Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)

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


The page --> Village pump is almost incomprehensible, and I say this as someone who has edited and added to this Wiki since it started. Every time I have come to it to try and suggest something, I give up. Except this time. Is their a guide to the page somewhere? Like, for complete newcomers? I am not proposing anything, I am telling you it is daunting in the extreme. Fxmastermind (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

What frustrates or confuses you about the village pump? I'm unsure what the problem is. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Your response is an example. I asked questions. "Is their a guide to the page somewhere? Like, for complete newcomers?", and got no answer. Fxmastermind (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I take it you are looking for a user guide on how to use the Village pump itself. I have never seen one and in a quick look I don't see one. You need to take some of the responsibility for the misunderstanding above. Someone answered what you put into the header of this section. You didn't give a good explanation of what frustrates you and that was what they tried to address. So what else frustrates you since you now know there is no userguide to the village pump. -- GB fan 14:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

For starters, there is no notification for when somebody replies on a talk page. Why isn't that part of the software? I'm sure this has come up before, but how to search for that discussion?

So there are two issues. Communication is just horrific here. And no idea (or a FAQ to consult) about how to find where (or even if) this has come up before. On the village pump. The internet and apps are pretty slick and easy to use these days. This (talk pages/village pump) is not. I don't even know if this is the place to discuss what I just mentioned. Fxmastermind (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, I just give up. Fxmastermind (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

As I read it, what you're describing isn't unique to VP, Wikipedia is messy, difficult, and confusing in general. This is an apparently inevitable result of an environment built by the masses with no central coordination or control, which is how the community wants it. It's a noble concept, but it has a cost, and you've found part of it. If you have specific questions or problems, there may be specific answers or solutions. For example, notifications and watchlists help a lot without being the ideal, ultimate solutions to anything. We don't know what you already know, so we're somewhat limited in what we can do to help. ―Mandruss  05:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. An example would be this communication effort right here. You and I. There is no notification when somebody responds. This is hard to imagine in this day and age of communications. I don't believe anyone actually wants a system that doesn't allow notification when somebody responds to a message. That's the most basic feature of all communication, it's in use almost everywhere, in many ways. 10 years ago it could be overlooked, but now it's a bad joke. If, as you say, the very nature of communication was built by the masses, it's frankly impossible to believe. The lack of the ability to do almost every last thing involved in communication is not a feature, it's a failing. The question isn't "how can it be fixed?", but "Is it even possible to change anything?". Certainly there are people with code skills who could add all modern features to talk pages with little effort. Right? The problem seems to be, not as you alluded to, "an environment built by the masses", but that it has been built on top of an old and primitive foundation, and there isn't any way to actually change anything. If the masses could change Wikipedia, the communication system would have been updated long ago, with all kinds of wonderful features. You can see these actually working on other Wiki sites.

The complete lack of a quote feature, that's hard to imagine. Here's a specific example. How do I find the way to quote somebody I am responding to? (I'm not asking how, I am asking how to find it, what would you do to simply search for the answer?) Fxmastermind (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Fxmastermind: Ask respondents to "ping" you, then you'll be notified. They simply type {{ping|User:name}}, and you'll get a notice. You can "ping" them also when you respond to them. You are probably reading this now because I pinged you. Hope that helps. Regards, GenQuest "Talk to Me" 17:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
@Fxmastermind: As noted above, a replier can send you a notification if they feel one is in order. This evening I replied, "Ok, thanks!" to someone who had dropped me a tip on something. That person might drop in later and see my thanks, or not, but I judged that it would probably be a slightly annoying, slightly time-consuming distraction for them if I sent them a notification about the reply. The notifications don't say what, only who and where, so they would have dropped what they were doing and gone to that page, only to see my "Ok, thanks!" So I chose not to send them a notification. Thus, the lack of automatic notification of replies can be considered a feature. Sure it's a PITA to code that {{ping}} when you want it, it's admittedly clunky by today's standards, but it gets much easier with practice like everything else. I understand you're feeling a bit overwhelmed, I went through the same thing and I suspect most users do.
Re your last question, you probably can't find that on your own, unless you happen to see it done by another editor. Edit the section and note how they did it. Failing that, go to WP:Teahouse or WP:Help desk and ask "How can I x?". The Teahouse is specifically targeted at newer users and the responders there go out of their way to be friendly and help you get that warm fuzzy.
And you seem like a decent enough person, so I wouldn't mind if you asked the occasional question on my user talk page (the phone symbol following my username). You could bookmark that page in your browser, or add it to your watchlist. ―Mandruss  13:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@GenQuest: I'm not quite sure. But thanks in any case.Fxmastermind (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


