Wikipedia talk:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1

Related discussion

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 74#Bug/feature focus. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion length

The main issue I can see with this is that if ideas are never explicitly "decided on" here, then discussions will basically go on indefinitely, until the idea is formed into a concrete proposal and moved to VPR or everyone stops caring about it and it gets archived due to inactivity. This seems like it might run the risk of leading to a long page full of tl;dr discussions. Mr.Z-man 03:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing you're describing is a downside. Both good and bad ideas need to go through these draft stages; some will die through loss of momentum (hopefully the bad ones...), others will eventually be considered ready for full discussion (hopefully the good ones). In trying to have a more constructive and freethinking environment, more proposals will die through loss of momentum than through rejection; this is not a bad thing. Finally, if a split evolves in which VPR tends to have more worked-out proposals, then those with less patience and interest in new ideas will face less chaff and more wheat. Rd232 talk 15:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, if the page becomes full of multiple-month-long, gigantic discussions, it will quickly become unusable. People aren't going to be willing to read a month or more of background, so discussions will stagnate as they will only be discussed by the same group of people. If we want a constant stream of new ideas from new people, discussions need to be short enough that new people will be willing to jump in. Mr.Z-man 21:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Well unless you have a concrete suggestion (perhaps something along the lines of my Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RFC#Collaborative Views, i.e. when necessary splitting off subpages and summarising), we might as well as try it and see what happens, hoping it can evolve sensibly into something useful. Someone remarked the other day something like "what if Wikipedia had been proposed at VPR? Can you hear the resounding "it'll never work" rejection?"... If you never try things that fail, you're not trying hard enough. Rd232 talk 06:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not saying "don't do it", I'm saying, "don't do it without thinking it through." Everyone seems to be all hung up on the name rather than the actual details of how the page will work. It might evolve into something useful, but why not be a little bit proactive and try to anticipate some problems before they exist? Mr.Z-man 15:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I always try to be proactive ;) I think most discussions will become inactive at some point or move elsewhere. We should make sure to link to prior discussions and if appropriate link to the place where the discussion moved. Some discussions may languish that's true, maybe in those cases we should consider 'reboots'. Although I'm not sure how it should be conducted. Cenarium (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
This a forum for users who have new ideas to get advice. In the end, those users will decide which way they want to take their ideas. Sole Soul (talk) 09:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Many talk pages have specific archives for individual topics. Threads on that topic are moved there.

Liquid Threads may help if it integrates its watchlists with regular Wikipedia watchlists. Because Liquid Threads allows each topic to be individually watched. That provides a means to add new discussion to older topics. Topics get rotated to the top when new messages are added. Many discussion forums outside Wikipedia operate this way. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Added to template

Just a note, if the proposal for this page eventually fails, its link should be removed from Template:Villagepumppages. I've added the link for now, since this page seems to be getting used already for discussions that VP watchers should be made aware of. For the record though, I'm not entirely sure what this page is for myself. Equazcion (talk) 08:03, 10 Apr 2010 (UTC)

We'd need an icon to represent VPD at Wikipedia:Village pump. Cenarium (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah that's why I haven't added it yet to the main page, too lazy to look for one. Anyone who's feeling creative is welcome to try. Equazcion (talk) 21:08, 11 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Brainstorming about name

  • Brainstorming
  • Ideabox
  • Idea incubator Maurreen (talk) 08:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I see Cenarium's argument about broader thoughts on more general issues, but "development" has unfortunate ambiguities, and it can still serve this purpose with a name that more clearly signposts a more specific function. So

  • proposal development
  • proposal drafts

or similar. Maurreen's "Idea incubator" is quite a nice, evocative variation on this theme. Rd232 talk 15:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Proposal development" seems like it would work, without causing confusion about whether this is for the developers. Or perhaps something like just "Ideas"? --Yair rand (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Those all have potential. Also, Chinese-menu time, pick one from Set A and one from Set B (or add to sets):

Set A

  1. Idea
  2. Proposal
  3. Suggestion

Set B

  1. Development
  2. Drafts
  3. Drafting
  4. Incubator
  5. Lab
  6. Workshop Maurreen (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  7. Drawing board
  8. Think tank —Akrabbimtalk 02:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I like the last two. Maurreen (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
"Think tank" is good, so is "Idea lab" (maybe "Idea laboratory"?). --Yair rand (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
How about "Idea workshop"? It's hands-on tinkering. See also:
commons:Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop
commons:Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop --Timeshifter (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it's just my political background, but think tank brings to mind an ideological organization. Tisane (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, think tanks are mainly for lobbying. Maybe we can invent a new word, like erm...ideolab :) --JokerXtreme (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


