Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 23

• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals (persistent)
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous

Village pump (proposals) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

---

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214

Redirect pages that keep its own title

Is it possible (and needed) to implement special redirect pages that would keep its own title? For example article Nong Duc Manh is redirected to page Nông Đức Mạnh. But many support idea of using only English letters in title, as per one of the interpretations of WP:UE.

So my idea, in details is like this. If redirect page is categorized as keep_title, displayed page should have title of the page you wanted (i.e. Nong Duc Manh). Also text bellow should be changed to something like (Redirected to Nông Đức Mạnh). If it is not categorized like this, everything should be as it is.

There are many discussions on the topic "Should title use only English letters?". Argument pro is that this is English Wikipedia. Arguments againts are that Wikipedia is using Unicode and there are redirects. Not only at talk of the mentioned page, but take a look also at Talk:Kimi Räikkönen or Talk:Novak Đoković. I think this could end these discussions. Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

...and start many new ones. My opinion can be summarised in three words and two punctuation marks: Sorry, but no.

First of all, having the article on Nông Đức Mạnh display as Nong Duc Manh would be wrong, because this is not how his name is written. When anglicised versions of names are used as titles, this is perfectly fine, but if there are no such versions, then we shouldn't create our own (or simply disregard the proper orthography of an otherwise foreign name).

Many readers (I believe most) certainly agree with this view, and only use ASCII redirects because they are easier to type. The redirects in this case are a convenience, not an expression of preference.

Secondly, it defeats the purpose of redirects: to re-direct to another page. Articles (and all other pages, for that matter) can only have one title, and our entire redirect system has been based on this fact. Applying such a change would create great confusion, by having the same page appear with all sorts of different titles.

Finally, there are practical problems. How would the alternative versions be choosed? How would the titles be changed to appear differently when accessed by redirects? And if that could happen, how would the different titles affect links, categories, and the sort?

All that said, there is one last question that I have, regarding the basic logic of this proposal: Will it make any sense to have an article appear to some readers with a different title and then repeat the name throughout the entire article with its native spelling?

Bottom line: I find this idea quite interesting, but nonetheless inapplicable and extremely controversial. In my not-so-humble opinion, it doesn't stand a chance. Waltham, The Duke of 01:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Iricigor, are you talking about a Wikipedia:Soft redirect? Emmanuelm (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

He probably isn't. Soft redirects are still redirects; this proposal asked for the change of the title in articles. Waltham, The Duke of 17:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I was not talking about soft redirects. Here are the answers. This would not change the purpose of redirects. They would still redirect to another article. But it would keep the title. Alternative version can be chosen like it is now, by clicking the additional line just below the title. There should be no changes in linking, categories or whatever else.

I can not answer on basic logic comment :) But I think this idea is easy to implement, and even more easy to discard if it is not good.--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Family history and family trees on wikipedia

Hello, i am wondering if it has ever been discussed the possibility to allow people to post articles (either in wikipedia or in a specific section -like wikifamilytree-) about the history of their families, including a family tree and pictures of their ancestors. This could become a very large repository of information about genealogy and ancestry. I have read that family history is one of the major hobbies among general population today, and growing. So far on wikipedia i have only seen articles about "blue and gold" families. Please let me know your opinion Adrian Comollo (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. This isn't something we could allow on Wikipedia proper because of the nature of what this place is, an encyclopedia, and thus it is required that all information be verified through reliable, published sources. This is one of our non-negotiable policies. Another one of our core polices this would violate is our requirement that information not be original research. Moreover, please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory which actually covers this suggestion. However, as you can see from that entry, there is a proposed Wikimedia project on this already. See m:Wikipeople but it looks like no consensus was ever gained to implement it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Crosswords

Wikipedia is basically like a newspaper, or at least Wikinews is, I think it would be great to have a crossword at the home page.

Wikinews had a crossword at one point, that was maintained by one dedicated editor, but it since been abandoned, and I think the program they used was proprietary in the first place. -- RoninBK _{T C} 22:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is basically like an encyclopaedia, and most people would like it to resemble one even more. Thus, the Main Page of Wikipedia is probably unsuitable for a crossword. Another page could be a more acceptable choice, although nothing comes to my mind. But I do have an alternative...

How about adding it to the Signpost? One crossword every week. It would be both visible and easily maintained. Waltham, The Duke of 13:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Some people may be interested in Wikipedia:Wikifun. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Rename template

I made this cool template. Have a look. {{namechanged}} – i123Pie _bio^contribs 19:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you want to post this at Wikipedia talk:Changing username? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reproposal tags

As no response in any shape or form was given to this proposal previously, I will post it again.

Park Crawler, otherwise known as 75.74.151.159 (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Factual review

Moved discussion to bottom. — Thomas H. Larsen 08:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish to announce Wikipedia:Factual review, a proposed system to factually review articles for accuracy. Please provide any constructive feedback, suggestions, comments, and objections that you might have. Best and friendly regards, — Thomas H. Larsen 08:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has clearly established itself in the place of information. It will continue to be used by thousand upon millions looking for casual or common knowledge. Wikipedia's immediate inhibitor is the inability of those seeking to prove a thesis or write an essay or even question a teacher's claim to cite wikipedia. I have Professors who admit to using wikipedia, but will fail anyone who cites it. WE NEED CREDIBILITY before accessibility! --Brogman (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The article says Factual review is a general venue where editors can seek input from other community members on the factual accuracy (correctness of claims and adequacy of coverage) of articles. This describes Wikipedia as a whole. We already have articles and talk pages. I do not understand why we need an additional place to argue. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• If there is going to be a factual review board, those doing reviewing should have some sort of education or expertise on the subject matter, not some freshman who thinks he knows everything. For example I've noticed editors critical of citations do not do any kind of research into the subject matter and demand that they have instant access to books and reference not available online. These sources are in books in special collections or archives that some editor at the University of China has neither access to nor business critiquing a subject matter of American History or one that they are not educated in or acquainted with. For someone to critique the subject of a Colonial American person, they should be educated in the particular Individual. Not just someone who says for example “how do I know your car is red, where is the link to your DMV file for the car?” (Lookinhere (talk) 08:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

Along the same lines, why do we need Wikipedia:Peer review? Because talk pages simply do not receive input from a wide-enough range of editors. I agree that some people jump in thinking they know everything (in fact, you read my mind) — however, that is one of the main disadvantages with an open environment. Most editors accept and know the limitations of their personal knowledge; those that don't can simply be ignored. There's no reason — at least as far as I can see — why the preferable editors can't have a general venue where articles can be subjected to close factual scrutiny.

By the way, can we please move this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Factual review?

Best and friendly regards, — Thomas H. Larsen 08:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC — rethinking the list of the top ten wikipedias

Please comment on the discussion at m:Top Ten Wikipedias. Waldir ^talk 19:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

How about a list of the ten top most visited articles on Wikipedia, just for curiosity's sake? Deus Maximus 375 (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

if we could also see the date the account was created

It would be nice if when looking at a user's contributions, we could also see the date the account was created. This can be useful when deciding how to protect an article.

For example, if a user is pestering an article, and I see that said user has only edited today, then I may decide to semi-protect the article - only to find said user editing the article anyway - because said user actually created the account a long time ago. If I could see that said user created the account three months ago, then I wouldn't waste my time with a semi-protect, and I would take a different action. Kingturtle (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

For that, can't we just look in the user's logs (which are linked from the contribs page)? Users who have registered recently (as opposed to "older" users who might not have a user creation log entry) are the only ones for which this difference is relevant, and they are likely to have so few log actions that it will be immediately apparent. It (the status quo) might be a bit more annoying, but do we really need to change this? Nihiltres^{t.l} 03:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I might be misunderstanding your proposal, but doesn't the user creation log do this already? Equazcion •✗/C • 03:39, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I guess I just want to save the extra steps and have the date shown on the contributions page. Kingturtle (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That could be a minor convenience... and maybe a JS script could even accomplish it. Although I think in the example you describe, it would be better to warn/block the user that's pestering the article rather than protect the article. Page protection is for a multi-user problem. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:00, 27 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to keep my example simple. The real world example involved edit wars involving sock puppets of banned users. But I can live with accessing the user creation log myself. Kingturtle (talk) 04:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You could always use Wannabe Kate -- RoninBK _{T C} 05:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The "creating page" bar

In reference to the bar that appears at the top of the page after clicking on a red link, that reads:

• Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article, or search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title.
• To experiment, please use the sandbox.
• As you create the article, provide references to reliable published sources. Without references, the article may be deleted.

I think it should tell the creator about user subpages, or {{underconstruction}}. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{I push my hand up to the sky} 12:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, just leave a detailed {{editprotected}} at MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext. Sounds good… unless someone objects, it seems trivial as the page-create message is already specific for different namespaces. Nihiltres^{t.l} 15:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

10 M banner?

Reply on this talk page. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Optional spell/grammar checker

When someone edits a page, I think it would be a good idea for them to have the option to spell/grammar check the edit they are about to make, this would reduce the amount of unnoticed spelling and grammar mistakes which appear in wikipedia articles.

I appreciate that what I have just recommended isn't a minor change to wikipedia, but would be a significantly large project, however there are open source applications which algorithms could perhaps be used from (such as openoffice.org, and for dictionary's of words to use in a project such as this, people only really need to look as far as wicktionary).--Dave (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice idea, if it could be done. Your post ("dictionary's") proves that the need really does exist. Adrian M. H. 19:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the big problem is if it can be done. Having said that online email services such as gmail have online spell checkers so it isn't beyond the realm of possibility, however it would be a big project. --Dave (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Spelling checkers belong in web browsers - both Firefox and Safari have nice ones already built in. Other browsers like IE7 have add-ins that can be downloaded. See Wikipedia:Spellchecking#Using a Web Browser. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The thought of having a spell checker in your browser hadn't entered mind before, and I'll certainly be looking into it. However I imagine most other people won't be aware of it as well, as according to Usage share of web browsers, Internet Explorer has an 83.27% share of browser usage (February 2008 - Global usage share data from OneStat.com) and I doubt that very many people of that 83.27% will have installed an extension to allow them to spell check in their browser (of course I could be very wrong and if you can find any statistics to support this then I would be interested). - For the sake of presenting both sides of the argument Firefox has a 13.76% share and Safari has a 2.18% share. --Dave (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Be confident

I thhink there should be a policy called be confident. You should always be confident of yourself AND other users, even if it looks like you would fail. This is an essential policy for maintaining a kind community. Nothing444 19:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You can feel free to write an essay, but how would this work as a policy? Mr.Z-man 20:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Be bold seems to be quite similar to what you're suggesting... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration

We should definitely get Collaboration of the week back together. Could someone please help me accomplish this? Mm40 _{Your Hancock Please}

It's much better to do collaborations within WikiProjects, I think - that way, people are working together with others with similar interests. COTW died a natural death, and there are plenty of other collaborations as is. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting

In addition, we should organize a huge one day/week/month/ long effort to get the Articles needing copyedit down. Any comments would be appreciated. Mm40 _{Your Hancock Please}

See Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have and I haven't gotten a response. Mm40 _{Your Hancock Please}

Proposed Lupin filter update

I propose adding an option to the filter that allows users to ignore edits with edit summaries, as those edits are generally constructive.--Urban Rose 01:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Should prominently note about other languages

For every registered user should be option to enter a list of languages. Then when displaying an article, prominently (near the top of the Web page) should be shown if this article is also available in the languages from the user's list of languages.

Example: I would set for myself the list of languages consisting English and Russian. Then viewing the English article Russian Desman I would note that there is also Russian version of this article. In fact, currently the Russian version of this article is far more detailed than English one. So I would profit from viewing prominent notice that it is also available in Russian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porton (talk • contribs)

I realize that to implement this MediaWiki software need to be modified, but I think it's worth the cost.

One way of doing this would be to put li.interwiki-ru {font-weight:bold;} in your monobook.css which would make the link to the Russian version of the article bold, although it will stay in the languages box. If there's a particular place where you want the link, you could use javascript. You can ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Requests about this. Tra (Talk) 17:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reproposal tags

As no response in any shape or form was given to this proposal previously, I will post it again.

Park Crawler, otherwise known as 69.141.213.16 (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel like this proposal is a little vague at the moment. Could you give me an example of a past situation where this new system would have helped? Thanks. Canderson7 ^(talk) 20:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"Did you mean:" feature in search function

I would like to know so if nobody else has had a problem with this, but I think that Wikipedia requires a search function, as a slight misspelling of the topic you are looking for will often not return anything useful in the search results. Is there a good reason why Wikipedia cannot adopt a “Did you mean” function like Google has, perhaps by utilizing Google for searches? I commonly go to Google to find out how to spell something before searching for it in Wikipedia or Wiktionary because of this problem. Am I alone here, or can we do something about this? Celebere (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a perennially requested feature. The search function is one of the things on the To Do list for Wikimedia to upgrade, but it hasn't gotten there yet. As for integrating Google searches, that would mean including Google advertising. Won't happen. -- Kesh (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a good reason not to include a "Did you mean" function: Google has a hundred thousand servers, a large number of people with PhDs in computer science, and a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars. Wikipedia has a perpetual shortage of servers, a grand total of two paid developers, and a budget of less than five million. My impression is that Google's "did you mean" uses peoples' search habits as its raw data, so that's another thing Google has that we don't: hundreds of billions of searches to work with. --Carnildo (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Funding

It may be that at some point in the future there will be a funding crisis. I know this a perennial, but I'd like to keep the discussion on this page for the time being and propose we as a community revisit the idea of advertising. I think there's two models that we could maybe look to adopt.

• Only have adverts on our featured articles.
• Only keep our featured articles free of adverts.

I'll just toss them out. I think we as a community need to tackle this idea. If we can agree some way forward on the issue, we can perhaps take it to the foundation. I appreciate there is a groundswell of opinion which fundamentally opposes advertising, but I think we have to explore the issue. If it was a choice between advertising and staying charitable, or private ownership, which way would you jump? Remember, this content we produce is free for anyone to use. We're giving this away. What are we all most committed to. What is the ideal which fundamentally unites us? Hiding T 09:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• The most valuable advertising would obviously be on the most commonly seen articles, plus those related to high-value topics - investment issues, maybe some music, etc. Another way might be to say only the 1,000 (or whatever) most popular articles get ads, so maximising revenue but minimizing seeing the damm things, or to allow registered users to hide them (as default). In fact if the ability to hide the things were limited to those with DYK/GA/FA noms ..... Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That's another idea. Hiding T 22:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sample RfA Poll

You know how there are sample polls for the presidential election to see who do you think would win? What about a Sample RfA? Nothing444 21:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

…Yes, this exists. It's called asking around ("Hey, do you think User:Example is ready to be an admin?"). Anything more than that is just creepy. Nihiltres^{t.l} 23:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

New policy proposal

I've formed a proposal that should help alleviate backlogs, reduce admin-burnout, and curb our increasing reliance on process, I would appreciate any comments on the talk page. Mr.Z-man 00:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A process to form processes? This smells like an April Fool's joke if I ever saw one. :p Nihiltres^{t.l} 02:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It works better if you don't expressly point it out =P Equazcion •✗/C • 02:29, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Proposals

Post new marriage proposals below. Copy this and fill in the blanks: [name], will you marry me? ~~~~

Stephanie, will you marry me? --67.185.172.158 (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Content Rating System

Good morning,

I want to suggest you to include on the Wikipedia an "article rating system". So everyone that reads a Wikipedia article is able to rate it, good or bad. This will enable all Wikipedia users to have a quality indicator of the articles presented. Of course, it is important to show the amount of votes that have been submitted for each article so that users can evaluate the rating's reliability.