{{Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive header}} should be moved to within the <noinclude></noinclude> part so that it does not get transcluded under Wikipedia:Village pump (all)#Proposals. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect close of an RFC at VPP[edit]

Why was Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#We should not accept pictures with pixelated people's faces closed as "No concensus" when in fact the proposal got zero support !votes? A "No consensus" close is meant to indicate that neither Support nor Oppose was clearly dominant, but in a case where there is a clear consensus for Support or Oppose the close should say so. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

  • The particular wording was "No consensus to enact the proposal" and no consensus maintains the status quo. It's kind of a distinction without a difference. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Are you seriously saying that there was a consensus to enact that proposal? Because that's completely ridiculous. The proposal clearly has near universal opposition! How can you possibly claim there is consensus to enact it? Seriously?!? And thanks for coming by my talk page to discuss this with me or even notified me that you disagreed with the closure. Now, can you kindly explain how you there there was a consensus to enact the proposal? --Jayron32 00:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Oiyarbepsy; no consensus to implement works just fine. The semantics of how the proposal is closed matter less than the actual result, which is that the proposed change will not be implemented. @Jayron32: no need to freak out :). He's just suggesting that maybe the reason could be changed to something like "consensus to not implement". I don't think it is necessary myself, but if you wanted to keep everyone happy you could change it to that. I think the current version works, since there was a specific proposal and the result was no consensus to implement it; the discussion wasn't to obtain consensus to not implement it, so a close reason like that makes less sense. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
    I'm afraid I don't see how a binary result is altered by the movement of the negative from one location in the sentence to another. But OK. --Jayron32 11:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
From my experience over the years I've been here "no consensus" means "not enough support or opposition to give a clear result, so the proposal is not carried out". "No consensus" is the indecisive middle ground between "clearly supported" and ""clearly defeated". As these discussions are not votes the result is not a "binary" where a single vote completely changes the outcome. There is in fact a continuum of outcomes from clearly supported through no consensus to emphatically rejected. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Support to that comment, Dodger. This isn't that big of a deal and no consensus serves just fine. Fritzmann2002 17:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, my point really is that there is a huge difference between saying there is no concensus, i.e. concensus does not exist, thus policy requires that the proposal fails; and the situation in this case where there is in fact an overwelming consensus to reject the proposal, i.e. a concensus does exist. "No concensus" literally means "we could not reach agreement". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
There is a difference. I don't know if it's a "huge" difference. But "no consensus" strikes me as being a close "without prejudice"; something you could bring up again after a decent interval and see if people thought differently, though it would be disruptive to do it too often. You could do that even for a proposal with a consensus against it, but the "decent interval" might be longer, and patience for repeated tries might be thinner. --Trovatore (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree that there is a difference in meaning between "there is no consensus to do this" and "there is a consensus not to do this". But when the proposal is to change an existing guideline or process, then both of these statements have the same practical effect: No change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


We cannot have dialoges about new ideas on Wikipedia, thus Wikimedia should create a new site called:


so we can create genuine articles about future research, and the talk page will be more like chat. People need a parallel WikSciTalkia open to new ideas and dialogue! People want to CREATE - NEW STUFF and COMMUNICATE OVER CREATIVITY not only ideas of great others!

Just do it! (ape-man) 21:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Indeed, this is WP:NOT what Wikipedia is about. You may be interested in Wikiversity, or perhaps Wikia. --Izno (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

start thread with rfc[edit]

is it normal to begin a pump thread immediately with an rfc (like the recent one)...thought rfc was if/when discussion is at an impasse it okay to place an rfc at anytime to simply get more input on one's thread? (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The lead at WP:RFC does imply that you should usually discuss first, and it in fact states: "RfC is one of several processes available within Wikipedia's dispute resolution system." In practice, RfC is used under any circumstance when wider participation is needed, and it is sometimes the first resort when such need is anticipated. ―Mandruss  18:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


I suggesst the main page of this talk be either be made collapsible or it be archived except discussions which are open --VarunFEB2003 TalkContribsGuestbook 14:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The sections on the talk page are the open conversations. Any topic that hasn't had any discussion in greater than 7 days is automatically archived. -- GB fan 14:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Where next when a proposal has support?[edit]

I proposed a change to warning templates last month - it got a lot of support over the next few weeks, and was then automatically archived after seven days of silence. Is this how proposals typically end? Am I now meant to raise this somewhere else, pointing to the discussion to show support? (If so, where would be a good place to do that?) --McGeddon (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

First try posting on WP:WikiProject Templates to see if there's a known way for the community to directly enable selected warning templates on mobile. If not, we'd need WMF involvement. You could try posting on the talk page for the WMF MW:Reading team.
P.S. We'd probably want to make mini-versions of such templates for mobile. Alsee (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)