This is a bold creation of a new village pump based on this discussion. It was suggested to create a place where new ideas and suggestions can be developed, and I feel that a centralized place where we can also discuss how to address some general issues can be helpful and was missing. Development seems to be an apt term for this purpose and I think it can fit in the established village pump architecture. This is of course still a proposal, and the page can be redirected/deprecated if there's no consensus for going ahead. Please give your thoughts. Cenarium (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If people want a place to talk to each other about this stuff, why not. Though I reiterate that the problem with Wikipedia development is people executing and implementing ideas, not so much people having ideas.. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 23:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Is my understanding correct that the existence of this page would split the current scope of Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) ("new ideas and proposals"), such that general ideas would be discussed here and concrete proposals at VPR? -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily, I agree with what has been said in the initial discussion, users are free to directly make proposals at VPR, be they concrete or not clearly defined, and the same can go for ideas, although there's a risk for them to be opposed immediately at VPR and not developed or alternatives not considered. I couldn't predict how it would evolve. Cenarium (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
This may unfortunately be necessary, only because many people don't understand that, at VPR, you're not forced to either support or oppose a proposal as stated. Ideas can be developed there. Equazcion (talk) 00:35, 29 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Actually, rethinking that, I'd maybe rather see Village pump (proposals) renamed to Village pump (development) instead. I don't see any practical need for both to exist, and the rename should clarify that development of ideas can take place there, along with more "concrete" proposals. Equazcion (talk) 00:44, 29 Mar 2010 (UTC)
1 - "Development" is ambiguous. 2 - I don't knock the "ideabox" idea, if that's what this is. But I think splitting the pump this way is inefficient at best. My suggestion would be to move this to something completely separate. Maurreen (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
"Proposals" is already Wikipedia's "idea box". Ideas, proposals; 6, half dozen; same difference. The rename would just be to combat the perception that ideas can't undergo "development" at the "proposals" page, and must be voted on as-is. Equazcion (talk) 01:24, 29 Mar 2010 (UTC)
What about the part on considering general issues and trying to work out proposals on them, this is sometimes done at VPR but it's not a good place, and there's been various attempts for processes to get us to better consider and work on general issues but none was successful. So it's not a split actually, the scope of VPD could be broader than just ideas. I think the ideabox wouldn't attract much editors (name is not appealing and remaining in the establishment to some extent - the pumps - makes people involved more easily) and it would be too restricted in scope imo (I'm afraid it would not last). Cenarium (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I guess “development” to me means designing and programming software by default, as I came here thinking this was a spin-off of the village pump (technical)—maybe something to isolate correspondence with developers (regarding future software) from editors′ help requests (regarding existing software). I am disappoint. ―AoV² 02:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, "Development" initially made me think it was about developing some technology, but that would be redundant with the Pump technical section. Then I thought "Development" was about fundraising; that is the term used in many nonprofit groups. Maurreen (talk) 08:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, before this goes any further we need to clarify the relation of this pump to the VPR. So, what if this is some kind of a laboratory where proposals are formed and then are taken to VPR for approval. If it passes all good, if it fails then bring it back here for further changes. Just an idea. Maybe unnecessarily bureaucratic, come to think of it... --JokerXtreme (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Use of VPD should be optional, and sometimes the proposal is worked out on specific pages so there's no need at all for VPD. It should also not be for policy proposals or discussion since it's more appropriate for WP:VPP. I've tried to clarify those points in the introduction. If a proposal is discussed at VPR, I think changes to it can also be discussed there, although discussion of major changes may be better received at VPD. Cenarium (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
So, the only thing that I'm certain about this VP, so far, is that its purpose is not very clear :/ --JokerXtreme (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I think its purpose is still in an early stage of development. Tisane (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we should brainstorm on that on the project page:P --JokerXtreme (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

We can always make modifications later but it's good to see it being used now. I'll make a few posts next week. Cenarium (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If this is to be used to discuss "general issues", maybe it should replace WP:Village pump (miscellaneous). Equazcion (talk) 01:17, 13 Apr 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent) It looks like many of the current topics of Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) are not development related. For example:

  • Racial comment
  • Anglosaxon takeover of Wikipedia
  • Cross Wiki spam on Frederic Fappani  ?
  • australian war medal/hat medal found
  • My very unpleasent experiences with Wikipedia
  • How atrocious should atrocities be ?
  • Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elockid closing tomorrow
  • Misuse of Wikipedia logo on a website
  • National anthems
  • User in search of a template to say thanks
  • Can't add a RfD tag for Angry German Kid no matter what.
  • RfC on Christ myth theory

