Wikipedia talk:Village pump

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  Policy   Technical   Proposals   Idea lab   Miscellaneous  
This page is for discussion about the village pump only. You may want one of the village pump subpages above, or one of the links on the village pump main page. Irrelevant discussions will be moved or removed.
« Older discussions, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

I'm putting this suggestion here because it applies to the Village Pump.[edit]

Instead of having different sections for type of suggestion (policy, proposals, idea lab, etc...), I think that the Village Pump should have different sections for each section of Wikipedia that the suggestion applies to (user pages, welcoming new users, talk pages, blocking policies, etc...). Not only does the idea itself make more sense to me, but with the system that the Village Pump has now, it can often be unclear which section someone's suggestion fits into (also partly because of vague labels for each section), which may prompt some to put their suggestion in every section that they feel their suggestion MIGHT belong in. Also, the new system would make it easier for people to determine if their suggestion has already been made or not. By the way, if this suggestion is in the incorrect section, feel free to move it, and I'm sorry, but there's not a specified section for proposed edits to the Village Pump. (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Question. How many "sections" are you proposing? Please elaborate more. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Slow down the archiving?[edit]

We have so many RFCs lately, especially in the Policy and Proposals subpages. I have used {{subst:do not archive until}} to prevent the bot from archiving a discussion too soon. Shall we slow down the archiving from 7 days to 14 days? If not, what else shall we do about the number of RFCs? --George Ho (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

IMO, RfCs and anything else that needs closing should use a semi-permanent DNAU (10 years) which is removed after the close. That makes far more sense than keeping everything longer. Even 14 days would not be long enough if it takes 15 days for a closer to show up. ―Mandruss  04:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
10 years or 10 days? 10 years seems too steep, and some closers would overlook the message. George Ho (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
10 years. The time is not meant to expire. If the closer does not remove the DNAU, any other editor can do so. It's unlikely it will sit at the top of TOC for long before someone realizes why and removes the DNAU. Note that I suggest 10 years because that's the default and therefore the easiest to code; it's a (relatively) simple and easy-to-remember {{subst:DNAU}}. If the default were one year or 6 months, that would be fine too, but it isn't. ―Mandruss  05:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, {{rfc}} should generate {{subst:DNAU}}, saving us that step, but that's a separate proposal that probably belongs at WP:VPR. I suggested it once on an article talk page and got no response. ―Mandruss  09:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Hey, look. It was suggested at Template talk:Rfc#Do not archive until in Dec 2014. It didn't gain wide attention, so there wasn't a consensus to insert it. --George Ho (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
That's interesting. Well I already have one proposal active and I try not to wear out my welcome at the Pumps. A couple of proposals per year is about my limit. Anyway, it makes sense to wait until the use of 10-year DNAU in RfCs becomes widely accepted, which is not at all certain. ―Mandruss  11:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if I would support the slowing down as it could still mean archiving of discussions that aren't closed, though it would probably help for now, but I think I prefer Mandruss's proposal. I'm just interested because I've been involved in a discussion that was archived without being closed, so no consensus was ever implemented across any affected articles (and I'm actually quite sad about it!). anemoneprojectors 10:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support for slowing down the archiving. I'd also suggest making the bots archive depending on the count of talk page entries / their length and not just plainly the date. --Fixuture (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to 2017 Wikipedia & Sindhi Wikipedia awareness workshop and meetup in Karachi[edit]

Dear , All Wikipedian living in Pakistan, You are cordially invited to one day workshop "Wikipedia & Sindhi Wikipedia awareness workshop and meetup in Karachi", starting in May 2017, you may contact JogiAsad, for details see, follow Sindhi Wikipedia Facebook page..Thanks..سنڌي وڪيپيڊيا (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Call for clarification[edit]

The introductory to the Wikipedia Village pump, in which one sees the five sections, says that this page should not be used for discussions. Should this section not also mention that the Village pump's sub-sections are for discussions and that the phrase "not for discussions" only refers to the title page? After all, each of the five sub-sections do seem to me to be areas where discussions take place. Wikipedia proposals and Wikipedia Ideas Lab. are probably the best examples of this. Vorbee (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump says:

This page is not for discussions. Please use the table below to find the most appropriate section to post in, or post in the miscellaneous section.

That seems clear to me. Four of the five sections start the description with "To discuss". And clicking any of the sections will show lots of discussions. It's hard to imagine users thinking they aren't allowed to discuss there. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Has miscellaneous always been empty?[edit]

Out of curiosity, I just had a quick look at the box headed "Miscellaneous" but it was empty. Has this always been empty? If so, I wonder about the point of this sub-section. Vorbee (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Where is the box you refer to? I couldn't find an empty box headed "Miscellaneous". PrimeHunter (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to the blue text by a circle with a question mark in it, but I see that there now are topics for discussion in there. Vorbee (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)