts and the feedback. Adrian M. H. 20:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Freeing GFDL from "disclaimers"

Please see Wikipedia:GFDL standardization, which intends to address the legal morass of having added "Subject to disclaimers" to {{GFDL}} and hence creating a licensing tag that is technically incompatible with the normal GFDL applied at most other projects and Commons. Comments welcome at Wikipedia talk:GFDL standardization. Dragons flight 02:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (songs)

I've reopened discussion on this. At the moment we have no criteria. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Move button for images

It would be nice to have a move button for images. That way if the title is wrong you could move it to the correct title instead of re-uploading the image. (I know, kinda short) «razorclaw» 18:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Everyone agrees with that, but at this point the software unfortunately cannot move images. If the name must be changed, you can re-upload the file with the new name and have the old one deleted. Be sure to link any pages using the image to the new one. Reywas92^Talk 19:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

redirects from/to official names

There are templates for redirect pages; see WP:TMR if you're unfamiliar with these, or WP:R for redirection info in general.

Among the templates are {{r to scientific name}} and {{r from scientific name}}. These are meant, afaIct, to be used for plants, animals, and the like, redirecting an organism's common name to or from its name in binomial nomenclature. E.g., see Balaenoptera brydei or Almond-scented millipede.

There are redirect articles that are not of species or the like, but which, like species, are redirects from an official name to a less-official name, or vice versa. For example, redirecting from a full name to the better-known partial name (e.g., Nicholas Barthelot Lemann) or from a real name to a better-known nickname (e.g., Chamunorwa Kwenda), or vice versa. For most of these, there is no appropriate redirection template, so I've been using {{r to scientific name}} and {{r from scientific name}}. Do you think that that's appropriate, or do you think something else (already existing) is better, or should new templates (perhaps {{r from official name}} and {{r to official name}}) be created? — The Great Redirector 18:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Text associated with the template indicates the template's use as: "This is a redirect from the binomial nomenclature to the common name." This description attempts to restrict its use to the scope you've described - nomenclature relating to biological organisms. For Personal Names (which you mention) it might be useful to have templates such as Template:R to alias or Template:R to pseudonym and the obverse, Template:R from legal name. There are other scientific-colloquial pairs that might bear treatment in a simlar manner. For instance, drug brand names (market name) vs. drug generic names (INN) vs. drug trade name (legal entity name) {example - Seduxen vs. Diazepam vs. Valium); the naming convention for drugs is to use the generic name as the title and there exists Template:R from brand name and Template:R from trade name. Gene naming is an exercise in disambiguation among synonyms where one symbol is the official and all others are synonyms: example - MAP2K1 (official symbol) = MEK1 (colloquial synonym symbol) = "protein kinase, mitogen-activated, kinase 1" (official name) = "MAP Kinase Kinase 1" (one of many colloquial synonym names). What is my point? My point is that there will be identifiable clusters of official-colloquial name mappings and where such clusters are identifiable, a dedicated R-template pair would likely be useful. For the large number of such name mappings where an identifiable cluster is difficult to readily identify (for instance, "U.S. Territory of Guam" and "Guam") the primary generic template is Template:R from alternative name, which is blind to official vs. colloquial usage. The question is whether it would be useful to have a generic Template:R from official name or not. It would not be a bad idea, but it could create as many problems as it solves in the absence of verifiability of the official status. Ultimately there are three places the 'official' designation verifiability can rest: in the template text, which would be suitable for official-colloquial pairs that emerge from an identifiable single officiating agency; in the target article; as a citation on the redirect (verrrry rare at present). I'll think on this some more later, but I think I've tossed out enough opinion and example fertilize this discussion for now. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Ceyockey writes, The question is whether it would be useful to have a generic Template:R from official name or not. It would not be a bad idea, but it could create as many problems as it solves in the absence of verifiability of the official status. Perhaps, then, {{r to more complete name}} (and from) or {{r from common name}} (and to) or something similar? (Incidentally, if adopted, these can also supersede r to scientific name and r from abbreviation, or at least the related category, if any, can include those templates' categories as subcats.) — The Great Redirector 23:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've been bold and added {{R from full name}} and Category:Redirects from full names. Note that the text found on both those pages indicates that the template and cat are for redirects from "...a title that is a complete or more complete name...", not necessarily a complete one. — The Great Redirector 19:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"discussion still open"

Consider the following scenario: User A asks a question. User B then posts a comment or answer. A does not consider B's reply sufficient, so awaits further responses. A might (or might not) post a reply to B indicating as much (i.e., that A is awaiting more). Sometimes, in fact, B did not mean his reply to be complete, and knows that A will await more replies. But: Other potential helpers who see a reply posted will be less likely to read the discussion, figuring it's taken care of, or is being taken care of. So the question is never resolved — not by B, who answered incompletely but with good intention, and not by anyone else, who thinks that the discussion is resolved.