Best regards,

--201.153.90.8 (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Luis Villegas. LVVL100@hotmail.com Mexico.

The problem with that is, as is the design of Wikipedia, pages change frequently. As such, a page that you vote on may be changed shortly thereafter to make it better or worse than what you voted on. Besides, if something makes the article worthy of a bad vote, you should fix it so it's good (within consensus, NPOV, etc. of course). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This has to be the most suggested thing in all of Wikipedia's history. Anyway, you may be interested in the stable revisions idea that's currently being tested, which is under discussion just a couple topics up from this one. --erachima formerly tjstrf 05:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

31 March 2008 - a day for Wikipedians to remember

Those who heard news on BBC Radio 4 tonight at six p.m. will have been informed how today (March 31 2008) Wikipedia saw creation of its ten millionth article, an article on Nicholas Hilliard in Hungarian. Surely this calls for celebration among Wikipedians? I was surprised to see that this fact was not mentioned, as far as I could see, on the Wikipedia Main Page (unless I missed it); I would have thought that it was worth at least a DYK feature there. Perhaps Wikipedians are people who are very modest! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The ten-millionth article was actually created a couple of days back, and there was an announcement of it on the Main Page at the time. --Carnildo (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition, it was created in the Hungarian Wikipedia, so there would be no DYK here. Waltham, The Duke of 12:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

April fools limits

So um... can I edit Barack Obama and/or Hillary Clinton to say something outrageous, like one of them pulled out, or that they agreed to call it a draw? I think that'd be the most awesome April Fools joke of them all, but I wonder if it's going too far, what with BLP and all. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:47, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Yes, don't do it unless you want to be banned. WP doesn't take April Fool's jokes lightly. 71.131.31.51 (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

April Fools' jokes are fine, so long as you stay away from the articles. --Carnildo (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That makes it significantly less fun... Equazcion •✗/C • 03:09, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

But there is no rule against creating a joke copy in your userspace and using crafty wikilinks and header images to fool people... MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh...you said "pulled out"...heh. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You're leaving loopholes open, Carnildo... "In the news" is not an article, so Equazcion could add a false report there, with tremendous success (and outrage—we obviously love that, though, so it's not an issue).

If he's an administrator and acts promptly enough, that is. Quick, Equazcion, before they catch us! :-D Waltham, The Duke of 12:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

When doing April Fool's jokes, I prefer to try to make the news outrageous, but true. See my userpage. Soxred93 | talk bot 12:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so it's sadly moot. Only admins can cause true havoc... what an injustice. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:06, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

We're trying our hardest to wreck havoc. Blocking random users in good standing, deleting FAs as nonsense, but Equa is right, there is a limit to the amountof bad things 1,000 people can do. Is there a vandal out there who we could give a crat-bot account? MBisanz ^talk 19:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Expand Template:Bots to allow opt out of other notices

I would like to expand Template:Bots to be compatible with all scripts to all users to opt out of receiving any or all notices produced by bots or scripts. A user can select to receive no messages at all, or specific no messages. That is, if a user wants to not receive any "no rationale" notices, they could put {{bots|nomessage=no rationale}} and then they don't get anymore. Standardizing the tags so it easier for bot owners and script writers to program would be needed but could quickly be done. We could change all the user notice messages to help spread the word, putting a little "Opt out of these messages?" link to the instructions on how to opt out.

So what the heck does this have to do with policy? WP:Bot policy only currently states under Guidelines: Bots which edit many pages, but may need to be prevented from editing particular pages, can do so by interpreting Template:Bots; see the template page for an explanation of how this works. I'm not aware of a scripting policy, but this would include scripts as well. I would like to require all bots and scripts that leave user messages to be required to honor these user opt out requests by May 1, 2008. (date negotiable, I figure 1 month should be sufficient to develop the system and give time for owners/writers to develop the code.) Any bot that is not compliant after this date will be disabled, and then required to reapply through WP:BOTREQ demonstrating they are compliant before having permission granted again. All new bots shall also be able to demonstrate they are compliant with the requirement. Scripts that are not compliant by May 1 will be blanked and the owner warned to become compliant or not use the script. To reiterate, this is only for bots and scripts that leave user notices which include, but are not limited to: orphaned fair use, no rationale, replaceable fair use, no source, no license/copyright, prod, IFD, AFD and xFD. Tags that a user cannot opt out of include, but are not limited to: Warning messages, copyright violations, and blocking messages. By a user placing the tag(s) on their own page, they would be stating they understand they may not receive a message for an image or article that may then be deleted. We could at the same time as advertising this, to advertise/recommend that users place images and articles they are interested in on their watchlist (stressing images, since it is less commonly done, to include images on articles they are interested in).

Why? I have been getting more frequent requests from users to stop leaving the messages on their talk pages, which is inconvenient for me using a script. Allowing users to opt out will increase Wiki happiness, reduce editing loads (bots/scripts won't have to save an edit to a user page, sometimes x10 or more). The only negatives I can see are that images (and other things) may be deleted with users not getting notified, but they would have accepted these consequences. We would help reduce this by suggesting using their watchlist as well. Another problem would be an editor vandalizing a user's talk page by including one of these opt out tags. Perhaps informing vandalism patrols that a user putting one of the opt out tags or changing an opt out tag on another user's talk page is to be considered vandalism and immediately removed/reverted would help. I don't think coding for this should be very difficult for anyone running a bot/writing a script. I personally would use this to stop receiving orphaned fair use messages. Many fair use images I reduced and it appears to bots/scripts that I am the uploader but I am not, so I get the message but I don't care. It would help save my sanity in stop receiving these messages, and requests (sometimes rude) to stop leaving messages on user's talk pages. MECU≈talk 14:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

April Fools' Day proposal

Please see Wikipedia:April Fools' Day. (No this is not a joke, this is very real). Majorly (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Black version

I find it frustrating that wikipedia uses black text on a bright, white background, since this effectively turns the computer screen into a bright light. After a while this reading text like this becomes unpleasant, and could even have negative effects on vision. A webpage is not a sheet of paper, as much as we might want it to look like one. Would it be possible to add a feature allowing users to switch the colour scheme to white text on a black background, if they preferred, since this would solve the problem?

On the "Gadgets" tab of "my preferences", you'll find an option for green text on black (this doesn't apply to IP editors, only to registered editors). It that doesn't meet your needs, you might track down whoever wrote the gadget and ask for a white on black version for your personal use.

Also, please put new sections at the bottom of the page; clicking on the "+" tab will automatically take care of that. And sign each new section, please. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

>"this effectively turns the computer screen into a bright light"

Amen! It probably stems from the duh-fault background in Windows being the very brightest white possible. The masses may accept it as "normal" and "right" because Windows does it. And Wikipedia is providing what the masses have been conditioned to expect as a "normal" background color – even if it blinds them.

I suspect that you may be right about bright backgrounds having negative effects on vision. Maybe Redmond will become a center for vision products after software sales cool.

My solution:

• Use Opera for my browser
• Specify my own background color
• Don't let it use the style sheet provided with the web page. Too many web designers specify a bright white background in their style sheets.

Opera has a one-click toggle to enable/disable style sheets quickly. Some pages are botched so badly that navigation is severely impaired without letting the style sheet do its thing – which too often involves putting everything on a glaring background.

Most of the time, Opera allows me to browse in much more comfort than many webmasters think about providing. Too many don't think about it. They adopted the blinding-is-good mentality without questioning it. If they never bothered to change the color scheme on their computer away from the duh-fault Windows colors, they may be oblivious to the notion that some other colors might work better for a web page.

It might not occur to them that they don't _have_ to specify a color scheme in their web page. How novel to allow a visitor to use their own color scheme on their _personal_ computer! -Ac44ck (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a dark theme would be a nice option, but as for "The masses may accept it as 'normal' and 'right' because Windows does it", it's probably a bit more likely that people accept it because paper is traditionally light with dark text. You tend to not see many books with white text printed on black pages. It goes back to parchment and ink; parchment is naturally white-colored (almost), so black ink had to be invented to make marks on it. There are many things we can blame Microsoft for, but white backgrounds probably isn't one of them. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:02, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedian's Court

Shouldn't we have a court for resolving conflicts on Wikipedia. The users would be the jury. Nothing444 17:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

We already have several ways of resolving disputes - why do we need another one? Hut 8.5 17:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

We do have a "court" see: WP:RfAr-- penubag  (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The Arbitrary Committee is not a legitimate authority. It was created not by the community but by the dictate of one man who really isn't all that special, and he still retains final say on its membership. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

They don't work, especially Third Opinion.--MahaPanta (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The users would be the jury - ah, and how would the jury be chosen? We don't have the ability to force anyone to serve jury duty. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

We are actually a Common law jurisdiction, as we are based more on practice and precedent than on laws (with the exception of the constitution). :-) Waltham, The Duke of 08:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And to respond to MahaPanta, I've seen third opinions work in many cases. They're nonbinding, so of course they can be ignored, and that means in some cases they will be, but in many cases, a neutral uninvolved party's take can be a great stride toward settling a dispute. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

...And by "a great stride toward settling a dispute" we mean "the editors either agree to the third opinion or we start hitting them with increasingly large sticks until they do". --erachima formerly tjstrf 08:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - I have now found where to look

Thank you for these comments. I have now seen that if one goes to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#10_million_articles.3F_WOOHOO.21

one can read a very lively range of comments,debate and discussion on this topic - including many which say we should be proud of our achievment. By the way, I have also seen that if one goes to the article on Nicholas Hilliard and looks at its talk pages, one will find reference to the achievement. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition, according to:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/10M_articles

the actual date was March 28 2008, even though the BBC did not report this achievement until March 31 2008 (unless any one can tell me that she or he heard an earlier news report than the one I heard). ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:BA (Bad Articles)

Just like we have Good Articles to recognize the reliable and well-written content on Wikipedia, it stands to reason that we recognize when an article is truly below any conceivable standard; in other words, meeting the "Bad Article Criteria". I think this would be especially valuable in that it points out the most dumbass of editors for later informal shunning by the mob community. Please post your thoughts on this. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:03, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure we have a process for this already... Or is this an April Fool's joke? EJF (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • We did have this at Template:Inane, I deleted it incidentally for being inane. MBisanz ^talk 19:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • We also used to have a template {{sucks}} ("This article sucks"). Too bad it was deleted ... but then if we had it I'd be far too tempted to use it. Antandrus (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Or instead of making fun of the author, how about fixing the article? Although we did have BJAODN, for a while; I loved that place. Paragon12321 (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent Creations

Basically the same idea as Recent Changes, but well, article creations. I don't know if Recent Changes displays creations, but I honestly think it would be a big help in easily finding articles that need to be tagged for deletion or approval. Something like this is possible right?— Dædαlus^{→quick link} / Improve 10:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Already there - see Special:NewPages - Peripitus (Talk) 11:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

New way of tagging

Would it be possible to amalgamate all the tags we currently have for clean up into one tag, which indicates where an article fails our encyclopedic standards? This would allow editors and readers to more readily identify the issues within an article and hopefully help move articles closer to FA status.

Now, looking at WP:FAC and WP:GACR it suggests our standards are:

• Clear prose, no issues with grammar and spelling
• Complies with the manual of style
• Is verifiable to reliable sources
• Is neutral, presenting no bias
• Is stable
• Complies with Wikipedia:Citing sources in the formatting of citations
• Uses images in keeping with WP:FUC
• Is not too detailed

I suggest we look at creating a template which can display which of those criteria an article does not meet, and then deprecate all others. This template would need the tagger to further outline the issues on the talk page, in the shape of a to-do list.

Hopefully this could move articles forwards towards FA status and also solve the issue of notability. We wouldn't need to debate notability any more. Articles would be tagged as not meeting our encyclopedic standards. Then we need to refocus AFD as being a debate about how to fix the article. That means we need to ignore any comment which does not engage in the debate, for example one word comments or people who make the same comment repeatedly in a vast number of debates. People need to identify why the article can never meet Wikipedia's standards, and why the information cannot be used in another article and therefore not merged, for an article to be deleted. This requires a huge sea change across Wikipedia, with everyone focussing upon the bigger picture, that of writing an encyclopedia together. We need to start working together on this project, focus our attention on the article space and focus our attention on our standards. We aren't judged so much on articles which are bad that we ourselves openly identify as bad. We aren't judged so much on how many articles we have on trivial topics. We aren't judged so much on any space other than article space. And what we are judged on, more than anything, is our ability to produce an encyclopedia. That's where we need to refocus our energies. That's where we need to devote our energies. We need a root and branch re-evaluation of our processes and toolset, and work out whether they focus our energies on creating an encyclopedia. Anything that doesn't needs to go. Anything which conflicts with the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia needs to go. We need to set in stone the fundamental principles of WIkipedia, and stop endlessly debating them. Protect the policy pages. We need to take this project on. We've come a long way, but there is still a long way to go. We need to commit to the underlying principle of Wikipedia as best we can, and build the encyclopedia. We're not a talking shop. Okay. That's a lot of blather. Anyone want to figure out ways to take it forwards? Hiding T 09:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand the question. Sorry if this misses the point, but is there anything wrong with using {{multipleissues}} to amalgamate multiple tags for different issues into a single tag? - Neparis (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Placement of source by {{cquote}}

template:cquote provides parameters for including the source and reference for the quote, but the placement of the attribution line is too far below the quote (leaving too much vertical space in the surrounding article) and too far to the right (it frequently ends up practically on the right margin). I think it would help to bring the attribution to the same right margin as the body of the quote. Elphion (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oooh -- if only it were that easy! Elphion (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides, it seems to be locked. (Whew!) Elphion (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You're not getting away with it that easily. You can just get an admin to unlock it, right? --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Erachima/test now has a version of the code with the buffer amounts adjusted. The top buffer was removed, and I added a right buffer of a few percent. Not perfect, but it's as good as you'll get without adding another #switch to adjust the buffering for each size case and should keep the things a bit further off the right margin. Any admins care to copy it over? --erachima formerly tjstrf 10:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Comparison (old/new):

“ Template coding is annoying and non-intuitive. ” — User:Erachima, 10:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Notes towards analysis of inclusion precedent for media franchise elements.

• Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters
• Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters
• Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of episodes
• Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of (needs manually checked for "characters", "episodes", etc.)
• Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot

That's a big improvement. Let's try another test. Elphion (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

“ Teeny quote. ” — Long attribution line with my sig Elphion (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Notes towards analysis of inclusion precedent for media franchise elements.

• Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters
• Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters
• Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of episodes
• Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of (needs manually checked for "characters", "episodes", etc.)
• Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot

Looks like an anonymous benefactor has copied it over. Thanks! Elphion (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible consequences of Axis victory in Second World War

It was in my thought, I am now proposing this. The editors who have major contribution in the Second World War or related articles, can they create a n article title Possible consequences of Axis victory in Second World War? The article may be somewhat speculative, but surely there are scholarly works available on this. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The talk page of World War II is probably the best place to ask - this is more for Wikipedia-wide proposals. I think there may be problems with that sort of article, since it seems too highly speculative to present anything concrete -Halo (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a bit too much like original research to me. However, like you say, there may be a few people who have already put together some work on the subject that you could quote - the speculative fiction novel Fatherland comes to mind. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 03:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

DumziBot change

I posted this at User talk:NicDumZ, but the author has thus far ignored it. I think it's important, so I'd like to see what people think here and then approach the author again.

I think this bot is a great idea and it works perfectly as far as I've seen. I just have one suggestion: I find that the link text this bot generates is actually less descriptive than the URL. The bot just uses the title of the page, which usually doesn't distinguish the link all that well from others in the reflist. For example, if there's an article on Joe Smith, sourced with a few different biographies on that person, the links would all read "Joe Smith bio", "the life of Joe Smith", or something similar. There isn't much to distinguish one from the other, especially as far as which are from reliable sources.

The most important thing about references isn't really the title of the page, but the root site they're located on. I wonder if you'd consider modifying your bot to include the root site address in addition to the page title -- for instance, something like "Title at Site.com" (Joe Smith bio at timemagazine.com). This would allow a casual glance of the reflist to reveal any unreliable sources, any glaring omissions of sources that should be there, etc.

Thanks and please let me know your thoughts. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:00, 28 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I agree that something like this would be an improvement. The title text inserted by the bot is meant to be more informative than the url, but often it isn't for various reasons. Giving the domain name and the title seems helpful. It might be even more useful if the bot inserted an active link to the domain, and put the same content in the edit summary. - Neparis (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There already is an active link - to a page in a domain; it's not clear why a second active link is necessary. On the other hand, putting the root domain in the edit summary definitely could be helpful (for someone scanning the bot's edits for improper URLs, or just looking at the article history). Similarly, listing the domain name (incensedblogger.com, or whatever) in the footnote would definitely make it easier to spot citations not meeting WP:RS criteria. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

no new articles

READ ALL OF THIS. PLEASE. Sorry for that. This might sound crazy, but I have a question. Does wikipedia want:

1: Lots of lower quality articles touching any thing people might want to look up or

2: Very good articles about things people really want to know?

I'm asking this because many articles are just things that could be found just as easily in a more reliable place. So, if you answer two, I propose this. One day to week where we focus solely on improving articles and not making new ones. As I said, call me crazy, but I say 2 is my opinion. Any responses would be appreciated. Thanks. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please}

I think that if you study the development of the project, there has been a slow migration from quantity to quality, and that process is still going on. In fact, I think our rate of new article creation has been slowin down recently. There are several huge initiatives, like all of the featured content assessments,Wikipedia 1.0, and countless WikiProjects that focus on bringing articles up to a high standards rather than making endless new ones. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Because we have millions of wikipedians who won't all read this thread, it's better to try to organize the effort through quality-focused initiatives with people already doing this. Get on the horse and motivate more people to join those groups. Ictionary (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's useful for Wikipedia to have some short articles which provide external links to the more reliable places where the information on a topic can be found. Otherwise, people might not know where to look for the information. I like finding the official website of an organization in the external links at the bottom of a Wikipedia page, for example. --Coppertwig (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the last two posts above. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, article creation has been going down since they prevented anonymous users from creating pages - it really isn't any indication of a "change of focus". -Halo (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would the banning of IP creation cause a gradual decline in the rate of article creation? Wouldn't it cause an immediate drop off followed by the trend continuing as before? It seems pretty clear that article creation across the board has slowed down. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The growth went from being exponential to becoming increasingly flat some months after - that's the effect of anonymous article creation. At the time Wikipedia's increased popularity was largely making up for the shortfall, and you also haven't considered the long-term effect of anonymous contributors attracting people to the project. I personally don't think it's coincidence that Wikipedia's growth stopped being exponential mere months after banning anonymous article creation, despite Wikipedia's popularity still growing in that time. -Halo (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fallacious to say it's an either/or situation, and it's a false assumption that if article creation was prevented people would work on current articles instead. I see no advantages to "banning" article creation for even one day a week. -Halo (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

We are also just beginning to run out of new notable subjects in many fields, now all the existing Pokemon figures, sports players, tv shows, pop stars etc are covered or nearly covered. It's notable how the balance of DYK noms has switched to historical subjects of one sort or another. Johnbod (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer reviewed material

Wikipedia provides one of the most extensive user friendly information dat bases in the world. Scholars often frown on it's used becuase of the free access and abilty to update.

I am proposing that a peer review designation be established. Scholars could be invited to review subject matter and then provide a certification. the participation could be totally voluntary. A verification interface would be need so that users could contact the institution or association that certifies the reviewer is quanlified to make the scholarly review.

there are two good projects for that: Veropedia, based on our content, and Citizendium, based on a selection of our content and additional contributed content. They both provide certification of reviewers. DGG (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

an idea and a view

First the view: I think you should be careful on the views and the facts. I see some things that I look at are in fact more of views and are marketed as fact. Second the idea: I think it would be great to be able to a have audio wiki. What I mean is this. When I am driving or going somewhere for long distances, I can not read a book. If I could hear a live wiki while doing so, that would be great. Also a voice automated function could be applied. This would enable the user to search deeper into the subject. This could be done by voice command. The voice command would open the links that we usually click on, and we could hear them in our travels. I know I would like this. I don’t know if anybody else would? I don’t know if this is against your policy? Hope you look into it.

That is an interesting idea, but I am not sure if Wikipedia has the technology to accomplish something like that. Captain panda 23:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly a potential application permitted by our free license that I hope will be implemented by someone. The necessary speech synthesis and recognition technology already exists for the most part, although dealing with speech in a noisy environment like a car (read: engine noise) can be tricky. Dcoetzee 02:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. Bovlb (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Multiple watchlists

Moved to WP:VPR/Persistent proposals. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:24, 7 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Changes that are reverted test edits should be hideable in watchlists

A pair of test edits where an editor, almost always an IP, makes an edit and then immediately self-reverts, leaves an article unchanged; the only effects are to add to the article history, and to clutter other editors' watchlists. I would prefer not to see such test edits by IPs cluttering up my watchlist. I would like to propose a new preference to enable editors to choose whether to show or hide such test edits by IPs from their Special:Watchlists. It might be excessive work for the MediaWiki developers to implement though. Is it a good idea? Would there be any negative effects? Should editors be allowed to make this choice for their watchlists? - Neparis (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

From a process standpoint, the edit would have to be noted; then the undo would have to be used; by the same editor; within a specified amount of time. What would an appropriate time window to qualify for "test edit"? What if another part of the document is edited before the undo, so that there is an interruption of the editing sequence? It seems the most difficult aspect of something like this would be to firmly define what a "test edit" is so that it could even be programmed. Gwguffey (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I was thinking of test edits that are pairs of edits where an editor makes one edit that inserts or deletes something in an article, then in a second edit the same editor completely undoes the first edit, and there are no intervening edits by any other editors. In other words, the diff of before and after edits is null. Here's a real example of such a pair of test edits:

Revision as of 18:03, 24 March 2008

80.24.125.138 (Talk)

(→Bonded post-tensioned concrete)

==Bonded post-tensioned concrete==

Bonded post-tensioned concrete is the descriptive term for a method of applying [[Physical compression|compression]] after pouring concrete and the curing process (''[[in situ]]'').

==Bonded post-tensioned concrete==

post-tensioned concrete is the descriptive term for a method of applying [[Physical compression|compression]] after pouring concrete and the curing process (''[[in situ]]'').

followed by this:

Revision as of 18:05, 24 March 2008

80.24.125.138 (Talk)

(→Bonded post-tensioned concrete)

==Bonded post-tensioned concrete==

post-tensioned concrete is the descriptive term for a method of applying [[Physical compression|compression]] after pouring concrete and the curing process (''[[in situ]]'').

==Bonded post-tensioned concrete==

Bonded post-tensioned concrete is the descriptive term for a method of applying [[Physical compression|compression]] after pouring concrete and the curing process (''[[in situ]]'').

This pair of test edits left the article unchanged. In my proposal, I could choose to have the null pair of test edits not listed in my watchlist. That would be very useful because the watchlist would instead list the most recent non-null edit on that article. In the above example, there was an earlier, much more significant non-null edit by another editor. I would like the earlier non-null edit to be shown on my watchlist even after the null pair of test edits.

- Neparis (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be resource expensive determining if the edit did in fact set the page to the previous version. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That is an interesting issue. I wonder how the calculation would go in practice. A watchlist is a list of diffs that are calculated on the fly without caching. To display a watchlist, the software has to calculate a diff for the most recent edit for each article in the watchlist. I am thinking that that is the base cost for the way watchlists currently work. In the proposal, detecting a null pair of test edits so as not to show them at all in a watchlist would require the software to calculate two diffs — one for the most recent edit, and one for the most recent edit before that, for each article in the watchlist, and trivially to check that both edits were by the same editor. The software also has to do a couple of other things in displaying a watchlist, which adds to the total cost of displaying it. So, the question is relative to the total cost, how much extra cost is there in the extra diffs? Is it excessive? Another issue is what proportion of editors would decide they like the new style watchlist so much that they start using it exclusively? - Neparis (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, watchlist only needs to take the ID of the revision that has the latest timestamp on it for each article in the watchlist and stick it into the links. It loads the time, edit summary, editor, size etc, but it never loads the content or calculates a diff. It only calculates a diff when one follows a diff link. To do what is being suggested then a checksum would either have to be calculated on the fly going back 2 revisions(everytime someone looked at the history or a watchlist), or an extra table entry would need to be added to store the checksums. This would be a significant increase in our resource usage. _(1 == 2)^Until 21:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And in general, diff generation is very resource intensive and caching generally can't help as much as it can with article content (I'm not sure if diffs are server-cached at all actually). So much so that Wikimedia doesn't use the default PHP diff engine in the software, but one written in C++. Mr.Z-man 22:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

However, figuring out if two revision are identical is not resource intensive. Simply checking the revision sizes would address a large fraction of all cases. Beyond that, yes if it is to be widely used it should be implemented as an additional boolean column in the revision table. I'd go farther than the original poster however and make it a flag for revisions that A) were reverted or B) generated by making a revert, regardless of whether the reversion was done by the same editor (e.g. a test edit). I think in general it would be useful to have a way to selectively exclude edits that have no functional impact on the development of content. Dragons flight (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent thought, Dragons flight, as it is more generalized case. I would be very interested in the ability to filter out "zero sum combinations" of edits as I generally do not care whether the same editor or a different editor reverts/undoes an edit. Gwguffey (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, we all know how much the devs enjoy adding a column to a db table with over 200,000,000 entries hehe. _(1 == 2)^Until 02:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

They actually do it far more often then you might think. It's not uncommon for new features (e.g. cascading protection, stable versions, etc.) to require modifications to the database tables. Dragons flight (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty crude to use the byte count to identify "identical" versions of a page; calculating a hash value would require more processing but would be pretty much fail-proof. (That's what some researchers did in a fairly recently published paper, where they tried to figure out who "added value" to articles; edits that were reverted, and reverts, weren't counted.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

On a perhaps more constructive note, I wonder if what Neparis is interested in can't be done fairly easily in Javascript. Specifically, User:Stevage/EnhanceHistory.user.js collapses consecutive edits from the same person into one; could that user script be modified so that (a) when multiple edits are collapsed and (b) the net byte change for the multiple edits is zero, then (c) don't show the collapsed/combined edits at all? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the script. I still would like to see the function developed in a future version of MediaWiki. If it were built in to MediaWiki, it is there for all editors without the need to fiddle around with any scripts to get it working. As it happens, the script you suggested does not work in any of the different browsers to which I have access (each restarted to avoid cache woes). I'm not a great fan of addon scripts for various reasons, including reliability. - Neparis (talk) 05:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify, the direction I was heading was to suggest that if there were a lot of interest in this (I certainly would be interested), it could be implemented as a gadget. Then using it would (for an editor) simply be a matter of checking a box and saving the change, in an editor's personal preferences. It's true that it would be good to build this into the Mediawiki software (ideally with hash values), but that may be a long time coming, if ever, given all the other priorities for developers. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(od) Oh, I agree it could be done in a gadget, though a gadget is just a script with official blessing, i.e. doing it by a gadget or a script imposes more load on the servers than implementing it in MediaWiki per Dragons Flight's suggestions. - Neparis (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, a gadget isn't as good as MediaWiki in terms of server load. But it has the huge advantage that the community doesn't have to agree on a standard user interface that everyone gets by default. Nor is developer time required (as in, trying to move something like this up to the top of the queue). A gadget also has the advantage of being a sort of pilot project - if a lot of editors use it and like it, then that's a good basis for proposing the change to the software. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection of FA class articles

Perhaps when an article reaches FA class, it should be protected, vandals will usually seek out FAs and it will also protect from editors adding info that really subtracts from the FA. Doctor Will Thompson (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Protect_featured_articles as to why this is a really bad idea. -Halo (talk) 09:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite this being a "perennial" issue, the discussions only involve full and semi protection. I haven't found the discussion about move protection. Most articles making it through FAC have been reviewed enough that the name of the article is likely stable, so move protection doesn't seem like an obviously bad idea. Gimmetrow 19:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

{{Shortcut section}} similar to {{Shortcut}}

I recently wanted to refer someone to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Foreign terms. There's currently no handy shortcut for that. I could make a redirect to that to that page#section, similar to the existing MOS:BOLD. Alternatively, I could make a shortcut to that page (perhaps WP:MOSTF) and refer people to WP:MOSTF#Foreign terms. It struck me, though, that it might be useful to have a template similar to :::::{{Shortcut}} (perhaps named {{Shortcut section}}) which could be placed at individual article sections to provide a shortcut target.

I've implemented a first-cut version of such a template and a demo of its envisioned usage — see User:Wtmitchell/Sandbox#FORN. Am I missing something here? Has this already been done under some name I'm not :::::aware of? Is there some reason I should not implement {{Shortcut section}} and start using it in articles? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen shortcuts for sections on Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, where they simply use {{shortcut}}. Seems to work, somehow. Dcoetzee 03:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A shortcut is essentially a redirect. A redirect can link to a section of an article, as noted by Boracay Bill. So, no, I also can't see any need for a specialized shortcut. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. See Fox Film, which redirects to 20th Century Fox#Fox Film Corporation, where there is an ID tag (in case the heading changes, so that the incoming links still work) and an italic statement about the incoming redirect. (There might be a better way to do this last part, of tagging the target section? I think I've seen a bot, :::::tagging targets?)