--Timeshifter (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, but the proposer of this page has more or less said that "development" isn't meant to merely refer to software ideas, but to "general issues", as I said. If "development" in the programming aspect of the word is what's meant, then "proposals" should really already handle that. If we're indeed talking about a place to handle general issues, then "miscellaneous" should be replaced with this. Equazcion (talk) 07:09, 13 Apr 2010 (UTC)
I saw ideas with potential die quickly because they were proposed prematurely in a place with the "support/oppose" mentality. Sole Soul (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Then this page should replace "proposals". Any way you slice it, there's already a VP page for whatever this page is intended for. "Proposals" are proposals for the development of the site. If the word "proposals" connotes the wrong message regarding what's to happen on the page, then it should be renamed. We don't need one VP page for the "development" of ideas and another to put the final "proposal" to a vote. "Proposals" is meant to handle the entire course of idea discussions. Equazcion (talk) 08:09, 13 Apr 2010 (UTC)
If this page replaced "proposals", we will end up with the same problem. Many great bold ideas have minority supporting them initially. I'm personally don't bother to make the case for an idea proposed by another user if I saw many opposes initially, I'm like: there is no chance this will pass. Also, many people don't propose what may turn to be good ideas because they are thinking of the chance of passing. Sole Soul (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I think this development VP should remain. It is already useful. I am liking the "development" name for it too. Discussion is good, not just voting. There is a need for this discussion, and there is a place for it here. Why delete it? Wikipedia is not paper. WP:NOTPAPER. There is too much to discuss to limit it to the proposals VP. Why is there almost always such negativity and deletionism concerning most ideas, including this village pump? Let ideas develop and simmer a little bit here. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I too am starting to think that this VP is useful. For instance, it would have been better if the WP:PWD proposal could have been posted in this type of forum rather than WP:VPPR, because the idea and software were still in development. Tisane (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I've often had things I wanted to discuss on 'general matters' but for which VPR was not adapted, i.e. I had no specific or 'definitive' proposal in mind, and no other place fit. It's no surprise that people try from time to time to come up with things like areas for reform and so on; well this place can serve as a permanent, central place where we can discuss those. 'General issues' is too imprecise indeed, I meant matters which are relevant to developing, maintaining, improving Wikipedia, but not pertaining to policy or specific cases. Cenarium (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
You're still describing what "proposals" is for. A proposal isn't necessarily an idea for a new feature as you seem to be taking it. A proposal is merely an idea for change or improvement. That's why it's called "proposals" and not "feature requests". That said I'm still on the fence, only because this page so far seems to be fairly clear of hasty naysayers, which are the enemy of intelligent improvement discussions; but I have a feeling that'll change once more people get wind of this. Equazcion (talk) 00:40, 16 Apr 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see how this new village pump serves any useful purpose, and I am considering taking it to MfD. Immunize talk (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Reasons? --Timeshifter (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll restate that I think the VP should not be split this way. It seems redundant with Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Maurreen (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
As this VP will not be used for proposing anything, I don't see how it could be redundant. VPD is for development of ideas, VPR is for actually proposing ideas. --Yair rand (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
That's a semantic argument. Proposals is for proposing ideas and discussing them, or developing them, in other words. They're the same thing. Equazcion (talk) 01:18, 16 Apr 2010 (UTC)
I think that VPR is for more fully developed ideas and more immediate implementation of proposals. Emphasis on the proposal side of things. VPD is for earlier brainstorming of ideas that could later result in a variety of proposals. Emphasis on development, tinkering, and brainstorming. :) More tolerant too. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

In reference to the MfD comment, would this page even be appropriate for MfD, given that if its use were rejected it would essentially be a rejected proposal? We don't normally delete rejected proposal pages. Tisane (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal pages can be taken to MfD, where people will weigh in on whether it should be kept as a rejected proposal or deleted. Equazcion (talk) 01:36, 16 Apr 2010 (UTC)
Weird. So what's really the point of deletion? So that we can say, "We don't just reject the use of this village pump; we want to pretend it never existed, and prevent its pernicious cultural impact from poisoning the community"? Ugh, I hate MfD. Tisane (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
In many cases the point is to put the question of a page's value to the community in a centralized discussion with a clear result. The way talk page discussions such as this one go, we could talk forever and still not really get anywhere; meanwhile those who like the page will just continue using it regardless. Equazcion (talk) 01:50, 16 Apr 2010 (UTC)
Well you could make a poll on whether to continue using it or not; although I think it's a bit early to judge, we should have a bit more time to see how it goes. People have already made posts here which I'm pretty sure wouldn't have been made at VPR. Cenarium (talk) 04:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but I have to say, words like "Extremely strong oppose" and "In fact, I would consider leaving wikipedia if this proposal succeeded." is exactly why some people think VP Proposals is not a good place to know the good and the bad about their ideas. Sole Soul (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
    • There are people who will leave Wikipedia no matter what we do. And there are people who will be attracted to Wikipedia if we adopt certain policies, who wouldn't be attracted to it if we didn't. Plus, people don't always follow through with their stated intentions of leaving Wikipedia. So all in all, those statements don't have much importance to me. The bottom line is, if we create a good encyclopedia with good policies, it will attract all the editors we need. If we fail to improve our policies, we may satisfy the conservative element that presently dominates Wikipedia, but at what cost? Tisane (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC
    • You seem to think proposed changes will get less "strong opposes" here just because of the word "development" in the page title. Barely anyone uses this page yet (relative to the other VP pages), and already there's this. Ideas are going to get the same sort of strong reactions if people don't like them no matter where they're posted -- or how much you tell people that "this page isn't meant for voting on proposals but developing them", as I can feel coming very soon. A pretty good illustration, in the end, of how this page is redundant with "proposals", IMO. Equazcion (talk) 03:46, 16 Apr 2010 (UTC)
      • There is no incentive here for people to shout and get angry, either say why it is a good or bad idea or suggest improvement or just leave it. Sole Soul (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
      • We can use an editnotice and I'm sure we won't get much strongly worded opposition, in any case much less than at VPR. We've had only one since the start. Cenarium (talk) 04:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion, you are probably correct in your assessment. Still, it was a nice dream... Tisane (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, there will always be some heated discussion, but I don't think it will be as much as at VPR. We can encourage the group interaction here to be more tolerant instead of polarized. We could point more completely finalized proposals to VPR for more brutal dissection, voting, and implementation. We might actually reach such a consensus here for some ideas that we could find other ways to implement them other than VPR. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Things like this take time to bed down. Of course the occasional person will turn up misunderstanding... But then not everyone has to use it. The whole point is that those who like engaging creatively with ideas can do so, and those who only want to make sure nothing stupid is implemented can ignore it and watch VPR. An editnotice is a good idea; done. Rd232 talk 13:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Top section