This does happen. Look at WP:VP, WP:RD, and WP:HD, and you'll see that it actually happens pretty often. (I suppose it must happen on WP:NCHP too.)

I therefore propose the following: A new template {{open}} (or some other name for it) that reads something like:

THIS DISCUSSION IS STILL OPEN. The issues involved have not been resolved to the satisfaction of the original poster. Please read the discussion and help resolve it.

It would be only for use by the originator of a discussion (original poster), and would need to be followed by ~~~~.

Thoughts? — The Great Redirector 20:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If the original poster wants the discussion to remain open, then they can say so; all they have to do is write "I'd like more responses, this discussion is still open." or something. I don't see the need for a template – Gurch 06:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

A few reasons:

1. The yellow all-caps are eye-catching. (This item doesn't really answer Gurch's point.)
2. The person who didn't answer the question and hopes others will, but posted something, as in my scenario above, can use the template to alert others to the fact that the question is still open, where the original poster might not do so out of diffidence or something. (This item doesn't answer Gurhc's point.)
3. The existence of a template will encourage people to use it where otherwise they might not write such a thing.
4. Whatever bot automatically archives the page (whether it's this page or WP:HD or another) can be programmed to skip questions that have the template in them.

— The Great Redirector 17:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a simple way to prevent a bot archiving a section, at least for a while: it's ~~~~. --ais523 17:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see the point of this. Generally discussions aren't defined as "open" or "closed", but rather are open by definition as long as people keep responding to them, and closed by definition when they're not. We already have issues with people misunderstanding {{historical}}, no need to add to that. >Radiant< 16:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The point of a discussion is to improve an article, not to have a completed discussion. The best way to get more responses is to say that you're going to edit the article unless there is further discussion. (It's best, obviously, to do this only if (a) there has been no response; (b) responses haven't been on point, and you explain why, or (c) you summarize the discussion to date and explain why you think the edit change you want to make is appropriate, based on that.)
  • Adding an "open" template also is problematical if the editor wanders off and doesn't return. At what point can someone remove the template? And given that it's undated, reviewing the page history is needed to figure out if someone in fact has posted afterwards, if the template were at the top of a section. (If the template is not at the top of a section, another editor posts below it, yet the poster isn't satisfied, does he/she then move it further down in the section?)
  • Finally, the template implies that the originator of a discussion owns the section, since apparently he/she is the only one authorized to post such a template. But others may feel the discussion is incomplete; do they post a different template to say so? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot proposal - automated article sorting

I brought this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting several days ago, but there hasn't been any activity there. It seems to me that a bot similar to AlexNewArtBot could be used to automatically sort more than just new pages. A bot could scan articles at WP:AFD, WP:FAC, WP:PR, etc., determine the subject of each article (through the rules system used by AlexNewArtBot), and then post a notice on some page that editors with expertise in that subject could monitor (probably a subpage of the relevant WikiProject). This would provide WikiProject members with a central location to see all articles under the purview of their project that are currently undergoing any sort of Wikipedia process. Is this a good idea? Is it possible? jwillbur^talk 02:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• I can probably try to experiment with something like this (ANAB was approved under promise not to write anything into the mainspace, it does not said anything about the wikispace 8-) ). The rules required might be more complex then for the ANAB Alex Bakharev 05:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be great, Alex. I wish I knew more about regexps, so I could help out. jwillbur^talk 01:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Policy on the use of "cleanup" and other templates in articles

This proposal was on the wrong page. Apparently, policy proposals should be placed on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy). The original proposal and all related comments have been moved there. --PeR 21:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Arabic

I would like to see Wiki available in Arabic with contributions from arabic speakers (writers) in the native arabic language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.38.63.150 (talk • contribs).