Specifically, tag the redirect with Template:R to section. See that template and Wikipedia:Redirect#How to make a redirect (redirect command) for details. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm.... — shortcuts done in (for example) the aforementioned Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions article place redirects to various points in that article at:

1. WP:ATA
2. WP:JUSTAVOTE
3. WP:NOREASON
4. WP:PERNOMINATOR
5. WP:PERNOM
6. WP:JUSTAPOLICY
7. WP:VAGUEWAVE
8. WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC
9. WP:UNENCYC
10. WP:JNN
11. WP:ITSNOTABLE
12. WP:ONLYESSAY
13. WP:ONLYGUIDELINE
14. WP:ILIKEIT
15. WP:UGH
16. WP:IDONTLIKEIT
17. WP:ITANNOYSME
18. WP:IHATEIT
19. WP:ITSCRUFT
20. WP:ITBOTHERSME
21. WP:IDL
22. WP:IDONTCARE
23. WP:APATHY
24. WP:BORING
25. WP:WHOCARES
26. WP:INTERESTING
27. WP:NOTINTERESTING
28. WP:ITSUSEFUL
29. WP:USEFUL
30. WP:USELESS
31. WP:NOHARM
32. WP:HARMLESS
33. WP:NOGOOD
34. WP:ITSFUNNY
35. WP:PRETTY
36. WP:BIG
37. WP:NOTBIGENOUGH
38. WP:BIGNUMBER
39. WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE
40. WP:GOOGLEHITS
41. WP:GHITS
42. WP:LOCALFAME
43. WP:IKNOWIT
44. WP:IDONTKNOWIT
45. WP:UNKNOWNHERE
46. WP:ITSA
47. WP:NOTINHERITED
48. WP:WAX
49. WP:OTHERSTUFF
50. WP:ALLORNOTHING
51. WP:EVERYTHING
52. WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING
53. WP:LOSE
54. WP:EFFORT
55. WP:NOEFFORT
56. WP:NOTCLEANUP
57. WP:HOPELESS
58. WP:PROBLEM
59. WP:RUBBISH
60. WP:UGLY
61. WP:BHTT
62. WP:NOTAGAIN
63. WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED

Dedicating multiple article names in the namespace like this to the topic covered by one specific article (in this case, the topic of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions) seems like a potential problem to me. WP:EVERYTHING, for example, is a redirect to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#It should be about everything. My solution would drop an anchor named EVERYTHING at that section, so one could say "see WP:ATA#EVERYTHING", making the identifier EVERYTHING in this usage specific to the WP:ATA redirect to this particular specific article. However, a workable alternative to my YAWT approach (Yet Another Wikipedia Template -- harking back to YACC) would be to enhance {{shortcut}} to drop an anchor with the shortcut name in the article, so WP:ATA#EVERYTHING would work -- finding the EVERYTHING anchor at the location of {{shortcut|EVERYTHING}}. I'll pursue that on WT:Shortcut. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

External Link Policy

Sorry, I'll go to different Village Pump. Nothing444Go Irish! 14:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

More tools for Non Admin Users

In the constant every day battle of Vandalism on Wikipedia, one user might find that its almost irritating that he/she cannot do what may need to be done to successfully revert vandalism he/she may come across. Such instances may be protecting a page, blocking a user, ect. I feel that established users (with criteria set forth) have access to certain tools i.e. page protection. Some may say that some users don't need access to this tool because he/she may not use it correctly. THEN REMOVE ACCESS TO IT FROM THE USERS ACCOUNT. I feel that with more tools avaliable, more can be done to make this Encylopedia better. Dusti^{talk to me} 18:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see such an idea gaining consensus. It could be disastrous as edit wars would escalate into protection wars and such like. Protection is a very powerful tool and its misuse could be devastating; imagine a libellous version of a BLP being fully-protected by a relative novice editor; such actions would be damaging to Wikipedia's reputation, even if quickly remedied. I personally don't believe a tool that could cause such harm should be given out to non-admins; RfA standards are not particularly strict, most user with several months experience and good service to the encyclopaedia can easily gain adminship. On your earlier point about "successfully reverting vandalism", many tools suitable for non-admins are available for this purpose including Twinkle which can be used to quickly post reports to RFPP and AIV. Unlike, rollback which is little more than a faster "undo" button, the ability to protect pages should IMO be a carefully-given out privilege to trusted users, with community approval — an effective vandal-reverter does not need the ability to protect pages. Regards, EJF (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You want users to be able to protect pages and block vandals? And you want them to have these tools without having to prove their trustworthyness first? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Dusti, please see this. Isn't gonna happen, sorry. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think they should just automatically given the tools. I think there should be criteria set forth and they should have to meet all that criteria. This would be kinda like the RFA process only not as rigorous. Dusti^{talk to me} 19:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

But, it MUST be as rigorous; we can't just go handing out page protection and blocking rights to experienced editors once they hit 5000+ edits; a proper community process is needed, with the community trusting the applicant - the RfA process makes any such process redundant as it covers the same ground; RfA is not overly rigorous; it generally makes sure only those editors ready for the tools can receive them. An "RfA-lite" process would be added bureaucracy, which is not needed. EJF (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can agree with RFA not being overly rigorous; however, with handing out page protection, the process isn't needed to be as rigorous. See, in my opinion, an Admin has access to very powerful tools, and some tools are needed for non-admins to successfully fight vandalism. Page protection is one tool that is needed. Just like with Admin's, an action can be reverted. This tool, in my opinion (and maybe others feel more tools are needed) should be given to those who, after proving themselves worthy, request it. Dusti^{talk to me} 15:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you realise how harmful a tool such as protection can be; misuse of such a toll could be devastating — and removing the tool is obviously the solution, but the damage will already have been done. I don't understand why you say vandal reverters need page protection, I don't; it is rare on RC Patrol to see that a page needs to be protected; most vandalism is by single IPs; anyway, RFPP is a quick process and there is no point risking damage to the encyclopedia by handing out page protection rights without due process; in BLPs it is extremely important that protection is properly used - would you want a fairly inexperienced user accidentally protecting George W. Bush's biography with the infobox title saying "George Wa*ker Bush"? Once an editor has the experience and judgement to discern when a sparingly-used tool like page protection is needed, they are ready for RfA. EJF (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

←One big advantage to this would be the ability to remove only the powers an admin uses abusively rather than completely desysopping them. Perhaps limited adminship could just be assigned at the discretion of ArbCom, and not through an RfX process. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 17:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree that limited adminship would be a bad thing at RfX. With rollback, which has a non-rollback version in Twinkle, there is at least a thread a week of someone complaining about not getting it or having it removed. Imagine how many threads there would be about a non-duplicable flag like Protection! Although for very active non-admins (blofeld, sandy, etc), I would support handing out a SpecialUnwatchedPages, since they could help by watching some of those pages. MBisanz ^talk 17:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a "trusted user" usergroup could be given some of the sensitive software features (such as rollback, Special:Unwatchedpages when it gets fixed), but I don't agree with giving non-admins protection, blocking or deletion as these tools are bound to be misused and can do serious damage in the wrong hands. Hut 8.5 18:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Hut 8.5. Also, while I don't like the idea of "unbundling" certain features (for example, giving either blocking or protection but not both would force a patroller to either block users during an edit war instead of protecting the page, or protecting the page instead of blocking a vandal), I think a "semiblock" could be useful (patrollers would be able to block rampart vandals for up to 30 minutes while an admin reviews the WP:AIV report). Sometimes AIV gets backlogged and vandals continue damaging for several minutes before blocked. Note that I don't think a "semiprotect" (protecting a page for up to 30 minutes while an admin reviews WP:RFPP) is necessary, since vandalism is focused on a single page (contrary to a vandal who is vandalizing random pages). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but I agree with all above opinions, and like them. I agree the "semiblock" may be best instead of being able to fully block the user, but I feel that some users (non admins) need to be able to protect a page if needed. What my happen is a user may be at an IP address and go on a vandal spree, like at a library. The user gets blocked on 1 IP and moves to another, and another, until its nerve wracking. At this point, a trusted user who really doesnt want to go through the RFA process, or just doesn't feel ready yet, should be able to do something about this, without having to wait for an Admin to be avaliable to protect the page. That's why I brought this here, to allow some trusted users who go through a process, whether they be considered Semi Admins or whatever, to have a couple extra tools avaliable to better protect the integrity of Wikipedia. Dusti^{talk to me} 18:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Above users, and also those who have yet to respond, what do you feel should be done from here? Dusti^{talk to me} 17:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

New Pages

Is there any way that a message could be put on this page to remind editors who are patrolling to mark them as patrolled. It is very annoying when you click on a page and it has been patrolled already. Or maybe make the mark this page as patrolled bigger or move it to a more prominent position on the page. BigDunc (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think really the deal with that is first come, first serve. Nothing444 22:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What does that reply mean? Do editors not have to mark the pages as patrolled? And if not then why is there a link for it to be done? Im afraid I cant say that was the most helpful of replies. BigDunc (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think what it means is that it's not a must to mark articles as patrolled. I can imagine in some cases where users are unsure so leave it. I wouldn't be opposed to a notice, though. The message is at MediaWiki:Newpages-summary - perhaps an {{editprotected}} request there would get some attention. x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt adding more to the notice will have a very large effect and could have some WP:BEANS overtones, though I'm not opposed. I think the best course is to target those doing a lot of newpages patrolling of the sort that usually are associated with a full patrol for which a patrolled marking normally is done (i.e., prodding or tagging articles for speedy deletion, as opposed to stub tagging), who are not doing the marking, and dropping them a message about the issue. There really aren't all that many prolific newpages patrollers at any given time and we only get a few new ones per week I would estimate, so informing the bulk of them in this manner should not be impractical.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay I made a template for alerting users to the issue. {{Uw-patrolled}}.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats great, thanks for drawing that up I will use in in future. BigDunc (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a significant reason why some editors, myself included, do not always mark pages as patrolled, is that the feature's usability could be improved. It would be better to use AJAX to prevent the necessity of loading a new page, from which the user must click to get back to the page or the list of new pages. Also, if you want to go back to an article you just marked as patrolled, it lengthens the history tree in your browser, so you must either select Newpages from your history or click back three times to get to it, rather than just click back once.--Michael White^T·C 22:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Also, when using Twinkle on a page, you are taken away from that page and have to quickly try to click the patrolled link.--Michael White^T·C 23:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to try user:js/patroller script, which allows you to "mark as patrolled" in-page style, just like with watch/unwatch; unfortunately, this does not save any traffic, since there is no MediaWiki support for doing it clean Ajax way. Script also has two other functions, but they can be easily disabled if needed. —AlexSm 22:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Message board notification bot

I have seen a lot of comments on pages like the Reference Desk, Help Desk, Village Pump, and Admnistrators' Noticeboard that identify a number of issues with the way these pages operate. The general problem is that they are used somewhat like forum threads, but the software does not support that usage very well. Some specific issues:

• Responses are sometimes never seen because the original poster never checks back. (I know that some responders copy messages to user talk.)
• The page is so busy that it's hard to track when sections of interest are updated, hence watchlists are ineffective.
• Links to a section break when the section is archived, and it's fiddly to find it again.

I have seen proposals (link?) to create each section as a sub-page, either when originally posted, or by a bot continually moving things around, but neither seems to have gained community consensus. I instead propose a bot that monitors such pages, and places notification messages on user talk pages under certain circumstances.

I'd like to get a feeling on the potential usefulness of such a tool without getting bogged down in the details, but for completeness I'll throw out a straw man.

• The bot will operate on pages added to a special category.
• Notifications will be posted to the talk page of both the original poster, and any user who responds to a thread.
• Notifications will indicate that a thread has been updated (giving link and diffs), that it has been archived (with the final link), or (rarely) that it has been removed entirely.
• Notifications will, so far as is reasonably possible, be grouped into a single posting in some sort of list format.
• Notifications will be throttled, say to no more than one per day, yet will be as prompt as is permitted.
• It will be easy for registered users to opt in or out of notifications, perhaps with further configuration.
• Anon IPs will be opted in by default. I'd like to hear views on the default for registered users. We could have a different default for OPs and responders.
• For the avoidance of doubt, the bot would never modify the pages monitored (unless asked to monitor a user talk page, in which case it would not notify that user of changes to that page).

Bovlb (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As in the thread above, I think the simplest solution would be to add the ability to watchlist individual sections of such "thread pages". A bot converting sections to transcluded subpages would be a good way of accomplishing this, as is already done manually for AfD and MfD. I'm not sure what the counter-arguments to that were, but if not then perhaps the ability to watchlist sections could be written into the MediaWiki software.

A bot delivering messages is a possible solution, but ANI discussions, for example, tend to move quickly, and one notice per day probably wouldn't be very useful. Even discussions there with the most comments sometimes only last a few hours. Any useful interval would probably be too much of a performance burden. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:50, 8 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could find the links, but I'll do my best to summarise. Two strong arguments that were given against manual (AfD-style) sub-pages on RD/HD were that: we expect questions from inexperienced users (see how many AfDs are messed up); and we expect/welcome questions from users who cannot create pages (unconfirmed/anon). A bot that turned new sections into sub-pages would not be able to put the new sub-page onto the OP's watchlist (assuming the OP had discovered watchlists). And with either method, some people felt that the sheer number of sub-pages would be excessive.

I specified one day because I know that there's been some concern recently about user talk pages being spammed by bots. It's an example inside a straw man.

One more point: It might also be useful to notify users who are mentioned (say using some type of user link) in a thread. I know that a lot of that goes on by hand, and not very promptly. Bovlb (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to Bovlb's last point, I think there could be value to this, but a way of opting out would need to be provided (like automatic signing). Additionally, a discussion would need to occur regarding how this would interact with IP users. -Gwguffey (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Is your point that we may not want anon IPs to be aware of ANI discussions, or that it's pointless leaving a message that will get picked up by a different person? If the latter, then maybe we could put a time window on assuming IPs are the same person.

After some reflection, I'm thinking that we may want notifications by default for all OPs, registered or not (unless they opt out), and opt in only for responders. This is because OPs are more likely to be first-timers, and responders more likely to be regulars. Bovlb (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is helpful to distinguish between high-volume pages with personal questions that are quickly answered, such as the help desk (and, I suspect, but I'm not familiar with it, the reference desk), and pages that can have lower volume, with slowly developed topics of interest to many people, such as village pump pages. (This is an argument, by the way, to merge out WP:VPA into WP:HD.) For the former, subpages and bots aren't that important - an individual posts a questions, and checks back for the answer, which is relatively quick. For the latter, subpages and notifications could clearly be helpful. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Bovlb, my concern was with the latter and a time-window would address this. Good thought. Just to clarify regarding for the former, I am for complete transparency of ANI discussion relative to IPs, so no concern there. -Gwguffey (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding commonscat to categories

Commonscat (Template:Commonscat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) is a template to navigate from a wikipedia category/article to a related category at commons. I would like to add this template to a lot of categories. This has to advantages.