I added an unsigned section at the top of the main page to serve as an explanation of what the page is for newcomers. I've described its purpose as best I understand it, but anyone can feel free to edit it. No signatures there though, please, so that anyone can edit it, and so it doesn't get archived by the bot. Equazcion (talk) 07:37, 16 Apr 2010 (UTC)

This page exists

I have removed the "proposed" comment at the top of the project page as the page exists, and has been integrated into Pump. There may be an argument that this page creates too many Pump pages, though it appears useful enough, and if people do find it too cumbersome, then usage will drop off - either way, if people wish to challenge this page being part of Pump, then an appropriate route would be via MfD under the principle that if it is not to be part of Pump, then it shouldn't exist. SilkTork *YES! 10:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

And I have boldly clarified the title. Maurreen (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted the move. You had only moved the talk page, firstly. Secondly, I think "preproposal ideas" is very cumbersome. I'm not sure the page needs a rename at all, but if it does, consensus for the new title should be established first. There are a lot of places where the title of this page occurs (WP:VP, Template:Villagepumppages, WP:VPA, etc), so boldly changing this isn't a good idea. Equazcion (talk) 13:57, 21 Apr 2010 (UTC)


Village pump (development) has now reached 30 watchers. Congratulations :) Equazcion (talk) 16:46, 23 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Edit notice

  • "This Village Pump is for developing ideas. Unsupported "Oppose" and "Support" comments have no place here - instead explain specific issues clearly. Try to be creative and positive: if possible suggest a better variation of the idea, or a better solution to the problem identified. "

I'm not a huge fan of this wording. "Unsupported Oppose and Support comments" are generally frowned upon almost everywhere already, so this wouldn't seem to adequately distinguish this page from others. Might I suggest something along the lines of the wording I used in the page header, such as: "This Village Pump is for developing ideas, not for consensus polling. Stalwart "Oppose" and "Support" comments generally have no place here. Instead, discuss ideas and suggest variations on them. Try to be creative and positive: if possible suggest a better variation of the idea, or a better solution to the problem identified." Equazcion (talk) 21:49, 23 Apr 2010 (UTC)

OK to change the wording like that, except for "stalwart" is a bit clumsy. "Unsupported" seems to be getting at the same thing, but is more descriptive. Rd232 talk 22:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Right but the "unsupported" bit is the main thrust of my complaint. Again, unsupported votes are nearly always frowned upon. The edit notice should communicate the intended difference of this page from other similar discussion pages, not redundantly proclaim the universal rules. Equazcion (talk) 22:44, 23 Apr 2010 (UTC)
Well it's not only doing that, is it, especially with your changes. We could drop the "oppose/support comments" phrase altogether, but I think it would make it less clear overall. Do you have an alternative that's better than "unsupported" and not merely synonymous? I don't. Rd232 talk 23:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd say it basically is only doing that (that being, clarifying the intended use of this page as it differs from other pages). The point of the page is to avoid mere "support" and "oppose" comments altogether, not to say those comments should be supported; so "unsupported" is entirely useless in my mind, and actually does not communicate the true purpose of the page. If stalwart is no good, how about "unwavering" or something similar? Equazcion (talk) 23:14, 23 Apr 2010 (UTC)
Well, how about keeping it simple: "This Village Pump is for developing ideas, not for consensus polling. Try to be creative and positive: if possible suggest a better variation of the idea, or a better solution to the problem identified." Rd232 talk 23:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
How about this: "This Village Pump is for developing ideas, not for consensus polling. Rather than merely stating support or opposition to an idea, try to be creative and positive. If possible, suggest a better variation of the idea, or a better solution to the problem identified." Equazcion (talk) 23:30, 23 Apr 2010 (UTC)
Fine. Rd232 talk 23:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Glad we found a workable compromise. If you could make the edit I'd appreciate it. I can't edit page notices since I'm not an admin. Equazcion (talk) 07:38, 24 Apr 2010 (UTC)
 Done Rd232 talk 08:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


I have nominated this page for deletion at MfD. Immunize (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about wreaking all that havoc with the page move

I got a little too bold there, and didn't realize it would cause such a mess if anyone needed to move the page back. It won't happen again. Tisane (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It's simple enough to fix, once we get an admin's attention. I asked rd232 (an admin) but he hasn't responded. Equazcion (talk) 18:16, 25 Apr 2010 (UTC)
Moved it back, no worries it was simple enough, but please do let the MfD conclude to gain consensus before rushing into moves/renames. Thank you, I think there are a few messy redirects lurking about now, but the bot will tidy them up in time. --Taelus (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Looks to me like you got all the redirects. Thanks Taelus. Equazcion (talk) 20:30, 25 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Name again

Can we work out a better name?

It's not at all clear from the name that this is essentially a pre-proposal page.