Have you checked http://ar.wikipedia.org ? -- ReyBrujo 13:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Move protected much-edited pages

May I suggest that every article in the top 10, 25, or even 50 of Special:Mostrevisions is move protected? Some already are. Let's use common sense: there are a lot of revisions for most of them (by definition), and there's not a chance in hell that (m)any would need to be moved. The openness of our wiki is important, but let's invite people to experience it in more constructive ways.

See the history of Adolf Hitler. Are there better reasons than "BCUZ" to move some of these pages? Gracenotes^T § 01:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've advocated this before, we should common sense and move protect the obvious (e.g. Tree, water, George W. Bush. John Reaves (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not against this idea, but only after several moves have been reverted. -- ReyBrujo 02:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I could arrange that :P Personally, I see nothing wrong with a small amount of ignorance of the protection policy, especially since move vandalism makes everyone depressed and nervous. Gracenotes^T § 02:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I guess we'll see what happens. No exigencies implicated in this, but "why not". Gracenotes^T § 02:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

First and foremost, we are an open free encyclopedia, and ideally, all articles should be open (as in, not protected). Everytime we protect an article, at least personally, it is a step back in our mission. And second, because we may encourage massive move vandalism of less known articles. -- ReyBrujo 03:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about semi-protection, that's perfectly correct. But move protection? Gracenotes^T § 03:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable. If an article has no plausible reason to be moved (I mean come on, is Bush going to change his name any time this century?) then a moveprot doesn't hurt. >Radiant< 16:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Isn't this covered by point 3 at WP:PROT#Move protection? –Pomte 21:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That point certainly is an argument that it could be a good idea for someone (an administrator) to take a more systematic approach to protecting high-revision pages. As for "all pages should be open", common sense says that if there were in fact consensus to move (rename) a high-traffic page, it wouldn't be much of an effort to get an administrator to do so, and obviously this would be extremely rare. So add a support from me. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yep, it's covered; I thought that Mostrevisions would be a good place to start. Gracenotes^T § 20:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Tables for deletion

As some might already know, we now have a "Table" namespace. Eventually we'll need a place for deletion discussions - right now, it seems it would default to Mfd. Should this new namespace be handled at Mfd, or should it be handled at Tfd? --- RockMFR 04:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd think TfD, since the two are going to be quite closely interrelated and the deletion criteria for them will probably be similar as well. (Plus the initials work.) --tjstrf talk 04:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Thus far all of these tables were templates at some point, and I've seen no discussion that suggest that they will be anything more than what templates were. I'd prefer that they be kept at TfD. --Iamunknown 04:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) x 3 I would suggest MfD for now, seems the best place, since everything without a proper discussion page goes there. -- ReyBrujo 04:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• I would suggest TFD, since tables are in essence templates. Also, the initials, per tjstrf. >Radiant< 16:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• While single-use templates are often deleted, single-use tables like Table:Climate in Jerusalem can serve a purpose. This distinction should be made if tables are discussed at TfD. –Pomte 21:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • True. However, this distinction should also be made if tables are discussed anywhere else :) >Radiant< 07:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And now it's gone. [3] --- RockMFR 22:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The Future of Wikipedia

Are there plans for Wikipedia to evolve from a collective encyclopedia to a full blown interactive source of education with concrete indexing, say Mathematics with subindexes for basic mathematics followed by Algebra, Geometry, and Trigonomics, followed by Calculus, etc. in a logical coherent learning format including programmed learning, exercises and examples? Can Wikipedia eventually provide an online school or university for all people? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.147.225.143 (talk • contribs).

Are you talking about a Wikiversity? -- ReyBrujo 05:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; Wikiversity and Wikibooks might be what you are looking for. --Iamunknown 05:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of Wikiversity. Thank you. :)

EZ Wikipedia for Windows Mobile 5 and 6 devices. We need a quick search function.

As an IT guy, I love wiki.

I was wondering if we WM5 users could get a little program that installs a quick launching wiki menu, for the pedia or wiktionary.

WM6 will be out soon, but have a coder team work on WM5, which should be relatively cheap since its just a link setup, and then WM6.

The reason i ask is because I have a wikipedia quicksearch on my google desktop sidebar, and its awesome!

Also, my boss needs a fast solution to your thinktank. A simple installer would be awesome.

You could probably generate more traffic and public awareness by pairing up with cell companies like Cingular to include a Wikipedia (or other) program already installed with Cingular WM5 or WM6 devices.