1. It's easier for users to navigate from a wikipedia category to commons
2. Commonssense makes more sense (it gives better suggestions)

multichill (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We already have {{Commons}} for linking articles in Wikipedia to images at Commons.

As for navigating from a category at Wikipedia (say, Finnish architects) to the same category at Commons, why would that be useful? If I were looking for an image for an article about a specific Finnish architect (far more likely that looking for an image for the article about Finnish architects, if there is such an article), it would be faster just to go to Commons (via a bookmark) and search on that name, rather than (a) follow the link to the Wikipedia category; (b) IF the link to the Commons category existed (if not, I've wasted my time), follow that link, and (c) look through the Commons category for a picture of the specific person I want. -- John Broughton (♫♫)

Editor IM solution

Bear with me because I am new to the process that drives the creation of Wikipedia. Yes, I speak of editing the project.

It occured to me first that articles under major construction could get greater simultaneous collaboration if people could use a JS-driven Wiki chat window to talk about changes and share insights. Of course, that is less-than-optimal because it costs resources to develop and we have user pages to list our IM handles.

So what would be better would be a template that we could easily propagate throughout the wiki that links to a person's IM stored in their User Page. Instead of having to look, you'd know who was editing it and could start an IM easily. Ictionary (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what part of your proposal isn't already covered by articles' talk pages, users' watchlists, and users' talk pages. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If you really want real-time conversation, go on IRC, on freenode ; there are channels like #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en, et cetera. More information is available at WP:IRC, and you can log in easily using a Java app at http://java.freenode.net . Now, a lot of it might be off topic, but there are generally plenty of helpful people online, and you can get an admin's attention in real time by saying "!admin". Nihiltres^{t.l} 11:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that IRC is not organized into groups of people who like a particular subject, or are knowledgeable in a particular area. It is just a lump of people and so it is not fully exploited, or setup to exploit the talents of individual editors. If for instance there was a "IM client" where I can see all the users who are interested in a particular topic, I would surely make use of them by asking question or attempting to assemble a collaborative work environment. Part of the issue with talk pages is there is one for every article, odd that it would be a problem, but some people have hundreds of articles on their watchlists. Who do I contact if I am seeking help with Mexican politician articles? Some of the projects are just in complete disarray. I can ask a question on the Crime based Wikiproject and not receive an answer for days. To summarize, IRC is a jumble of people, no organization, talk pages are too specific, and many Wikiprojects are in disarray. An IM client, or organized live collaborative abilities would be great. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Another issue is risk to exposing ones identity on IRC. Anyone connecting reveals their IP which can expose the company they work for and or geographic location. Most IM clients do not publically show the IP of the person sending or receiving messages. --I Write Stuff (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

wikiFood

I suggest we make this and official sister of wikipedia. – i123Pie _bio^contribs 14:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sister sites of Wikipedia are not existing sites, unrelated too Wikipedia but using wiki software, that we "make" into sister sites. Rather, sister sites are sites founded by the overarching organization, The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., that operates Wikipedia as one of its stable of online collaborative projects which includes Wikipedia and other sites (full list). Wikifoods at Scribblewiki is apparently owned by Linger Media Company, and is wholly unrelated to the Wikimedia Foundation. So we couldn't just make it a sister site. We would have to buy or lease the rights from the owner. You can, of course, propose new projects to the Wikimedia Foundation. Please see m:Proposals for new projects. In fact, a wikifood project was previously proposed in March of 2006, as you'll see if you search that page, but it seems to have garnered little support as yet.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was wikilinking, so instead of typing [http://wikifood.scribblewiki.com/ this], we/you/I types [[wikifood:Main page|this]] or [[food:Main page|this]]. – i123Pie _bio^contribs 21:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As it is so small we could migrate in manually in about 5 minutes. – i123Pie _bio^contribs 21:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As there are only 2 actual articles in the entire wikifood.scribblewiki.com site, it is extremely unlikely to be a supported change at this time.

We have Wikibooks:Cookbook:Table of Contents already (part of the official sister project Wikibooks). I'd suggest you contribute work there instead. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It only started today, give it a chance. – i123Pie _bio^contribs 22:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

We would never call it a sister site for the reasons I provided, and see the above post, but, if all you want to do is link to it without it looking like an external link, you can use the code: <span class="plainlinks">[http://wikifood.scribblewiki.com/ wikfoods]</span>.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. – i123Pie _bio^contribs 22:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You are looking for m:Talk:Interwiki map if you want to propose being able to link like [[wikifood:Main Page]]. Note that a free-content license is required, and wikifood does not appear to have any copyright policy at all. --Random832 (contribs) 14:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture on an article

Hello. I am making a proposal for the indecent picture on the striptease article to be removed. It is of a woman at the end of her "tease", and is quite indecent. I want this to be taken off the site because this is a site for people to learn things, not see that kind of stuff. If no one seems to care, then I will take the picture off myself. Thanks. Sakuraluver (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Sakuraluver 19:11, 8 April 2008

Mmmh, I think this picture is hot, thanks for pointing me there. Novidmarana (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(Response to Sakuraluver)) SeeWP:CENSOR. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(Response to Sakuraluver). What Borocay Bill means is... As harsh as it may seem to you now, thats what real life beyond pastel colors is like. And WP tells it like it is. -- Fullstop (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

How can someone learn about stripteasing without a picture? A picture is worth a thousand words. MECU≈talk 02:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And she is hot! --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Apart from all these (most valid) arguments, I should like to express my wonder at the surprisingly low relevance of the "proposal" in question with this particular forum. Such requests are to be made in the corresponding articles' talk pages; the Village Pump is not for any kind of petition to which the word proposal can be affixed. Waltham, The Duke of 23:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Image:Sexy dancer 03.jpg is actually quite tame; there's no nipple or pubic hair visible at all. I'd say that it's a pretty good image for the article, and does an excellent job of balancing the depiction of a sexually-explicit topic while avoiding being out-right vulgar.
As for the image itself, why are you looking at Striptease if you're so easily offended? EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Link to same article in different language

I'd like to recommend adding links to the corresponding articles in different languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.154.123 (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You can already do that. Just put [[language code:Name of article]] at the bottom of the page. The language code is the two letters before "wikipedia.org" in the address box. Isn't Wikipedia awesome? Paragon12321 (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

For those who have not yet noticed, these links appear at the end of the toolbar on the left-hand side of the screen. Waltham, The Duke of 23:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

For a list of all the editions of Wikipedia and their language codes, see m:List of Wikipedias. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"but what is it??"

is the frustrated question MANY Wikipedia topic pages leave me asking. i am not an idiot. i am not uneducated. i am not ignorant. i even know some things. a little bit of too much knowledge here and there. i was a tech person for years and still am forced to geek my way through things that should not be so dense. Still, i find so many pages fail to do the ONE BASIC THING an Encyclopedia entry is supposed to do: Tell the reader WHAT THE ENTRY IS/MEANS.

• i see a huge amount of paraphrasing from science journals and other encyclopedic or technical documentation by "wikipeople" who do not know what they are writing about when they create these entries. This is a PERVASIVE problem with WikiPedia when trying to use it for actual reference (as opposed to casual curiosities, confirming suspected ideas or solving a debate).

• Barrier to entry here is ENORMOUS.

• The mindset of some (not all) of the administrators and moderators is "geek first, humane later... maybe. oh and go RTFM. and here are some context-devoid copy/paste bits to make it look like i'm helping you."

• WikiMedia itself is used in such an inhumane and geeky hackerish way that normal human beings (people not specializing in computers, computer scripting, development, etc) are left unable to take advantage of the potential of this would-be fantastic tool. It comes off as hackerish (in a sloppy and bad way, not in a "cool and accomplished" way).

• The admins and the tool comes off as ELITIST.

• It is pedantic. It is less information and more a set of pages made up of paragraphs of links to other pages of pedantic links to other pages. There is a rule about NOT causing a person to look up 42 vocabulary words in order to define ONE. How about following that rule?

• Wiki uses tagging and style coding that is different from every other known (common/familiar) system in existence on the Internet (and that's not to say HTML is the best thing since sliced bread, but it's READABLE and that is prime directive when communication of information is the goal!). We have the technology for WYSIWYG. USE IT, for pity's sake.

• Wiki looks and feels like my worst Asperger's Syndrome writing moments, except i tend to at least make my point (repeatedly, but it can't be said to be missed - but since this whole thing looks like it was produced by an unfortunately unsocially skilled person, it would not surprise me if the whole system from top to bottom reeks of fellow people with autism disorders).

• "Sign your posts by typing four tildes." This is intuitive how? Is there a problem with using the techniques used in forums or anywhere else on the Internet where users LOG IN? "Forums are focused on communication," you might argue, "not information and documentation." Yes, well, if WikiMedia/WikiPedia (as i don't know where the flaw lies; tool or implementation) is to be a collection of open source knowledge, communication is a VITAL PROCESS TO NURTURE in order to meet that goal.

• i fully expect everything i have to say here to be totally written off with some pedantic "guideline" which uses the letter of the system to defeat the spirit of the system, or even just deleted... because i'm not a member of the elite. i'm a former geek in his 30's, long past his "glory days" and "just wants things to be easy." NO!

• "Information wants to be free..." but this tool obfuscates it with the very same red tape that "Open Source" wishes to avoid by BEING "OPEN." Open Source does not have to be open only to "geeks and computer nerds." i say this as a former computer geek/nerd who has realized that the rest of the world needs us to make the tools accessible to humanity, not select groups or elite sects of underground and mostly anonymous computer dungeon dwellers. Born again user, i call myself.

Dysamoria (talk) 04:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Dysamoria. Nice to make your acquaintance. I shall attempt to address the points you are making in your message above, or at least those which I can see.

• I agree that some articles lack lead sections. These are the introductions to articles, and their purpose is to say what the subject is. The existence of such sections in all articles is encouraged at all times (see the main guide to layout and the page on leads). The absence of lead sections in many articles is regrettable, but one must remember that Wikipedia is a project under construction, and that it is continuously improved. Patience and collaboration are the key.
• The same thing goes for articles which are badly written or structured. They are not supposed to be like this, and they will be improved in time.
• Links are used to provide readers with access points to other pages with information that might be of interest to them. In a well-written article, one should not be required to use links in order to understand the article's subject. Many articles are badly written, but the way this encyclopaedia functions means that they will be eventually improved. And not all articles are like that; I strongly suggest Portal:Featured content for a showcase of our best work.
• The Wiki syntax is a light-weight mark-up system intended to be easily used by all people irrespective of their technological education and background. It consists of a few well-known symbols used in a specific, consistent way, and the easiest method to learn them is by means of the Cheat-sheet. It is a different system from any other encountered in the Internet, true, but this does not mean that it is hard or unusable. It is simply one well-adapted for the purposes of this specific site and tailored to its special needs.
• For good or for bad, I do not suffer from any syndrome or condition, therefore I cannot understand your point about the way Wikipedia looks and feels. Perhaps you could elaborate on this one.
• Four tildes is a simple device allowing an editor to sign their posts; as not all their edits are supposed to be signed, an automatic signing system would be problematic, not to mention the load to the servers that it would incur. Perhaps it is not intuitive, but once learnt it is hard to forget. Surely one cannot expect a newcomer to be able to contribute without reading a couple of documentation pages first? But after that, there is no real problem. I honestly fail to see how using four tildes constitutes a barrier to communication.

By the way, Dysamoria, two observations about the above message:

• It ought to be placed at the bottom of the page (for better management of the various posts); and
• It over-uses bolding, capitals, spacing, and other techniques of emphasis. Although I don't really mind, people generally do not appreciate what is perceived as shouting.

I hope that you have not been disappointed with my reply to your message. If you should like to pursue this discussion further, or ask for help of any kind, do not hesitate to do so in my talk page.

Thank you for using the Village Pump. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 00:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think if what you're saying gets ignored it'll be because it seems apparent that you're basically just posting this to get some things off your chest, rather than actually attempting to draw constructive attention to these issues. As it stands, these complaints are just too general, and the only way anyone could possibly respond would be to say "Sorry, we'll try harder" or "You're full of it". Maybe if you gave specific examples of the problems you're describing, that would allow people to better respond to them. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:15, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Dysamoria, I have came across the same problem myself a few times (being that an article does not state what the subject is). One possible solution (which only works sometimes) is when viewing the article page you are having trouble with, go to the rightmost side of the page and look for the languages bar, scroll down until/if you see a link that says Simple English. Click on the link and read the article in Simple English, usually the articles there are much more to-the-point and downright. The only drawback is that we only have a few articles in Simple English and you may not find the article. Don't forget to edit the regular English article and fix it after reading the SE version. -- penubag  (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Final notice of planned change to Template:Talkheader

Per the proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 22#Archive links by default in talkheader template, and subsequent discussion at Template talk:Talkheader#Please see my proposed change at VPR. , it is now planned to modify {{talkheader}} so that it will automatically include links to archives, if the archives are named with the standard of Archive 1, Archive 2, etc. This will, in most cases, eliminate the need for a separate archive box template on an article talk page. There was general agreement that this was a good idea, and all technical problems seem to have been worked out.

Because this change will affect more than 70,000 talk pages, I'm posting this "final notice"; if anyone can see any technical or other problems with the proposal, please speak up . Otherwise, an admin will probably make the change in three days or so from now, and the change will start appearing. (Template changes don't take affect immediately, everywhere, for performance and other reasons, so the change will take some time to propagate to all affected pages.)

(Any comments should go on the Template talk:Talkheader page, please.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

PS. To see what the automatic archive listing will look like, see the talk header at Talk:Circumcision. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:19, 6 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Is this really needed? We already have enough problems with people plastering {{Talkheader}} to talk pages when the pages don't need it or are otherwise empty. Frankly, I see this change as encouraging people to add this banner more so then before. The change is also redundant to {{archive box}} which is easier to find and out of the way on the right. We don't need to encourage template cruft on talk pages, but that is exactly what this change will result in. --Farix (Talk) 21:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Having a standard way to find archives seems like an improvement. I've noticed a variety of archive box styles in the past. A parameter 'noarchive' is provided for those editors who want to use a different style of box on their particular article talk, so people who don't like this feature aren't forced to use it. EdJohnston (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Stable versions is coming; what standards, guidelines, and processes need to be written?

(Note: moved section to bottom, it was moving near the top and this is an important topic. If this discussion gets much larger, I suggest moving it to a page of its own. Best and friendly regards, — Thomas H. Larsen 09:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

See Wikipedia:Flagged revisions, currently in testing at http://en.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. See also meta:Article validation feature and Wikipedia:Pushing to validation.

So Stable versions, as you all know, is currently in test mode. It will not be turned on until there is a community consensus as to how it will be implemented. So currently, in my mind, there are these questions:

How do we decide which users are allowed to be "Editors" and "Reviewers"?

Do we allow any article to be reviewed?