"Development" is very ambiguous about what is to be developed. Funds? Software? Editors? Other? Maurreen (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any of those fit except for "software", which wouldn't be inaccurate. Most proposals are regarding the display or workings of the site. Editors (if you mean people) and funds aren't "developed". I'm fine personally with the current title. As I said at the AFD, these names don't need to be specific in describing what the pages are for. "Proposals" is pretty ambiguous itself, if you don't already know what goes on there. This doesn't seem any different; people will see what it's for, and the title doesn't need to say it all. I'd also rather not see this become a multi-word title, as those I've seen suggested so far have seemed cumbersome. This one is short ans sweet. Equazcion (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't mean that funds, software or editors are the scope here. Those examples were intended just as illustrations of how the name can be understood or misunderstood.
I don't understand any objection to wanting to make the name more clear, which is different from disagreement about what the name should be.
If you want a one-word name, how about "Ideas" or "Brainstorming"? Maurreen (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I suggested earlier that this be an "embryonic" proposals subpage of WP:VPPR, much as we have a "persistent" proposals subpage now. "Brainstorming" is probably better than "ideas" because the latter seems a bit too similar in concept to "proposals." Tisane (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Making this a subpage of VPR is a death sentence; just like the now-defunct persistent proposals subpage. The one thing we want least of all is for this page to become in any way infected with the objective mindset that's so strong at VPR. I don't see anything wrong with the current page title; it's no less outlandish than the whole "village pump" terminology itself. Happymelon 19:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I wonder why they haven't renamed it "Forum," kinda like mw:Project:Forum. Tisane (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Because "forum" is boring. I've always loved the "village pump" terminology, it's very cute to me. I've actually been trying to find out who came up with it originally, to show my appreciation, to no avail. To suffice I wrote a caption for the pump image at WP:VP :) Equazcion (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
It is indeed cute, and no one fails to understand its purpose because its name is not blindingly-obvious. Why should this page be any different? There's more to a forum than its name. Happymelon 20:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you see anything wrong with "Brainstorming"? Besides being more clear, it's also less boring than "Development". Maurreen (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems out of place, maybe because it's a verb, and not "sleek" at all, for lack of a better description. It also really doesn't seem any clearer than "development" to me. What is being developed? What is being brainstormed? Seems like the same ambiguity you feel is an issue is still present there. Equazcion (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I think "development" does have more of a software-development connotation, though, so I would agree with Maurreen's sentiment. Tisane (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I think in this context, brainstorming is a gerund and serves as a noun.
I acknowledge that "what is to be brainstormed" is not more clear than "what is to be developed". But the distinction between "brainstorming" and "proposals" should be clear.
"Development" could be reasonably understood to be the stage following "proposals" -- developing accepted proposals to production. Maurreen (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that "brainstorming" would be clear to most readers. "Blue skying" is another possibility, but I don't think that its meaning is as obviously clear. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── HappyMelon and Equazcion -- If you don't like "Brainstorming", what name would you suggest to be more clear? Maurreen (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think this not very important. Visitors don't go to Village Pump pages based purely on the name; and if they do, they'll quickly see what it is about from the description they find there. As long as the name isn't actively misleading, it's fine. I don't think there's any better name, and I'm getting used to it as WP:VPD. Something like "brainstorming" is not actually any clearer, and something which is clearer, like "Proposal development" is clumsy. I suppose if people absolutely want to change it, that would get my vote, not least because the shortcut could stay the same. Rd232 talk 18:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"Proposal development" is at least more clear than the current title. Maurreen (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
So, shall we go with "Proposal development"? Maurreen (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It's kinda long, but it is more descriptive, so it's probably preferable to what we have now. Tisane (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It's too long. More descriptive isn't necessarily preferable, IMO, otherwise the names so far would be "technical issues", "proposed non-policy changes", "policy concerns", and "miscellaneous issues". Names are supposed to be short, especially village pump names, which are all only one word so far. I don't see any more of a reason to add descriptive words in this case, any more than in the cases of the other village pumps. Again, it's just a name, and doesn't need to convey everything; people will see what it's for when they arrive at the page and do a few seconds of reading. Equazcion (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm definitely not convinced that this would be a constructive development. Equazcion sums it up very nicely. A rose by any other name would still smell the same. But hopefully a rose that does not share any leaves with VPR won't also get infested with greenfly. :D Happymelon 14:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The fact that we have to so thoroughly dissociate ourselves from VPR goes to show how broken the proposals process is, and how resistant to change the community has become. It shouldn't be necessary, though, to worry so much about people thinking, "Oh, this is another proposals forum, let me vote 'strong oppose' or strong support' on all these ideas." There is a reminder that shows up when they try to edit, plus we can remind them when they run afoul of the forum's rules. In short, I don't think we'll have trouble enforcing the forum standards even if the name does mention proposals. We had "persistent proposals" and that was two words. It also was a lot more meaningful than calling it "Village Pump Persistent." Tisane (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Persistent proposals was for a special type of proposals; it would naturally have been absurd to call it "Village Pump Persistent". The whole point about this forum is that it's not a special type of proposal.
I don't think VPR is necessarily broken, but it falls far short of covering the full path of a proposal from conception to delivery. VPD has an important role to play in filling that gap. Your arguments "There is a reminder that shows up when they try to edit, plus we can remind them when they run afoul of the forum's rules. In short, I don't think we'll have trouble enforcing the forum standards even if the name does mention proposals." make just as much sense for the other side when you replace "does" with "doesn't". As you say, the name of a forum counts for relatively little. So why change to a more cumbersome name for such measly benefits? Happymelon 21:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
All other things being equal, it's better to organize information in a hierarchical manner. E.g., categorization of articles is done in a hierarchical manner to make it easier to find what you're looking for, and the contents of each article are themselves organized under a hierarchical system of headings and subheadings. Similarly, link rich pages are easier to navigate when related links are arranged in clusters, with each cluster having a heading describing its members. For ease of use, therefore, it makes sense to put forums for specific types of proposals (e.g. developing or persistent) in a cluster under the broader Proposals heading. Tisane (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, this isn't for a certain type of proposal. The "Persistent proposals" page was placed under Proposals because it was a place where existing Proposals discussions would be moved to; and I don't mean a place where a similar idea could be discussed further, but where discussions were actually cut and pasted from the Proposals page. This VP page is for entirely different discussions. And it's not for specific types of proposals. The two pages are related, since ideas developed at one can be brought to the other; but that doesn't make one a sub-category of the other. Equazcion (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
There are infinite (and non-mutually-exclusive) ways that one could classify proposals, e.g. by subject matter, stage of development, etc. In that sense, developing proposals are a certain type of proposal — specifically, proposals that are in the development stage. Given that this forum is exclusively for proposals belonging to that subclassification, it would probably make sense to put it in a hierarchy under Proposals, much as we put Proposals themselves in the hierarchy under Village Pump, and Village Pump in the hierarchy under Wikipedia namespace pages. It is not uncommon for ideas to be brought up in one forum and then discussed in another as they mature and change; e.g. a Request for Comment may eventually become a Request for Arbitration; and both RFC and RFAR are clustered under Dispute Resolution for ease of navigation. Similarly, a developing proposal may eventually become fully developed and ready for discussion in another venue. Whether a thread is cut and pasted, or a new thread is started from scratch, seems kinda irrelevant to the logical hierarchical scheme, IMO.
I acknowledge, though, that the choice of name is not going to make or break the encyclopedia. It is just a minor improvement that, in my opinion, would make it more intuitive and thereby increase ease of use. Maybe it would improve participation, and maybe it wouldn't. We'll never know. It's evident that the current name is here to stay. Tisane (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent responses to proposals at WP:VPR have once again made me feel that VPR is where proposals go to die. Compare, for instance, the positive response to the TFA proposals at the original location and here. I'm reminded that this sort of unconstructive negativity is a big part of why I left for a long while. Anyway, the reason I'm posting in this thread is to say: for God's sake, who cares about a minor name change that will make little difference either way - can you please use the time to comment constructively on some proposals? cheers, Rd232 talk 23:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Rename this village pump