~Jonathan Smith Engineering │ IT Certification Manager S. Bravo Systems, Inc. │ Corporate

• All the quick search bar does is pass whatever you tell it to the same form handler as the sidebar box. You could probably whip up a bookmark for a browser to handle that in a few minutes. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Image URLs

I'm not really sure how easily this could be accomplished, or if it could be at all, but my school system has recently blocked all wikipedia images because of the adult entertainment sections of the website, it's really annoying to search for some sort of plant or animal and not be able to see what it looks like. Earlier this year I was instrumental in getting the complete ban of wikipedia revoked but I was told that there is no chance of doing that on this one unless wikipedia was willing to host all its non-school appropriate images in one place that they could then block. It does not seem like it'd be hard to have a check box that you simply check if the image is an "adult" image, but then of course I don't really know about it. If this is not possible, how hard would it be to produce a "safe" list, a list that people can go to and put "safe" image url's onto that I could compile and give to the tech department at school. They won't just ban the adult ones because wikipedia is ever changing and new pictures would be added daily. Mrstenoien 6:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored, Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates, Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship, and Wikipedia:Pornography. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely that photos of nudity would appear on pages about plants and such. Suggest that your school block certain pages, or pages with certain keywords. wikipediatrix 21:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the tech people down at the district office blocking certain pages is not acceptable because of the ever changing nature of wikipedia. Thats why I was thinking of a whitelist of pictures instead of a blacklist, although a whitelist would be very hard to keep up to date it would be better than no pictures whatsoever, where would I go to get help compiling a list such as that? User:Mrstenoien:Mrstenoien 4:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Any whitelist would be an open invitation to vandals, who would replace the images in it with dodgy ones. It would work no better than self-certification. An encyclopedia editable by anyone cannot be guaranteed to exclude any particular type of content, all of the time, because some of the people who edit are there to create mischief. Notinasnaid 17:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Architecture / building database

Dear Wiki, > > I would find it very useful to be able to find particular architectural > buildings - and also I am often curious about who were the designers of > particular buildings. For instance I have recently visited the new Gehery > winery in Spain (which you have in your data base) but I do not know who was > the landscape architect or the design engineer. > > Would it be possible to arrange a search / data base (and I am not very > computer literate) which told you: > > Country > Name of building > Town > Postcode (or other method of finding the building) > Architect > Engineer > Landscape Architect > Contractor / subcontractor > Owner > Contact details / opening times > Other information which might include references to other published > information, specification details etc > > I would find this interesting both for historical buildings - but also for > modern buildings ie when passing an interesting building and being able to > find more information about it. > > I can find no data base that gives me that information. During a recent > visit to Spain - I found it frustating to neither be able to find buildings > I remembered from magazine articles (inspite of remembering the name of the > engineer) - nor to know who designed buildings that I passed. > > Would wiki be interested in developing this. The information would no doubt > be supplied by your readers.

Mrsra 19:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There are informative boxes attached to the upper-right-hand-side of some articles devoted to specific buildings but not all. If you see one that should have such a box and does not, post a message at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Architecture/infobox or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture.—msh210℠ 19:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this information is interesting, but it is also very likely that no one has yet come along to add that info. Feel free to be bold and track down the information yourself, then add it into the article for others whom may be curious. Sláinte! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 21:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The informative box is {{Infobox building}}, which allows you to easily type in the names of the architect, several types of engineers, designers, etc. You can request for more fields to be added. –Pomte 21:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Maintenance

Is any one interested in starting a special group known as Wikipedia:WikiProject Maintenance? The Wikiproject Maintenance is a specialized group of people that are just dedicated to cleaning up Wikipedia and making it a better and reliable place to be. If anyone as any comments about this please go to my talk page or write below. This could be huge step forward for Wikipedia.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 01:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What would it be? There's no way for a single Wikiproject to maintain all of Wikipedia... -Amarkov moo! 01:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• You may be interested in Wikipedia:Maintenance collaboration of the week and Wikipedia:Maintenance. >Radiant< 07:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As Radiant noted, there are already some projects for this purpose. Placeholder account 23:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia toolbar ?

Hi there, I was wondering - why there does not exist a search toolbar of Wikipedia for internet browsers (like Google's one)? It will make information flow much faster! Any thoughts?

Thanks, S.