Do we want this?

Does this take away from the spirit of a "wiki"?

What are the long term advantages and disadvantages of implementing this?

Did I miss anything? Personally, I would like it turned on and have any article be reviewed. Although some might argue this takes away from the spirit of the wiki, this would better for us in the long run. The Placebo Effect (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea for some articles, but I hope it will not be the default way of handling all articles. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see a pressing need for this. Sorry. I know this is a valid issue, and I'm not denying that; I'm simply putting out my opinion on this. also, I'm not totally familiar with this. could please provide a link for more information? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well there is certainly a need for some article, specifically those about living people, but not across the board. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"stable versions" could be FA articles at the time of becoming featured. I don't see any other use for this at present. There may be a limited "update" process of a FA, deciding whether the present version is an improvement over the version as featured. If an article isn't FA-worthy, I see no reason to treat it as "stable". FAC has been our (ever rising) benchmark for years. I object to treat "living people" articles any different from others. The "stable version" should not be the one displayed by default, of course, there could just be a note to the reader that they have the choice of displaying a reviewed "stable" article as an option. dab (𒁳) 16:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Featured article or not at all? I am sorry to disagree, but I think there is a gray area. I also think this can be used not only to preserve the "best" version, but also to keep unsourced slander out the displayed articles on living people. I also think it is a less harmful alternative to protecting an article. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think the only articles that should be Stabled are FA, GA, and BLP. FA and GA to preserve quality, BLP to prevent slander. Maybe Current Event Articles also. The Placebo Effect (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In terms of "Which articles should have the stable versions applied to them?", there are a few options. We need to consider, however, that there are multiple levels of flagging available (at least as appears on the test wiki); what I think is important is that we use the flagging where it is appropriate for each level. We have, or at least the open test has, "unapproved", "basic check", "good", and "featured" as levels. It seems like, to start, it would be simple enough to allow free flagging of "basic check" revisions by all "editors" (that is, those with the "editor" right), which would be a great help for BLPs and vandal-fighters. From there, "good" and "featured" revisions would fall easily into tagging the featured and good articles; that is, good articles should get "good" upon being successfully nominated, and "featured" in the same way for the next level up. Periodic reconfirmation of featured articles might be an issue - to keep our flagged revisions recent will probably involve a periodic reconfirmation with checks on what updates have been made since the last revision marked "featured".

I'm afraid I'm not clear, however, on which versions are displayed by default for a page; I think that by default, the most recent version should be shown, except for particular pages, such as some of those which are currently indefinitely semi-protected, where a process of flagging revisions that are decent and only displaying flagged "clean" revisions might be worthwhile and allow more people to edit, which is generally a good thing. For some, however, like George W. Bush, it might take more; I can see the potential for a wave of nonsense revisions making finding clean revisions difficult. Nihiltres^{t.l} 17:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Personally I think BLP related articles, GA and FA articles should be stable versions. I also think the stable version should be displayed as default to non registered users, with registered users defaulting to not showing the stable version but having the option to change this if they wish. This will help to ensure that readers, who we are writing this for, will always see what we feel are our best articles (GA and FA), and helps to keep our most sensitive articles free of non BLP compliant material. The amount of trouble we have with BLP related articles makes a very strong case for why we need stable versions which could do a lot to resolve our problems in this area. Davewild (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• I would say FAs (not GAs), and BLP articles which have had a history of BLP problems. Also articles with a history of nationalist/religious/political disputes, if a concensus version can be agreed. Johnbod (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Why not other pages? If we give out "editor" right liberally, or even automatically, and we show the current version by default, why shouldn't we mark a specific revision as "given a basic check" on any page that would pass a basic check? Mr.Z-man 18:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically because there will be a lot of resistance to this being introduced at all, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" will be quoted a lot, this was discussed (I think last year) and there was a lot of opposition to this being introduced at all - people saying this was against the principals of wikipedia etc. If we introduce this to a, relatively, limited area will gain more support for the proposal, will be done on the articles where we need it most and will let us see how stable versions work on such a large and frequently edited wiki as the English wikipedia. If it is a huge success then expanding the articles that have stable versions should be much less controversial. We need to demonstrate a community consensus here in order for stable versions to be turned on and the proposal must be geared towards gaining the necessary support. Davewild (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should wait for a page to demonstrate the need for such tools before applying them. But many such pages will exist, about prophets, evolution, etc... _(1 == 2)^Until 18:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The idea is to have some form of quality control. Right now, an average reader goes to an article and has no idea whether it is a good article or the last editor changed all the numbers in it. More experienced users might check the history to verify that, but an average non-editing reader probably won't know what all that crap in the history page means. With this system, even if we don't show the stable version by default, there can at least be a link to a version that has been marked as stable so that the average reader can go to a page and see a version of it that they might be able to trust a little more than the average Wikipedia article. Yes, it may reduce the need for semi-protection and help BLPs, but if we only look at the conveniences to editors and not the advantage from the readers' perspective, we miss the point of the extension. I also encourage people, if they haven't already, to test out the system at the Wikimedia test site and see the available configuration options on the MediaWiki page. Mr.Z-man 18:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You lack the Web 2.0 prosumer attitude, sir! ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Actually it's quite hilarious that some random economists accurately identify the existence of prosumers, but many wikipedians are still stuck in the 19th century ;-)

I am opposed to applying stable versions to the English wikipedia at this point in time, as I would like to be cautious. Stable versions severely alters the wiki model, so no one really knows what will happen (though people are making both positive and negative predictions).

The German wikipedia is the first wiki likely to implement stable versions. I would like to monitor performance of that wiki for 6-12 months before we consider applying stable versions to the English wikipedia. That way, only 1 wiki will be in trouble if stable versions turns out to have negative effects.

Note that standards, guidelines and processes document existing best practices. As we currently have none, and shouldn't have any for at least the next 12 months, the second part of the question can be answered with "we have nothing to document at this point in time".

--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Letting another wiki test this first seems like a good idea. Some places like de.wiki probably have a stronger consensus in this direction, and if they do, then there is no harm in letting them prove it works (or doesn't) and then implementing it here. MBisanz ^talk 18:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've added some links to the top of this thread, though I'm not at all sure which are relevant. Please update/correct as needed.

It'd also be nice to have a 1-paragraph-summary of how it works (2 roles, 4 selectable ratings), at the top of this thread, perhaps with a link to these screenshots, or something. All I can find in the Signpost archives are 2006-07-10/More stable versions and 2006-08-07/Wikimania tech. Can anyone point out ongoing or important-historical discussions (mailing list threads, local/meta/de talkpage threads, etc). An update to the Flagged revisions page might be helpful, too. Please and thank you :)

Also, I agree that waiting (2 or 3 months) for de.wikipedia to test it, is probably the best course. Calm discussion is preferable to learning-whilst-controlling-damage/confusion (plus then we have time to update/clarify the documentation...) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 03:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• We should also consider how we currently handle protection, since this in essence another form of more relaxed protection (which allows changing categories but delays other edits taking affect, IIRC) so some situations could migrate from protection to this. We might not want this for all BLPs, since some won't get enough attention, but it would be useful for some of them. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If there are editors who do feel that this is needed, and/or beneficial, then I have no objection to it. my only question was whether people out there had had experiences which led them to believe this was truly needed. sounds like people here have in fact had reasons for believing this might be needed. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• • This is a good idea in a small number of controversial articles such as certain BLP articles and certain articles on controversial subjects but I agree with until that to use it on all articles would be really bad and go against the open wiki principles that haver done us so well up till now. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Can there be a process that a common editor can ask for a certain page version to be considered "stable" though not necessarily at GA/FA levels? Maybe what is done is that there would be a RfSV, with appropriate talk page templates, that can be setup. These "requests" would point at a specific version by oldid to be made stable, and would be a simple !voting discussion that must be announced on the article's talk page. After a couple days, as long as no major editing concerns are pointed out, the "reviewers" monitoring the page can decide whether to make it stable or not. I'm thinking this would be something that may happen to an article about a major event or release just prior to the event or release. --MASEM 23:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• With regards to Kim Bruning's suggestion of letting someone else test it first for practically a whole year, while that would work, it seems to me like an awfully fearful way of going about things. I realize that adding features just because we can isn't a particularly good idea either (Table: namespace anyone?), but there seems to be agreement to use the feature, if not today then eventually, and if not fully then in part. Is there any reason besides opposition to change/the unknown not to try it ourselves, at least for the Featured Articles? If we like it there, we can gradually expand it until we either find the point where it all goes to hell on us or reach the point where it's fully implemented.
  As a related question, once it's turned on, how much adjustment can be done locally, and how much needs developer intervention? --erachima formerly tjstrf 23:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm strongly opposed to its implementation here except for articles with severe and ongoing BLP problems, and perhaps Featured articles. Any wider implementation appears to negate the whole concept of a wiki. I agree with Kim Bruning that testing somewhere with stronger consensus first would flag what effects the change has on editing dynamics. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm fundamentally opposed to adding more classes of users, or giving more roles to administrators, and think doing either would be an extremely bad thing, especially as administration should be a housekeeping task, not being able to make decisions over the quality of articles. Whatsmore, the current implementation is the ugliest, least intuitive design in the history of web development and its ugliness is enough to put me off implementing it on enwiki -Halo (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• I was going to come out in favor of stable versions, but upon further consideration, I can see the wisdom in Kim Bruning's approach of seeing how it goes on the German Wikipedia before applying it here. Why don't we put together a task force of editors who are regular editors both here and on dewiki, and have them report on how it is going there in six months?--Danaman5 (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• I find it highly amusing that the feature, which has been in the pipeline for years and pointed at whenever anyone has a complaint about Wikipedia's processes, has responses which seem to boil down to "No, we don't want to take a risk with it." Personally, I think being bold is the desired course of action, and I also think article assessment shows that we can trust a vast majority of our logged-in users. Nifboy (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that stable versions would take all the fun out of wikipedia. --Chris 1,000,001 (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussions and ideas on the Flagged Revisions in Russian Wikipedia

In Russian Wikipedia there is a group of users who is eager to turn this feature on (it's called "Verification of Articles" there).

Despite the currently-ongoing discussion/poll shows that many users fear that this feature would harm the spirit of wiki, we can reasonably argue that the following reflects the public opinion:

1. The default version shown to any user (including anonymous ones) should be the most recent (unstable) version of an article.
2. The "editor" should be granted to almost all somewhat active users (with some simple census, including 100 edits and a month of participation), being granted by "admins", not by the software automatically. "Easy come, easy go" principle should be used.
3. The "reviewer" status is the most controversial one. While some users think that the "reviewers" should be well-educated in the subject of the respective article, most suppose that the "reviewer" should only know and follow the rules of reviewing well, and that the "reviewers" are capable to decide themselves whether they are able to "review" the respective article; "relatively easy come, undoubtedly easy go" principle should be applied as well.

If you are interested in more comments, please ask! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 08:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Instead of semi-protection

Is there any objection to start rolling out this feature only' as a replacement for semi-protection. It might be good to discuss one issue at the time, so I ask: is there at least universal consensus that flagging is more welcoming for anonymous contributors than semi-protection? --Vesal (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No! Semi-protection allows users with a minimally significant amount of editing history to immediately change controversial articles. There is nothing wrong with this. I would support stable versions only as a replacement for full protection.--Michael White^T·C 18:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Stable versions cannot replace full-protection since it will not stop edit-warring between editors with the ability to flag stable versions. Protection due to edit-warring is one of the most common reasons why article editing is locked. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Not just for online

It is worth noting that Flagged Revisions isn't just about what content is displayed online. It is also about identifying versions of articles that are of high quality and can then be recommended for use in offline media like DVD or print versions of Wikipedia. Dragons flight (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Stable versions will also be an important incentive for more experts to contribute, since the main complaint is that "anyone" can come along and disrupt their work. To some extent, that's a valid complaint, in that keeping articles free of biased, unbalanced, or unscholarly content takes a level of vigilance that is unappealing. To some extent, it's more the perception than the reality, in that well-sourced content tends to be very stable. Still, the existence of stable versioning will help assuage experts' fears both real and imagined.--ragesoss (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not to let all articles be sighted is a different issue from what to make the default view on controversial ones

I would like to clear up a misconception that I have seen some people have about this process. We can have sighted versions of all articles, regardless of quality or controvertibility without compromising our wiki principles if the sighted version is not the default viewed by IPs. By having sighted versions, we give every article a button telling readers that the article they are reading might be vandalised or unreferenced, but that they can click here to see a version that is definatly clean (though it might be shorter than the current version). We need only make the sighted or assessed version the default view for IPs when the article would have otherwise been protected from editing. That way, everyone can edit the most controversial of articles without them being in a constant state of vandalism. In this way, it makes our FA/GA/BLP articles more like wikis while making our other articles have the option of being more reliable. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

First, not even FAs are good enought to be Stable, and heaven forbid that GAs are made that way. The Wikipedia process, as embodied by FAC, is inherently susceptible to Fan Club Voting and other more harmful biases. The recent FARC of Che Guavera, which is presented in a POV manner (enough so that it could almost be a press release from a Guavera fan Club) is merely one case in point. Second.. based on human nature.. the advent of Stability will create incentives for POV pushers to game the system in any and every way possible in order to get ther articles Stabilized. Third, what if a new editor with abundant resources to improve an article happens upon a Stable version, but doesn't have the familiarity with the relevant wiki processes to wend their way through the system? In a system without Stable versions, all revisions are merely the click of an edit button. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The system is very simple: they edit the draft article, and if their edits are good, their new version will be made into the new stable version by a recent changes patroller who will verify that the edits were not vandalism. That process doesn't require any expert Wiki knowledge from a normal editor and is much preferable to semi-protection. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think there are so many Recent Changes patrollers that they can vet every single edit? And I've seen "flagged" articles which were nothing but vandalism. Corvus cornix_talk 21:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Slippery Slope

While I understand the need for stable versions on controversial articles this principal goes against the fundamental element of the wiki and in the long run may threaten its very existence. The controversial articles generally have a cadre of editors protecting them and perhaps we could assign/volunteer editors for FA's. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

We haven't waited this long to get stable versions to not even try it out. It is clear to me that the displayed version should always be the current version and not the stable version. That way, the most up to date one is always the first seen, and those who must have some assurance of accuracy can look at the stable version. And as long as the stable version is updated very regularly, there may be little difference between them most of the time. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd support the displayed version being the current version, except in cases of high levels of vandalism, when admins could switch this setting to the default being the stable version - as an alternative to semi-protecting the article. This would mean that vandalism would not prevent IPs from editing articles as it often does at present, but would instead prevent vandalism from inconveniencing our readers. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm an enthusiastic supporter of this and have been waiting for it since the early discussions of Stable Versions. If I may repeat myself, I think members of the specialized Wikiprojects might have a valuable role in designating Quality versions. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose that vigorously. Corvus cornix_talk 21:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Enable flagged revisions on all articles

I move that flagged revisions be enabled over all articles.