Moved from the subject page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) Hi, everyone :) I was referred here by MSGJ after posting a proposal in Village pump (proposals). I did skim the header at WP:VP, but didn't notice this VP would be a good option. I believe that's because the image (hammer) and name (development) used in the {{villagepump}} template are possibly a bit confusing. It seems like something more related to the Technical VP than to the Proposals one. So I have two proposals:

  • Rename this to "Idea incubator" or something similar
  • Reposition this as a sub-section of VP:Proposals. Namely, in the {{Villagepumppages}} template it could show up as
"Village pumps: PolicyTechnicalProposals (persistent | incubator)Miscellaneous"
instead of the current
"Village pumps: PolicyTechnicalProposals (persistent)DevelopmentMiscellaneous"

So, what do you think? --Waldir talk 21:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

As you can see from the discussion directly above, I'd be against both of those options. I haven't really heard any name suggestion yet that seems better than the current one, and am not convinced it needs changing anyway. As I've said before, "proposals" seems ambiguous too, and the only reason you were confused about this page and not that one (my own conjecture of course) is because you've never seen this one before (it's new). The hammer graphic was my choice, and I picked it pretty much because I had to pick something and that was the first icon I found that made some sense. I'd be open to other suggestions there. Equazcion (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Tucking it away under Proposals as suggested would amount to hiding it (whether that's the intention or not) - so no. However the icon issue is a fair point. Can we get an icon that includes the Proposals icon lightbulb? The ideal would be some graphic wizard person putting some cartoon scaffolding around it, but I'd settle for putting the hammer next to it in an icon... Which I've done now with just the icons... to unintentionally semi-comic effect. Perhaps we could at least find some other tool! :) Rd232 talk 21:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I like the idea of incorporating the proposals bulb to show the connection. Your stopgap solution works for me. I'm not sure what other tool would better convey the purpose, but am still open to suggestions. Equazcion (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for not looking at the talk page before posting what ended up being a dutriplicate issue. That said, I've read the previous discussions, and for one I don't understand why the #Brainstorming about name section was abandoned; it had pretty good proposals, IMO. Anyway, as for "hiding" this VP, I think that even with the change I proposed for {{Villagepumppages}}, it could still keep its current prominent display at WP:VP -- but I would insist that a different name and icon would only benefit it, by preventing people from not noticing it (as the concerns above suggested could happen from the subpaging). --Waldir talk 22:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry. It looks like we are split roughly evenly about making the name more clear.
Clarity is not trivia. It's beyond my comprehension that anyone argues against making the name more clear. Maurreen (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
To find consensus, maybe we should have an RFC. We could do it either about whether to change the name in general, or first settle on one option other than the current name. Maurreen (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
RFCs without a clearly defined, fairly narrow set of options tend to get messy. I really don't get why the name is so important to some. There just isn't any alternative on the table that seems worth getting excited about, and the longer it's VPD the longer we might as well stick with that. Much more important is using it than naming it. Rd232 talk 07:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
What I don't get is why some of you seem to be so eager to make this VP work, yet apparently don't care about making it easier to spot (with a better title than "development"). There are two issues here: 1) making it a subpage of VPR (even if a move is not really performed, but simply a change --such as what I proposed above-- is made to the {{Villagepumppages}} template) and 2) renaming the page to make its purpose clearer. I think both could and should be done, but I understand the objections to the first one. For the second one, though, I fail to understand the willingness to stick with the current name (despite everyone agreeing it's probably not very clear) by the very people who seem most preoccupied with having it succeed and not become abandoned after the initial activity. I started this thread precisely because I missed it in WP:VP, despite its very prominent location, and I'm sure this could happen to many other users as well. --Waldir talk 07:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I agree with Happy‑melon and Rd232 that anything that pulls the negativity of VP-Proposals to here defeats the purpose.