See Wikipedia:Tools for the various toolbars that have been invented. (If you use Firefox 2, you don't even need to add a toolbar; click on the dropdown box to the left of the search box, and you can add Wikipedia from there if you're viewing Wikipedia at the time.) --ais523 10:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Vital Articles

Would it make sense for the various project teams to make more detailed forks of the WP:VA page for different specialities? (Using, for example, a naming scheme such as: "Wikipedia:Vital {subject} articles", where {subject} is one of the VA sub-section headings.) I know the main VA page still has a lot of topics to address, but I'd like to be able to work on expanding the tree for the few subjects in which I have an interest. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It might be useful with this to look for WikiProject top/high-importance rated articles - those will often be vital. As for creating specialized lists, as long as all of the articles are arguably vital, sounds fine - Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 17:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Customisable Edit History - Remove Reverts And Associated Edits From View

My proposal is to solve the problem of working with an edit history by allowing reverts and reverted edits to be temporarily hidden from view. Take for example, the Genetic engineering article, started in October 2001. I find it very difficult to believe that the current version is the product of over five and a half years work on that article. If you take a look at the edit history, you'll probably find it difficult to see past the continuous vandalism and reverts. The presence of these edits in the edit history, while potentially important in certain situations, are not necessary and are in fact a hinderence, when trying to see how an article has really developed. If you were willing to spend the time, you'd see that the article has grown reasonably large at times and sections have been removed to put in other articles. I would like to repair this article using versions from its history, but without an easy way to sort through the edits, I can't justify the time it would take. I'm reluctant to contribute to the article, if my contributions will get lost in a sea of vandalism and reverts. This seems like a relatively simple-to-implement improvement to the edit-history. --Seans Potato Business 19:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No it would not be easy. One way would be to add a rev_type field (v,r, or e) to specifiy wether an edit was vandalism or a revert. Admin rollbacks would count as "r" and the edit's reverted as "v". There still is no easy way to deal with "undo" or revert scripts. By letting sysops flag any edit retroactively, it would probably just become a distraction (wasting time flaggings revs). Anyway, history pages could have a "hide vandalism and rollbacks" link to hide those. Still, as I said, that would only cover some of the reverts and I'm not sure the schema change is worth it. Voice-of-All 19:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems difficult to implement, unless there was a way for the software to detect two revisions containing the same content and hide the second one and all the revisions between the two. GDonato (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the software "know" when an edit is a revert? Doesn't it record when a previous revision is re-saved to make it the current revision? --Seans Potato Business 21:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes "knows" admin reverts, thats about it right now. Voice-of-All 22:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If this became a default it would make 3rr vios harder to spot too. GDonato (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there some way that the software could compare the more recent edit to edits prior to determine if there are any perfect matches? Then for cases where revert edits are themselves reverted, perhaps that could undo the status of that first revert as well as the original pages reverted. ...Er, did that make any sense at all? And for spotting 3RR -- just make it an option where you could toggle show/hide reverts. People actually looking to enforce 3RR can still do so. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 22:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's possible in theory, but that generates too much overhead. Voice-of-All 23:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, so, all is not lost. Wikipedia is a long-term project: a change can be implemented so that reverts are noted as such, along with information regarding the version that was reverted to and the edits that occured interim (i.e. the vandalism). Such edits can then be toggled on and off. It would not help me in my situation right now, but will help people (including me, hopefully) in a few years time, for so long as Wikipedia exists. --Seans Potato Business 02:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

IMO, an edit type field can and should be implemented. I previously suggested permitting editors to flag edits as vandalism reverts. As for using this to adjust how the history is presented: Technically that is doable (say with a value included for how many generations the revert is good for), but care is needed. For example, reverts that go back more than 15 generations probably represent a major revert or an intervening editor who fails to use the preview button. In the former case, you would want to see how the article evolved before the much earlier version was restored. In the later case, you just want to be past the prattle.