If you see flagged revisions as a system to solely preserve accuracy and coverage once it is achieved, then yes, flagged revisions should be enabled only on FAs, GAs, and perhaps BLPs. However, if you see flagged revisions as a system to preserve, and create, and facilitate the creation of accuracy and coverage, as I do, then it makes logical sense to enable flagged revisions over all English Wikipedia articles.

Articles which receive reasonably high traffic (numbers of views) should be flagged in order to (a) preserve accuracy and coverage, and to (b) stop blatant vandalism (the "YOU SUCK!" sort) from appearing to readers. Articles which receive low or medium levels of traffic should be flagged to stop discreet vandalism (changes of the number "7" to "8", for example) from slipping out to readers.

In my experience, as traffic levels of articles decrease, the number of inappropriate editors per number of readers increases. Thus, flagged revisions are probably required more on low-traffic articles (in other words, not the majority of GAs and FAs) than on high-traffic articles (which most GAs and FAs are).

The worst that enabling flagged revisions on all articles could do would be to make low-traffic articles update much more slowly, and even this is not much of an issue:

• changes carried out to low-traffic articles (which form a honeypot for vandalism, spam, and misinformation) should be verified before being made default to logged-out readers;
• low-traffic articles need only update in proportion to the number of views they receive, and the number of views is relative to the number of updates (in other words, $A=B$ and $B=A$ — number of updates is proportional to number of views, and number of views is proportional to number of updates); and
• are readers going to prefer partial or full accuracy, coverage, and stability, fast updating and no stability or slow updating and complete stability?

As a philosophical reason, the first and foremost principle of the English Wikipedia is to provide a reliable encyclopedic informational resource to all people. Reliability, which consists of accuracy, coverage, and stability, is not just an ethical plus: it is a fundamental, essential, necessary moral principle for any resource which calls itself objective, informational, and free, and always has been. If we have a way to improve reliability in any way, and this way does not interfere with the "everyone can edit" and the "information should be free" principles, we should pursue it.

I suggest that we pursue this way of improving the English Wikipedia's reliability through enabling flagged revisions on all articles, since it has major obvious benefits, no major obvious downsides, and does not conflict with the objectivity, informational aspect, or freedom that forms the basis of the English Wikipedia.

Actually, though, the question of how flagged revisions should be enabled isn't really up to the writers of the English Wikipedia. After all, as logged-in account-holding editors we are nearly always going to see the current revision of articles anyway, and we should be designing the English Wikipedia primarily for readers, not writers. I suggest (a) that we set up a temporary voting site on the Wikimedia servers which accepts yes-or-no votes regarding whether or not flagged revisions should be enabled over all or over just some English Wikipedia articles (and asks a voting question such as, "Would you prefer (a) all articles to update more slowly, but be more reliable, or (b) some articles to update more slowly and be more reliable, but the rest to remain as they are?"), (b) that the aforementioned system accept only one vote per IP address, and (c) that a notice should appear at the top of all English Wikipedia articles to all logged-out readers inviting them to vote. This system would permit even writers to vote, but would primarily reach a reader audience.

Best and friendly regards, — Thomas H. Larsen 09:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I support the stable revision of articles being displayed by default to logged-out readers of the English Wikipedia. Imagine educating all Wikipedia readers how to get the stable revision :-/. Reliability should be default. — Thomas H. Larsen 09:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely support this. Finally a proposal that is based on the reason for Flagged Revisions - not so we can better deal with controversial articles or use semi-protection less, but so readers can trust the content of all articles. I think if the link is prominent enough we won't necessarily need to display the stable version on all pages. Mr.Z-man 16:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly support Kevin Baas^talk 18:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• I also support this; it is well thought out. It makes sense that the reader (ie those coming for accurate and stable information) should see the flagged version, and editors (ie logged in) see the standard. If flagging-rights (as it were) were given to a large number of editors, this would run smoothly (ie. most regular, proven editors). WP remains an encyclopedia which "anyone can edit", while becoming more reliable, and less prone to nonsense vandalism or BLP issues. Thanks, Thomas, for putting the thought into this. Gwinva (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of seasons as a time.

Why is it considered ok to use a season as a time, eg "SomeMovie is expected in Summer 2009?" Summer happens in different months in different places. Such temporal ambiguity shouldn't be tolerated in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.174.230 (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Longer periods for the relevant guideline that addresses your concern. As to "tolerating" this issue, violations tend to be corrected as found but most contributors are likely to consider this a lower priority issue. You may also wish to help Wikipedia by making appropriate corrections yourself. --Allen3 ^talk 11:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

View section

When people link to large pages (i.e. this one), it takes a long time to load, even if we're only concerned with a single section. I propose we add a view section option, which can be accessed by, for example, a link like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29&section=14

This way, users can access a single section without having to load the whole page. Paired with the oldid query, I think it should work even after archiving. As for an easy way to link, I don't know. The [edit] links allow one to edit a section, but I haven't thought of an easier way to link to view a single section. Any ideas? — Bob • (talk) • 19:52, April 6, 2008 (UTC)

Section numbers aren't constant like oldids. The oldid of a revision is set when the edit is made and, short of manual changes to the database, will never change. However, section numbers, except section=0, will vary depending on the number of sections. Right now this is section 54, but if sections are added or removed above it, it will be a different number. Mr.Z-man 23:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

But if you access a page using an oldid, the sections would be constant. Though I suppose it might be too much work to go through all that just to save some load time. — Bob • (talk) • 02:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this particular method of displaying a single section is not too practical, however I think in general we should start thinking about ways we could display single sections of pages. Perhaps even a method of watching single sections of pages. There many pages, such as ANI and these VP pages, that are just impossible to deal with. Watchlisting them is pretty much useless, they take a really long time to load regardless of hardware/connection speed, and god forbid you get an edit conflict. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:58, 7 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly what you want, but this action=raw link will show the source of a single section. I agree that section viewing would be useful, especially for viewing long pages on mobile devices. Bovlb (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A better solution is to go back to not allowing really big articles. Plus having an easy way to view only one section. 199.125.109.104 (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

ISO 639

Various templates and articles use the ISO 639 language codes but it confuses me whether to use ISO 639-1, 2 or 3. Is there any rule concerning that and if not shouldn't one be made? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Systematic bias of Wikipedia / A Solution

Description of the systematic bias

The economic basis for the academic's life is dependent on publishing papers. If they want to join a reputable institution, they have to become famous too. How can they do that, well all they need to do is to tell people: "so far you all thought that a matter was like this, now I tell you that you were all wrong" and then come up with a new theory. This is not so bad when it comes to empirical sciences because one can do new experiments BUT when it comes to history new data would not be created everyday. The original sources are all there.

So, how do the academic live? Academics are very lucky that most of the history is not sufficiently well sourced (and it is the academics themselves who define "sufficient"). Here is what makes academics look innocent: if something happens today, witnesses after some time start saying different things; what can we then say about something that happened thousands of years ago. This sad truth has given the academics enough flexibility to create their own curious theories, to project their own cultural tendencies and secular views back into the history.

The academic biases and shortcomings show itself most vividly in religous historiography. The academic don't have to openly express their underlying assumptions; it goes implicitly into their writings and evaluations. Suppose the academic is living in a society that is obsessed with something, the academic would then imposes his/her this in his/her scholarship of the past.

Let's take the example of someone wanting to write a biography of a figure like Muhammad or Jesus or other ancient figure. For that matter, the scholar has to first create a rough overall image of the figure. It is then under the light of this overall image that the scholar proceeds to evaluate which reports are sound, and how the sound ones should be interpreted. The formation of that rough overall image does not, and can not, be merely based on the early written reports of the figure. Much of it consciously or unconsciously comes from the underlying biases of the established intellectual tradition of the time, the scholar's own values and his cultural values, plus his own past experiences putting aside the politics. Please note that I am not claiming that the religous biographies are completely free from such distortions but there is a difference that I will point out in the solution section.

To cite another example I'd like to draw the attention towards the relation of scholarship and politics is very obvious. Here is a quote from Journal of Semitic Studies, Oxford University Press:

The relationships between the Jews and the Arabs throughout history have been the subject of numerous studies over many centuries. However, as long as the continuous Arab-Israeli conflict has not found a solution, historians will search through the past in order to find new evidence to prove the antiquity of the tension between the two communities and to illuminate its causes. The vicissitudes which have marked the lives of the Jews who lived under Arab rule or side-by-side with Muslims add to the complexity of the issue, and a great many of the assertions about Arab-Jewish relations made by scholars and amateurs alike are sheer speculation. This is particularly true of writers who strongly identify with either camp and have become emotionally involved in the subject. Consequently, the views they usually hold are often unbalanced, if not biased.

I have found such criticisms of academic approach to religous studies are found in serious apologetic texts of many religions.

Solution

I think the main wrong underlying assumption in the academic works is that knowledge is of one form and that is all that can be written on the paper, and in third person perspective (not personal). The knowledge and wisdom gained through experience has no value unless it can be written on the paper so that even a computer can check it. Most scientific works tend to minimize the role of the audience in the process of learning. In the eastern mode of thought however the person has to travel a path, reach some form of purification, enlightenment or whatever it may be called in order to be able to see the truth. Certain traditions have had much emphasis on the role of spiritual teacher in acquisition of knowledge. Such a perspective is seriously important when it comes to religious studies.

Wikipedia articles, as of now, are systematically biased because their representation of religous topics are so different from the way the religions traditions themselves represent themselves through an emphasis on practical advices, do-and-don'ts, rituals, or manuals. This is the way Muslims, Christians, Buddhists and in fact "non-philosophers" have looked at it(note: I am aware of the involved technicalities here- these religions say that understanding is granted from God to man as a gift merely by God's mercy). If I want to learn about a religous topic, I need to learn something about it, then do something from what I have learned, then learn something more, ... and back and forth. In Wikipedia therefore when we write about Christianity, I think, we should tell something about God's love in a section, then finish it with some concrete things one can do to understand it better, like say "forgiving others". This way, one can learn how Christians deduce the life style from the concept of "God's love". For Islam, it is "Tawhid" (unity of God) that replaces Love in Christianity but it is essentially same thing. The Qur'an like all other religous traditions puts emphasis on this aspect of understanding saying "None shall touch it except the purified" (Qur'an 56:79).

Now, my suggestion is that we create "practical advice/manual" boxes whenever appropriate in the religion related articles and make wikipedia articles more engaging. We can even have separate wiki named "wiki-practical-menus" just as we have "wiki-source" and other wikis.

I want to end my proposal with a poem from Rumi who said something in relation to the philosophers of his time that can be more accurately applied to current academia:

"The rationalists' legs are wooden
Wooden legs are very fragile.

Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

TL;DR

(cough) Okay, maybe I can be a little more constructive. What you're proposing is essentially more like teaching the religion than an encyclopedic article about the religion. We're not here to teach folks what it means to be Christian (as if we ever could encompass that in a single page!), but what structures and practices are in place that make up the Christian religion(s). In shorter terms, what you're proposing would just be a different bias than the one you believe is in the articles. -- Kesh (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Kesh, consider someone who has only the capability to see the black and white images (no color). How the person's view of say color red would be? He/she can only talk about it symbolically; or assume a person who is living in two dimensional world, how can he/she talk about three dimensional objects? I hope you see where I am going. Writing about something is not really separate from understanding it especially if one wants to get into a bit of detail. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

In many regards I find I agree with both standpoints. I think that in some respects that in order to teach about the religion you have to teach the religion itself, but there are difficulties in that regard in that people interpret religion differently. Therefore, drawing 'conclusions' in matters that are not authoritatively verifiable is not only unencyclopedic, but dangerous.

On the other hand, it would not be feasible to just copy and paste the entire bulk of religious scripture on the matter, which is even less encyclopedic. I do think that Aminz is on to something in that greating some sort of guide to compiling the tenets of a religion or philosophy into an encyclopedic format is a beneficial idea for making Wikipedia more informative and readable. Peter Deer (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Peter,

Thank you for the input. My point was that action is not divorced from knowledge; in other words, acquiring knowledge and action go hand in hand, and one without the other can not possibly exist in full form. One can not separate the two even theoretically but that is in fact what is done in Academia. In my humble opinion, there are more differences of opinion when it comes the theoretical issues and statement of beliefs (already covered in wikipedia) than with the practical ones. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me put it in another way: When does a theory gains widespread acceptance? It happens when many people find the theory makes sense; when the pieces fit together. But much of this comes from their shared personal experience in real life. Two persons can not communicate an idea with each other unless they share some sort of concepts and experience. But religions want to create those experiences for people so that people can understand its message. If scholars do not gain those experiences, they can sometimes miss the point completely.

P.S. I think Marxists go as far as saying that the criterion for a theory to make sense in a culture or subculture is determined by the economical basis of people living in that culture(or subculture). --Be happy!! (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• This looks to me to go against long-standing practice and to introduce special pleading. Religions can hold their own without this. Well, most can, and the ones that can't probably don't deserve to. The idea may be founded in a sincere desire to improve things, but as far as I can tell the most likely result is a series of POV-forks created on a separate namespace and linked as if they have some kind of official standing. Think Conservapedia here. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear JzG, Thank you for the input. It is correct that we should not go for it in an arbitrary manner or to apply double standards. Yes, without this we can still live but we can and I believe we should go beyond it. Painting a flower is essentially less than the experience of smelling it.

My suggestion is to add special boxes (just as tables and images) whenever appropriate in the religion related articles and tell people about the practices or concrete actions that would provide the audience with the real-life experiences required to grasp the meaning of the section. I do not want to create new article.

Another suggestion is to create a "todo-wiki", "ritual-wiki", "practice-wiki" or a "manual-wiki" that specifically deals with this.

One last point: Academia is an established institution just like other institutions. It however has the claim of providing knowledge to people but in reality only restricts itself with certain types of knowledge. For example, if one looks at the testimony of converts to all religions, they indeed talk about a story, a series of experiences during which the person has gained certain knowledge. The academic definition of knowledge however excludes this form of knowledge. In academia, a person may teach ethics without practically being true to his or her teachings; this is because a strict line is drawn between knowledge and action. --Be happy!! (talk) 10:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

What Amin has written is true, but - and that's the problem - I don't think we can do much about it, since it seems like the proposed solution contradicts the idea of an encyclopaedia that tries only to present the current state of knowledge on things in academic discourse. However, I'm new here and not very familiar with things, so I might be wrong about the aims of Wikipedia. So, in my opinion, we should implement the idea of Aminz if it doesn't contradict Wikipedia rules. --Devotus (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be "The Sum Of All Human Knowledge" :) --Be happy!! (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I vaguely understand what Aminz is suggesting. The problem is, particularly in the case of religion, there are no set standards that can be applied as to what the beliefs are, and how they should be represented. For example, there are between 15,000 and 40,000 sects of Christianity, all with different views about how to interpret the bible, or what version of the bible to use, or what books are included in the bible. They disagree with each other drastically, but proponents of each will claim only their sect is correct, and the article must be written from the viewpoint of their sect.