I can live with "Brainstorming" as it is as broad as "Development."

Not all ideas need to go through VP-Proposals to be implemented. Ideas are developed in many places. Many things can and do happen without going through there. Thank the goddesses for that, or progress would be slower. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If there is going to be a new name ...

It seems like "Brainstorming" is the leading candidate, but I'm open to other options. Maurreen (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, brainstorming sounds good to me. I also agree that it's probably the most supported option so far: I skimmed the discussions above and there seems to be only see one unanswered criticism for it, which is its vagueness (citing Equazcion: [it] doesn't seem any clearer than "development" (...). What is being developed? What is being brainstormed? Seems like the same ambiguity (...) is still present there.). But I'd say that the main problem with "Development" is not the ambiguity (even "Proposals" itself is ambiguous in that sense), but rather the potential incorrect association with (IMO) technical issues, instead of with ideas. --Waldir talk 11:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Didn't somebody mention the term being controversial? Not really an issue, apparently: Brainstorming#Controversy_over_term. Rd232 talk 15:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
One concern I'd have about "brainstorming" for the name is that it might encourage all manner of breathless "I just found Wikipedia have you thought of this?" clogging things up. On the whole I'd probably prefer "Proposal development", being slightly more sober and focussed. Plus we can keep the same shortcut. Rd232 talk 16:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Newbies come up with some good ideas. And this is a better place for them. The user interface of Wikipedia is not always intuitive to new editors. Experienced editors don't notice many obvious interface problems anymore, because we have adapted. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't disagree on that. But equally, you see my point, don't you? It's not that I want to dissuade newbies from contributing (at all), just not push too hard in the direction of encouraging them to post suggestions off the top of their head, with little or no filtering for sanity or relevance - as brainstorming can easily suggest. It's a balance between welcoming crazy/wacky/clueless suggestions if they turn up, and trying to find the positive; and encouraging such suggestions to the point where they drown out discussion of the good stuff. Rd232 talk 19:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, should the RFC consider three choices: Development, Brainstorming, and Proposal development? Maurreen (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Can't we all just get a bong? (Oops. get along). :-)
How about IdeaLab? That sounds more serious than brainstorming.
For example:
HP IdeaLab.
Planetside IdeaLab.
Smithsonian Education - Educators - IdeaLabs.
--Timeshifter (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
That's fine with me. Maurreen (talk) 06:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure, why not. Rd232 talk 06:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed! :) Interestingly enough, that suggestion has been here all along (A1+B5). Thanks, Timeshifter, for realizing the potential!) --Waldir talk 07:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Any objections to changing the name to IdeaLab? Maurreen (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Almost missed this. :) Strong support moving to IdeaLab. --Yair rand (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Umm, I'm backing up a little, I'd actually prefer two words, "Idea Lab". But the one-word version is still better than the current "Development." Maurreen (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sounds less like a brand :) --Waldir talk 18:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
So long as we're refining this, wouldn't it make sense to use "Idea lab" (lowercase L)? --Yair rand (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm OK with any version of IdeaLab, Idea Lab, Idea lab, etc.. Idea workshop is fine with me, too.
--Timeshifter (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
@Yair: agreed, for the same reason I mentioned above :)
--Waldir talk 08:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think that Idea lab is any more or less clear than Development, but I certainly prefer it to "brainstorming" or anything akin to "proposals". But to be clear, are we talking about moving this page to Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab), or Wikipedia:Idea lab?? I think the latter is probably a death sentence by moving it out of the main village pump activitiy. Happymelon 15:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I always assumed the name was to be like the names of the rest of Village Pumps. Along the lines of Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). So it would be Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). I just noticed that all the particular village pump names use lower-case letters only. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Works for me. Maurreen (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I also had the same assumption as Timeshifter. --Waldir talk 20:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Mechanics of a move

So, I guess we'll wait a few days and see if anyone else weighs in on "Idea lab".

Will we need to do anything other than move the project page and the talk page? Maurreen (talk) 10:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

A bunch of things need to be done, I don't have a list but they'll gradually get done once the page is moved. However... this Idea Lab name sounds to me like some corny corporate attempt at a buzzword. But if no one else objects then fine. Equazcion (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I moved the pages and updated one redirect. I'm glad we found a compromise on the title. Maurreen (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
And I tweaked the header boxes on both pages to reflect the move. – ukexpat (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I missed that. I meant to update the pointers from the other pumps, but I wasn't sure how. Maurreen (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Purpose of this page

Is there any consensus as to what happens to ideas that gain support here? If not, I feel it would be helpful to more clearly outline what should happen to ideas that are accepted here. Personally, I feel that the best idea would be to bring to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), but I am very open to other ideas. Immunize Contact me 21:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure anymore. Seems activity at this forum has died down significantly. -- œ 03:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

How to Attract Thousands of New Editors

Why don't visitors edit? Figure that out, and our cup will runneth over.