A better option may come with the approved versions facility that is being worked on. At least in principle, one could get past the vandalisms and edit wars by restricting their view to the versions that have been approved. Once again, this would not help you in your current situation, but would aid future users after this feature is implemented. --EMS | Talk 22:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As the main developer on that project, I can say that these two ideas are unrelated. Voice-of-All 03:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to totally disagree with you on that. It seems to me that the approved versions facility will provide a way of providing this kind of restricted history. However, as a software developer myself I am well aware that you need to attend to one thing at a time here. After all, noone can restrict their view to approved versions until the facility is in place. However, I do advise flagging versions as having been approved. --EMS | Talk 03:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect there to be enough stable versions to really make a followable history. Is this kind of that you were thinking of? Voice-of-All 03:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't you just ignore the edit summaries indicating reversions, and take the diffs around those? The skimming would take longer, but not by an outrageous amount of time. More simply, take random diffs around 500 edits, see what sections get deleted, and restore those if they're legitimate. Do it one bit at a time, and it doesn't matter if your efforts are comprehensive. our reason for being reluctant to contribute seems irrelevant. Regardless of whether this feature gets implemented, your contributions can get lost in reversions. The only way to stop this is to periodically come back and check on the edit history. –Pomte 22:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding a new upload link to the sidebar

There is a proposal to add a new upload link, to Project:Upload, to the sidebar. Discussion is at MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext#Proposal for mass overhaul, matching Commons. Uncle G 18:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

New category for articles

Hi Wikipedian community, I have created a new category entitled "Articles which have been seen by internationally recognised figures who have published work in the field" and added the article [[locus of control] to it. This is because I have e-mailed several people, who I know have published work on locus of control or the related area of attributional style, about this article, and had some very good replies. True to Wikipedia's policy of anonymity, I shall name no names, but just let people know that I have had some helpful replies from people in the United States (I have had less response from the e-mails which I sent to figures in my own country, the United Kingdom). My question is - do you think it is a good idea to have a category such as this? The article on locus of control is still assigned to a category indicating it needs attention from a psychology expert, but I am hoping that this tag can be removed in the very near future. ACEOREVIVED 20:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your word is not a reliable source, and you've given no way for others to verify that internationally recognised figures have indeed seen the article. At the least, the category needs a rename: merely being seen (not necessarily read) by experts has little relevance on the present quality of the article. A variety of experts have probably seen Wikipedia articles in their respective fields, but we have no need to track them in a category as this isn't an important fact to know, and having the category can mislead people into believing the article is reliable or meets the featured criteria. In your specific case, the input of those figures are relevant and you can make a note of it on the talk page. –Pomte 22:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have listed the category for deletion at WP:CFD. DES ^(talk) 22:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Useful links on user contribution pages

Please see MediaWiki talk:Sp-contributions-footer#Proposal: useful tools. This is a small but very useful change and some other wikis already done this. — Alex Smotrov 23:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please correct the descriprion in the Home page name with dictator instead of dicator.

Thanks, laaris@yahoo.com

Extra information for highlighted words

I suggest that the user should be able to obtain extra information on those words that are underlined and highlighted in a requested topic. So if I was reading a topic on water and the hydrogen was highlighted I could either hover of the word for a moment or alt-e (or something) and get an introduction to that subject. I am not sure how this would effect the time it toke to load the page, but it sure would be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.239.202.214 (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean like those annoying popup-on-hover advertisements some sites use? They tend to interfere with reading the page, cripple older computers, generally distract from an article. I definitely oppose this idea. Why not just click on the link, read the lead section, and then click back? --Selket ^Talk 15:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups.

ALR 18:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Having a built-in system may create some significant technical issues with older computers, accessibility features (i.e. font sizes and screen resolutions), and other mouseover programs such as the translation/dictionary tool that Mozilla Firefox provides. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 19:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Force Abolishing Of Anon Edits

Currently, all those who oppose anonymous editing are forced to continue with the status quo, in order to prevent their hard work from slowly deteriorating. Much work that is not closely watched over does deteriorate. Having read the perennial proposals page, I believe that we constitute a significant fraction, if not the majority. If properly organised, we and all sympathisers of this hitherto-ignored population of Wikipedians could force the powers that be to take us seriously and stop frittering our time and effort. If a date was set and widely advertised inside and outside Wikipedia, everyone who supported this stance could boycott Wikipedia for one week and leave the rest to deal with the vandalism. If we took it further, we could log out and vandalise pages ourselves (don't get mad, keep reading), the idea being that the Wikipedia bigwigs couldn't ignore us any more and realise that without us, the editors that they continue to abuse, Wikipedia is nothing. We'd force them to respect our time, and prevent anonymous editors from occupying so much of it. After the week, the most sensible thing to do would be to revert all articles to their status one week previous. Of course, if the necessary change was implimented before the boycott, it would not need to happen. Wikipedia is bigger than the people who created it.