The same is true of other religions. Islam also has a large number of sects that disagree with each other. Is Salafism the same as Wahabism? Some say yes, some say no. Is Salafism really Islam? Some say yes, some say no. Are the Sufis Moslems? Some say yes, some say no. The Ismailis? Some say yes, some say no. The Sufis? Some say yes, some say no. Which hadiths should be followed? Which are most important? How should they be interpreted? What is allegorical and purely figurative, and what is literal? What does jihad really mean? Are Moslem husbands required to beat their wives are not? Some Imams say yes and some say no. Who can issue a fatwah and who must follow it? Is honor killing part of Islam or not? Is female circumcision? Are women allowed to be educated in Islam or not? Are images of Mohammed permitted or not? Were they ever permitted? The deeper you investigate all of these questions, the more complicated it becomes. There is immense disagreement and evidence on various sides of each of these issues.

The only way to deal with this is to take a neutral dispassionate view, as much as possible (although it is never totally possible). One can point out who believes what, and how these beliefs hae changed over time. One can cite sources so that the reader can dig in deeper and come to their own understanding. It is best to try to present ALL the relevant views and beliefs that are notable, and not try to decide which is the "right" view. Some might find this offensive, but Wikipedia is not a proselytizing tool or a religious tract. It aspires to be a scholarly examination of assorted topics. If this offends some, that is regrettable but unavoidable.--Filll (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed: one problem with the great religions is that different groups have different opinions about what the religion really is. Durova^Charge! 16:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Filll for your comment. I think you are correct about the difficulty involved here. But sometimes practical disagreements are less than theoretical ones (which we are already covering): Religions try to produce certain forms of personal experiences in their followers that would facilitate their understanding of the underlying concepts. Thus for example one may not understand the concept of real charity without actually doing it. The idea of monotheism could not be understood if for example one does not recognize false gods in his or her daily life. Now, why are these important for historians? Because they want to decide whether some reports about a historical figure really happened, and they can be helped if the scholars and the historical figure share certain personal experiences and if the scholars can really connect with the personality of the historical figure. --Be happy!! (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that is all very well and good. But I think it is impractical and unrealistic to suggest such a thing here. By that measure, we should probably erase every single article about every single religion because no one will ever agree on who has the right sort of experience to write any of these articles.

And one could probably extrapolate from this principle to many other kinds of articles on other subjects. We cannot write an encyclopedia like this. Sorry, but I do not think this will work.--Filll (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed this can be extrapolated to other topics and this is already done. At the end of text books, a number of problems are given that would help the reader understand the topic by "doing something". Why can't we add a box to the Math related articles and add a few challenging problem that would help the reader grasp the theorems better? A form of "knowledge", in its real sense, would be provided in this process.

I understand the difficulty but it is not always impossible. Sometimes, the central religious texts openly ask their follower to ponder about certain phenomena or issue because some form of knowledge comes out of this that could not be gained from direct teaching. There should be an interplay between the action and reading in order to gain knowledge. In my humble opinion, if we are going to be faithful to the vision of wikipedia being "The Sum Of All Human Knowledge", we shouldn't restrict ourselves to what may be called "first-order knowledge" :) --Be happy!! (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I fully understand this proposal fully. Are you proposing that we make wikipedia articles on religion proselytize? Or are you saying we should remove all criticism of religion from wikipedia, present only the good about religion? Both of the previous, I would object to. Or are you proposing something else, and I just don't understand you are proposing? Yahel Guhan 05:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that I fully understand this either. I do not have difficulty in recognising deep systematic POV in Wikipedia but most of it seems to me to be around the demographics of the editors (e.g. claiming the most notable thing about a long standing foreign President who has endless coverage in his national press is whatever makes some US newpaper, even if his country is much larger than the US) rather than to do with academic or non academic bias. In this regard the US coverage of Islam for example makes WP POVed (accounts read and accepted by hundreds of millions of people which are probably as reliable as what sells papers or gets research funding in the US are just discounted out of hand). There are also many aggressive anti-Islam editors. Christianity (it seems to me) takes care of itself pretty well and even US bias (e.g. Catholic means Roman Catholic to many Americans) has been talked out and handled well. Judaism has the benefit of very favourable demographics and seems to get an excellent deal from us. The US population regards Islam as primative and evil when many of us know it as sincere and good. Can this be resolved? In my view, no. Policy can not solve these demographic issues we just have to live with them. They will not be resolved until US public opinion is resolved and I am not holding my breath for that. --BozMo talk 09:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedbacks Yahel and BozMo.

My main concern in this post was the methodological shortcomings and limitations of the well-meaning and not-so-well-meaning academics (not the public). I think this systematic bias is affecting all religious studies universally. I was probably too harsh on the above long evaluation of the scholarly works, I do think they have shed much light on the matter. Nevertheless, I think there are shortcomings one of which is a divorce between action and studying in academia. Academia is a human institution and it is the majority of scholars who decide whether a theory makes sense; this is particularly important in humanities. But a theory making sense to people is a function of their shared every-day personal experiences. A religious person, by the virtue of actions he or she does, would get a different set of every-day personal experiences than the irreligious people.--Be happy!! (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC) --Be happy!! (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. So what you are saying is that academics are humans, and humans are subject to bias, so therefore our articles on religon articles are bias? Am I correct on this point? Or if I am wrong, can you correct me? Second, so they are bias; what exactly are you proposing here? I think that is the main issue none of us fully seem to understand. Yahel Guhan 03:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is to add special boxes (just as tables and images) whenever appropriate in the religion related articles and tell people about the practices or concrete actions that would provide the audience with the real-life experiences required to grasp the meaning of the section. Another suggestion is to create a "todo-wiki", "ritual-wiki", "practice-wiki" or a "manual-wiki" that specifically deals with this.--Be happy!! (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on this "special boxes?" How would this be different from a template, and what would be in these boxes that would require a new proposal? And how would this solve the delima you pointed out? Yahel Guhan 03:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

<- Perhaps the issue is best addressed through a combination of templates and wikilinks. Majoreditor (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Email to friend" (link is missing on content pages)

The "email to a friend" concept is not new, but it is missing from Wikipedia.

-Christopher James Jenyns, B. A. 10 April 2008 AD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.226.174 (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Copy URL to clipboard.
2. IF the URL is short THEN goto 5, ELSE
3. Paste the URL into the form of a site such as tinyurl.com.
4. Generate tiny URL, copy it to clipboard.
5. Paste URL within message to friend.

Hoary (talk) 11:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Or we can do something useful such as implement the feature as its usually something very simple. I think this is a good idea, and while there is always alternate ways to do things, the simplest ways are sometimes the ones that will receive the best results. This may also help Wikipedia track different changes in interests. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe most browsers now offer a way to do this very easily. File->Send link in Firefox and Page->Send Link by Email in Internet Explorer. Mr.Z-man 16:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to e-mail the URL. Just e-mail them the "Article title" in quotes and let them get to Wikipedia themselves and copy it into the search window. You definitely would not want to e-mail the actual article for two reasons. It is unnecessarily long and it won't be the same by the time they get it - articles are constantly changing. Why send them one version of the article? 199.125.109.64 (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If you do want to e-mail someone a particular version of an article, it would be handy to have a "Permalink" link added to the toolbox at the left. What it would do is create a link that looked like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Permalink&oldid=197528941

Note that it does not need to include the article title because that isn't used when the oldid is specified. The above is actually a link to the "Hohberghorn" article. Whatever that is. Some mountain somewhere. 199.125.109.64 (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a "Permanent link" link in the "Toolbox" links on every page (the sidebar below the searchbox). Mr.Z-man 04:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We already have this feature, see: {{Email}} -- penubag  (talk) 05:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

time-based vandalism filter

A while back, i made a suggestion on Wikipedia_talk:Stable_versions#Semi-automation_-_recent_stable_version_detector for a mechanism i called a "recent stable version detector". I've now looked at it from a different perspective and realized that it could be used as a simple vandalism filter for anonoymous / logged-out viewers (which will also filter out edit wars). The idea is simple. Each revision of an article is scored according to a simple formula:

score = [time of next revision - time of revision] - [current time - time of revision] * constant

= [time before next revision] - [age of revision] * constant

The revision with the highest such score is the revision that the public will see (i.e. non-logged in users).

The effect of this would be to impose a small delay between when a revision is made and when that revision is published publicly. Revisions that lasted a relatively shorte amount of time before being revised again will be "skipped". Thus, vandalism that is quickly caught by a logged-in user or recent change patroller is vandalism that the public will never see.

Similarly, all the quick flips back and forth between two versions of an article in an edit war will be "skipped".

This mechanism wouldn't require any user intervention, wouldn't interfere with any existing processes, and will alway show the public a relatively stable, vandalism free, and current revision. Kevin Baas^talk 18:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, send any idea to wikiquality-l. Autotrust and such were being worked on I believe. Voice-of-All 01:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Some actual calculations might be enlightening. For example, the David Vitter article was unchanged from July 5th until July 10, 2007, when a sex scandal was reported; then there was furious editing for several days, slowly dying off during the next couple of weeks. It's not until August 3rd that there is a version of the article that persists for longer than the July 5-10 period. Does your formula mean that non-logged in editors would be shown the July 5th version from July 5th through August 3rd? Because that's a really, really long time for the article to be (essentially) totally out of date. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Such calculations would only be enlightening to people who are tricked by the fallacy of the excluded middle; who think that if a solution isn't a perfect solution, then it is not a good solution either. Ofcourse some vandalism will get through, the point is that less will get through. It doesn't require any calculations to see that. Kevin Baas^talk 18:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just being honest about what seems from my perspective to be the case

Unfortunately I've come to this conclusion. m:Foundation issues states that one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia and one that is essentially beyond debate is that anyone should be able to edit WikiMedia projects without registering. Period. Unfortunately, if this is one of Wikipedia's core principles, what it truly means is that article creation should be allowed for anons, and no pages should be protected or semi-protected. This means that IPs should be allowed to edit the main page, high risk templates, everything. Wikipedia isn't "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, unless you're anon, in which case you can't edit the Main Page, penis, Template:Uw-vandalism4im, etc." As you can tell, I don't think that this is what Wikipedia should do, but if not requiring registration in order to edit is one of Wikipedia's non-debatable principles, then I think that Wikipedia has to do this if it wants to be true to it's principles. I know that there's no way that this is going to happen, and I'm glad it's not, so my true point of view is that Wikipedia's core principles need to be amended to reflect reality. Please note that this is not the same as me saying, "the software needs to be changed so that anons aren't allowed to edit", but this idea that even suggesting it is out of harmony with Wikipedia's core principles needs to be gotten rid of (which it will, once Wikipedia's core principles are updated so that what is practiced is also what is preached). I know that I'm a lone voice in a crowd here but I'm being true to myself by saying this. Maybe I should just find a different site to contribute to.--Urban Rose 02:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest reading m:Vision, m:Mission, and {{Wikipedia principles}}. Then take a glance at Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia. There's got to be some accounting for reality, in this sandwich of hope! -- Quiddity (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I won't leave. I'll just take a break from discussing policy and get to some harmonious editing. This whole thing is just confusing me too much and I'm sure I'm saying things that I'll regret later. I take back what I said about Wikipedia not practicing what it preaches. I don't want to be out of harmony with the project myself! I'd still like to hear Jimbo give a straight answer on whether or not requiring account creation qualifies as a violation of this principle however.--Urban Rose 03:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you that all editors should be able to create articles, but we should also be able to defend Wikipedia against vandals; protection and semi-protection are necessary evils, I'm afraid. Waltham, The Duke of 04:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What we need is to be tougher on IP vandals, and mind any IP edit with suspicion. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 14:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, what I've concluded now is this: based on what is practiced, what Wikipedia in fact "preaches" on the meta in saying that the ability to edit without registering is one of Wikipedia's underlying principles is that account creation should not be required to edit all pages, though it can still be required for some. But where to draw the line between allowing anon edits to pages and restricting anon edits to pages is what confuses me. Would allowing anons to only edit the sandbox be a violation of this principle. Technically they would still be allowed to edit the encyclopedia. This is why I'd like to hear Jimbo Wales give his view on where to draw the line, so this matter can be settled.--Urban Rose 15:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The underlying principle of anyone being able to edit the project is not in violation. Protection and semi-protection are done very, very selectively, and only as a protective measure. We don't lock articles because we don't want people improving them; we lock them to prevent them from being vandalized. Once the threat has passed, then it becomes unprotected again. A good example would be the Freakazoid! article; it has seen lots of vandalism from IPs, and as a result, has been semi-protected, but this happened only because of the vandalism. We're not trying to lock everyone out, we're just trying to preserve the peace. That's the fundamental difference between selectively preventing IPs from editing and preventing all IPs from editing.

Also, please stop asking for Jimbo's opinion on everything. Not to slight him, but his opinion is entirely irrelevant, no stronger or weaker than anyone else's. We're driven by consensus, not by the dictations of a single individual. The only time that Jimbo's opinion is The Word is if he's speaking directly for the Wikimedia Foundation, which is different, and the Foundation doesn't involve itself in the minutia of the individual projects. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear! (On all points.) Waltham, The Duke of 05:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Transport Geography

Hi,

I want to first of all appreciate the efforts of the Volunteers who have kept Wikipedia Encyclopaedia running. The service is very useful and apt.

However, I have just observed in the content and discussion on Transport Geography, the omission of Pipeline as a mode/means of transportation. I do not intend to blame anyone for this omission because it is common in literature to overlook the critical role of Pipeline Transportation especially in the conveyance of oil and gas from oilfields to refineries and from refineries to final destination either for consumption or export purposes. Therefore, I do wish to advocate that pipeline should be added as a mode/means of transportation.

Overcoming spatial disparity in the location of oil and gas resources, all over the world, is usually done through pipelines. In the US for instance, there about 1.9 miles of pipeline right-of-way transporting gas and oil, from within and outside the country. Likewise in Nigeria, there is close to 8,000km length of pipeline (offshore and onshore) transporting oil and gas across board. I do hope my humble submission is considered and accepted.

Thanks for the anticipated understanding and cooperation.

Best wishes,

Babatunde Anifowose Doctoral Researcher Email: [removed]

If you think something's wrong with an article, be bold and change it. Hut 8.5 10:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of Wikipedia's articles on very basic subjects are still very primitive, despite the millions of edits and millions of articles. I think the article they are referring to is Transportation geography which is a good example of an obscure technology tangent that hasn't had a lot of editors working on the article. There have been less than 50 edits since the article was created on 25 February 2007. 199.125.109.64 (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Some Special_pages should have a link to directly download relevant data

Hi!

Some Special_pages (e.g. Special:Disambiguations) are very tedious to examine and in very many cases not all the entries are viewable. Wikipedia seems to have outgrown these pages. And Disambiguations doesn't even appear to be one of the current data dumps.

If these pages had a link (i.e. to the latest data dump/Disambiguations.) to directly download the relevant data, those data would be actually useful.

Thanks. Saintrain (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree.--Phoenix-wiki 11:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)