My friends all think:

  • 1. "Because it's edited by anybody, it's mostly just made up."
  • 2. "Some mysterious body within Wikipedia vets edits."
  • 3. "It's a profit organization."

Survey visitors about Wikipedia with open questions, and I think they will all say exactly that: It's not credible. How it works is unknown. It's a company that is out to make money.

My suggestion:

  • Enlighted them, and sneak in a step-by-step of how to make an edit.
  • Get the visitor to make a single edit, THEN, help that editor improve.
  • Do that by thinking like an advertising agency: Sell it! Make it ADD-friendly, just like this proposal.
  • Put a banner at the top of every page:

Link it to a page that is "for dummies" - short and sweet, easy read:

  • When somebody adds something, other editors check to see if it's true. If not, it is deleted.
  • There is no committee that checks contributions. Wikipedia is just a bunch of editors.
  • Wikipedia is nonprofit.

How to add something made easy:

1. Take the info from a good site: "Apples grow on trees." from

2. Rephrase it: "Apples come from apple trees."

3. Click "edit this page" at the apple article.

4. Paste in "Apples come from apple trees."

5. At the end of the sentence paste in: <ref></ref>

6. Click save.

7. You are now a Wikipedian.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You have put some serious effort into that! And I like it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Wow... 12 February 2011? This page really dosen't get any traffic at all. Well I don't really like the idea of putting a large topbanner on pages, it's distracting and not terribly professional looking, IMO. Therefore I'd have to oppose any implementation proposal. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Minor, actually major, problem here: is not a WP:RS source. So calling it a "good site" is incorrect. And if is the website of the apple producers, it will probably also say that apples have almost no pesticide on them, etc. This is how non-RS low quality information finds its way into Wikipedia. That is not something to encourage. History2007 (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Traffic is light because it's the wrong page. This is the page for talking about the idea lab page, so the discussion has no relevance. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I've archived this (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that a bot, User:MiszaBot II, will automatically archive any discussion on this page that has not been commented to for 14 days, so there is normally no need to do this manually. Anomie 02:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Consider "Cross-Linking" and option when linking similar pages together

Suggestion: Cross-linking information: Allowing users to create pages that use the same "title", but which exist from different perspectives. Such articles would be "Cross-linked."
Consider Cross-Linking Information. Did you know that one of the "revolutionary" benefits of using a computer is that you can cross-link information (related articles...that are similar, but present information from different perspectives).
For Example.
Consider two colors (black and white).
I am using my Dictionary as my primary source.
Information about colors based upon the "Scientific" study of Light.
The definition from this perspective would look like:
Black - 1) The achromatic object color of least lightness characteristically perceived to belong to objects that neither reflect nor transmit light. 2). Total or nearly total absence of light.

White: 1) The achomatic object colors of greatest lightness characteristically perceived to belong to objects that reflect diffusely nearly all incident energy throughout the visible spectrum.
This page would be "Cross-Linked" with another (similar) page, aslo called "Colors"
Information about Colors from an Industral or "Everyday" Perspective.

Black - 1). A black pigment or dye. 2) Of or relating to a group or race characterized by dark pigmentation.
White - 1) A white colored product (as flour, sugar or [My insert: white paint, or white pigment] 2) Being a member of a group or race characterized by reduced pigmentation.
"Cross-Linked" with
Colors as defined, or used "symbolically" in Western Literature.
For example:
Black - 1) Soiled, dirty 2) Thourghly evil, wicked. 3) Gloomy, Calamitious.
White: 1) Marked by upright fairness, free from spot or blemish. 2) Innocent 3) Not intended to cause harm (such as a white lie or white magic).
"Cross-Linked" with a similar "Colors" pages such as:
"Colors" as defined or used "Symbolically" in Eastern Literature

"Colors" as defined or used "symbolically" in African Culture and Literature

"Colors" as defined or used "symbolically" in Latin Literature....
My point: I don't think articles with similar (or the same) title is (necessarily) the problem.

I think an electronic (factual) encyclopedia may find that by supporting "electronic-links," they may"cross-link" information and create effective, and unique information layouts.

...can you believe they said (on the Wikipedia site) under Technical Problems: Editing articles of such length that you can't edit them. C-ritah (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Guess what, I have created a blog which may help explain my position in easier to understand terms...if you are interested in this, my blog link (if I'm allowed to post it on this talk page) is I hope I am resonable...If you find me unreasonable, it was not my intent to be. C-ritah (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

So, do you think instead of having articles differently titled as in Color in Chinese culture and Color symbolism and Color (disambiguation), the different articles should have the same name and be distinguished only by being presented with different fonts and colors? I do not see how this would be easier for readers to understand than conventional WP:BTW links. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
please note:
  1. this is the "talk" page. it is not meant to discuss ideas, but rather to discuss the operation of the idea-lab. to discuss ideas, use the "Project page".
  2. you answered a post almost 2 years old. it is not very likely that the OP will gain much from your response..
peace - קיפודנחש (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Oops! And, worst of all, I'm experienced enough to know better; just wasn't paying attention. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Page move protected

Just to note that I've protected this page from moves, to align it with the other VP sub-pages. James F. (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)