Would anyone be interested in helping to organise such a thing? I'm fully aware how radical this sounds but I'm only trying to help Wikipedia and its editors in the long-term. --Seans Potato Business 16:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a perennial proposal, and has good reasons for rejection. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 16:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Read m:Foundation issues, the ability of anyone to edit articles without registering is not up for debate, it is mandated by the foundation. I agree with this mandate too. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If we were to do anything to reduce crap, I'd tend to instead set mainspace page creation to only autoconfirmed users. A lot of anonymous edits are poor or vandalism, but I've seen a lot that are good and helpful too, especially in aggregate. I entirely support continuing to allow anonymous editing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the latest 500 contributions of all three of you, and notice that the majority of these edits are in templates, talk space and userpages. I don't think that it's fair for you to condemn those who want to work on ARTICLES to an eternal struggle with vandals, when you yourselves don't suffer the ill effects. --Seans Potato Business 17:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If you really looked at my latest contribs, you should probably also see a lot of edits in user talk with summaries such as "nn-warn" - newly created users creating articles inappropriate for various reasons. I'm fighting vandalism too, just the majority of the article space edits you were talking about are from tagging inappropriate articles that have been deleted - those deleted contributions don't show up. It further emphasizes the point that abolishing anon editing would destroy more than it would achieve - destroying all positive anon contribs while at the same time allowing vandals to simply use hundreds of throwaway accounts. I'm sorry if my rebuke seems harsh, but I do a lot of work in the article namespace to tag inappropriate articles, and your accusation feels particularly insulting to me. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 17:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the top 20 anon edits in recent changes. I hit rollback on 5 of them; the other 15 looked fine, and most were actually constructive. If you block all anons, the vandals are likely to continue by registering usernames (making them even harder to stop), and the constructive edits are more likely to stop. (For reference: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]). --ais523 17:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

By comparison, only about half of the top 20 edits by non-anons in Recentchanges were to article-space, and were about as useful as the anons' by comparison (it was the same sort of changes), although only one was the addition of a spamlink. In the meantime, an anon reverted vandalism to my user talk page. I suspect that if all anons were banned, we wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia by now. (By the way, you might want to compare Citizendium, another wiki encyclopedia that does ban anon edits, to Wikipedia.) --ais523 17:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Citizendium: 1) They want to start from scratch - Six years back in time 2) Wikipedia already has nearly 100% "market-share" 3) They appear to have questionable ideas regarding how to copyright their content. What I want is 2007 Wikipedia minus the vandalism (registration with confirmed email address) and everything that goes with it (a lot more than meets the eye). I don't see the point in discussing this, since according to m:Foundation issues, this policy is beyond debate. My call for editors in agreement stands - we'll use a way that doesn't involve debate. --Seans Potato Business 18:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Our core aim is to be a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. What you mean is, basically, force semiprotection to every single article, a fact that prevents "anyone" from editing. Our strength is that anyone, anywhere, can fix a typo or correct a fact in a couple of seconds. It is up to everyone to prevent that fact from being our weakness as well.

Since you talk about organizing, create a Wikipedia:Obligatory registration or similar essay, and link to it from as many pages as you can find (besides village pump, noticeboards, help desks, Wikiprojects, etc), and see if the community agrees or not. Since I am against the idea of restricting edition (which has brought me problems for always giving second opportunities to even vandals), if I were to create such essay, it would be considered a point. However, if you believe that is the solution to many of our problems, don't let us stop you from starting that discussion. -- ReyBrujo 18:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Seans Potato Business, if you look a little closer at my contribs you will see that I am directly effected by the vandal problem. I have also done plenty of work in the article space, and even if I did not my opinions are just as valid. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition to anonymous editing being the foundation of all Wikimedia projects, also consider a more practical matter: if registration were required, all vandals would just start registering accounts to vandalize. Krimpet (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also against abolishing anon edits. As an article writer I see first hand the benefit of anon edits in correcting typos and copy edits. Of course I also see the spam ELs and vandalism but admittedly they are easier to pick out and revert when they come from an IP. In my watchlist, IP contributions stick out and I make it a point to look over them. If everyone had to register it would be harder to isolate these potential vandalism edits for closer scrutiny. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Anons are the largest group of wikipedia editors, and IIRC produce most wikipedia content. If forced to choose, I would ban all registered users first. ;-) --Kim Bruning 18:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC) (Anons also produce most wikipedia mess, but that's what you get for being the largest group of editors ;-))

Gather supporters and spur on more debate: sure, go ahead. Log out and intentionally cause vandalism to articles to prove a point: I will pursue you just as I pursue every other vandal: be they IP or registered; regardless of a user's past beneficial contributions. Good editors know how to go about raising their concerns, and intentional vandalism is not the way. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 19:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been going on for a long time. However, we have another option against vandalism : semi-protection. If we loosen the guidelines on semi-protection a little bit, it would certainly stop a lot of vandalism. Certainly all those articles that are as good as finished, could be semi-protected. Practically all changes on those articles just consist of vandalism. I’ve tried this out on a few articles (such as Apple, Rose, Leaning Tower of Pisa) that were vandalised one or more times on a daily basis and it helps a lot. JoJan 08:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of good-faith edits (though not necessarily the greatest quality of edits) by anons and I think content is very hard to come by, so any sort of good-faith edit can be worked upon and should be welcomed. x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Committee of verified experts on each article

Has wikipidia ever considered trying to aim toward identifying experts contributing to each article or subject on wikipedia. I've noticed that sometimes, a user will become very possessive as though their interpretation of a subject is that which should be shown on wikipedia, using the excuse that those others contributing are not experts on the subject. However these people often aren't experts themselves.

And when an expert does disagree with the views of one or even many users, they face an uphill battle to get the truth into the articles, what I think you term anti-elitism. Supposed 17:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That is the aim of other Wikipedias, not ours. We aim at being verifiable, not truthful, and verifiability can be achieved by anonymous (in example, when they edit and add a reliable reference to back their claims) contrary to truth (where, indeed, you may need to be considered to be an expert in order to be trusted with the edit. As for these subjects you talk about, point them to WP:OWN whenever you find one. -- ReyBrujo 17:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in Citizendium. Corvus cornix 19:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar proposal

I'm proposing a new barnstar. It's still here: User:Rhanyeia/test. Is this the place I should enter it? Rhanyeia 10:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you use Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals. Or rather, you used to. Now it's tagged historical so I think you just put it up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards. --tjstrf talk 10:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone left a link on top of Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals that this would be a good place. I will still ask somewhere before putting it anywhere. Rhanyeia 11:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I decided to put it there as you adviced me. If someone is interested in, it's here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards#A barnstar proposal. Rhanyeia 13:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Logo

When I looked at the current logo, I noticed that the antialiasing is absolutely AWFUL. There's white edges on everything. While there have been multiple uploads of a better version, they've been reverted each time. I made one here, which has it all fixed.

First, why have they all been reverted? They work on both IE and Firefox, and should work in all other browsers. Second, could we put my version up? Thanks. ~EdBoy^[c] 17:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming Convention: Countries

Alright, ladies and gents. I noticed looking around the MOS that there is no standard naming convention for countries, it appears to be on a case by case basis, and typically using the Common Form of the country name, some times incorrectly. Furthermore, it's somewhat odd that the proper names of countries are redirected to the article anyway, such as:

• United States of America→ United States
• French Republic → France
• United States of Mexico → Mexico

In all of these articles, the first line begins with "The (Proper Country Name), or commonly known as (Common Name)...", or something along those lines.

I ask simply, for the sake of accuracy, why can we not have a Article Naming Standard for Countries outlined that reflects the accurate name of a country?

I ask this because not so much that people call France The French Republic, but because in discussions over the naming of United States brings up far too many straw man arguments that setting a standard that can be applied fairly to all country articles while maintaining the accuracy of the article.

The standard I would propose is this: The article itself will go by the Proper Translated Name, as used already in the first line and along the top of the infobox. The common name will redirect there to ensure proper searching.

The first line of all country articles will begin the same, such as: "The French Republic, commonly known as France... The above will rarely deviate. I know this will consist of a high volume of page moves, and many people will simply oppose such an idea on this alone. While a valid argument, at the same time a standard needs to be set for country articles that applies fairly to all countries. I also might add that straw men need not apply, I think we've heard all of the straw man arguments out there regarding this issue. I'm looking for more intelligent discussion on this subject. I will not be able to reply until later tonight. ^{Review Me}CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 20:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)