Wikipedia talk:Village pump/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

we have permission to use text now what?

We made an article on Maurice Watts and now they say we violated some sort of GFDL policy becuase it contains text from his fan club site. This is because we run his fan club. We have Mr. Watts permission to use all of the text posted. How do we get the notice removed from our page? All4love312 (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The instructions you'll need are at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Copyright_owners_who_submitted_their_own_work_to_Wikipedia. Basically, you can either put a note on the fan club page that permits the content to be reused under the GFDL or you can e-mail permissions-en at wikimedia dot org from an address associated with the fan club. Tra (Talk) 17:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

OK Mr. Watts is having the fan club place the notice on thier page and his official site. The problem we have now is where's the page? Will we have to retype all of the text we spent time typing up or will Wikipedia simply un-delete the page?All4love312 (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Once you have put the put the notice up, tell me where it is (either by posting here or if I don't see it, on my talk page) and I'll see about undeleting the article. Tra (Talk) 18:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Very important question about notable people editing their own article

Okay let's say I was some celebrity or whatever and wanted to add information on my own article....Would I need to have a reliable source to back up my claims? I'm pretty sure if I was the celebrity the most reliable source would be me. Like let's say I wanted to add info on my childhood, or if I was in a rock band I'd add info on how the band came to be, etc. what would I need to include to prove that I'm telling the truth? Radiohumor (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's best for people to not edit articles about themselves. A person could edit the talk page for the article, and post links to sources there. I believe that anyone can cut stuff for BLP reasons at anytime, including the subject of the article. Dan Beale-Cocks 00:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay but let's say I was like Robert Plant in Led Zeppelin and wanted to edit my article, something about my childhood, stuff that happened like 50 years ago, how would I get a source for that? Radiohumor (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You would make sure your official biographer included it (and good biographers would cross-check with relatives or other sources who were around at the time), then once the book is published, you have a reference. Otherwise, the material has to be left out of Wikipedia. Remember, it is very difficult to prove that an editor claiming to be a particular person in the real world actually is that person. dramatic (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you ******* serious? So to make a small little edit I have to make a bigass autobiography about me? We need to change this rule. Radiohumor (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The source doesn't necessarily have to be a biography; it could be a quick mention in a news article, for example. There just needs to be some way to reliably verify that the material being added is true and is not being made up. Tra (Talk) 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs everything to be from verifiable reliable sources. Bob might know what he did in 1986, but Bob can't add that information to the article about Bob unless it's in a source. It's probably a good idea if Bob doesn't make any edits to the article about Bob, but makes mentions on the talk page. The exception would be 'BLP' vio stuff, which anyone can remove at anytime. Dan Beale-Cocks 23:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you a ******* *******? How about just putting it on an official website or in an official press release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.78.8 (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Borrowing from Wikipedia:Notability, the relevant policies can be summed up with "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject...". Just thought reading the linked pages could be interesting for you.--Commander Keane (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on what I've seen from the community, placing text on an official website or in a press release would make the item sufficient for inclusion to Wikipedia as a primary source. References are king. Just make sure the website doesn't go down and the references lost later. Crickel (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing the Jack Morton page =

{{help me}} by having independent review of the Jack Morton Worldwide page, which I'm barred from editing, but has received edits from others. I believe this qualifies for review of both of the page's flags which regard conflict of interest and "this page is written like an advertisement." JMorton (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I will look into it.--Kerotan^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 14:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You could use the article talk page unless specific editing restrictions prevent the use of the article talk page too. If you can, it would be useful as it'll help keep track of all comments, requests and such, in one location. Nick (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright query

What is the copyright status of images taken by the RAF? I'd like to use image #2 from here in an article about the ship. Please copy any answer to my talk page. Mjroots (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

---

I do belive there are some pages here that could clear that up. Take some time and search around for it Darkmaster2004 (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

First articles

What was the very first article on Wikipedia as well as

• 1,000,000th
• 2,000,000th?

LOTRrules (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

See Category:Milestone Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. LOTRrules (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"Coenwulf of Mercia" , a registered one , is now translated into french

Hark , hark!! the translation is now available in modern french , and even intelligible to lay people . If somebody knows the father , the uncle should like to present him the baby . Please rise & shine ! --Arapaima (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive search link made

Please see the suggestion at Template talk:Villagepump#Village pump section search links, for adding an (already created) quick-link for searching the archives, to the main header template. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Physics Editor or New Policy needed on Wave Power

I am disclosed as conflicted on Wave Power for www.gewp.org . Wave Power needs a serious re-write; it has become a link farm. I work hard on WP. Could someone take a serious look at http://www.gewp.org, my one outside, pro bono, non-profit, public domain, charitable work, and then summarize the GEWP proposal, post it on Wave Power, and stay around to defend it from being removed and called "a hoax or worse"? I'm on this Village pump page because I orginally suggest a policy change for WP, where someone (like me) who has fully disclosed his identity and conflict should not be at the mercy of an anonymous editor who might have a vested interest in an opposing view, such as continuing to burn oil and coal for eternity (for profit). Wave Power is very important as a reference under Alternative Energy. As it stands now, given the link farm, and given the esoteric programs highlighted in the article, and given WP's authority amongest students, teachers, researchers, lay public, etc., one is lead to believe that the large scale harvesting of ocean waves is is "a hoax or worse". You will need to roll back the Talk Page on the article, because I reverted to a time before GEWP was being discussed. Doug Youvan , doug@youvan.com , info@gewp.org aka 100TWdoug (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Don't revert talk pages, that's probably very bad. Is GEWP mentioned in any reliable source? If so they should be mentioned here. A user on the talk page mentions the need for clearing up the external links; did that ever happen? Dan Beale-Cocks 09:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone heard of a tool that measures.....

Mainspace articles edited by a particular user ranked by number of edits:

For instance, [1] gives me my top 15 mainspace articles edited by editcount. Is there a tool to get the top 100 or whatever? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Try this - maybe it helps : http://tools.wikimedia.de/~tim/cgi-bin/contribution-counter?page=vidarbha&namespace=Articles&dbname=enwiki_p

--gppande «talk» 11:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have that already - sorry if I didn't clarify properly. My edits to all articles ranked by number of edits on each article. Thanks for helping out. I might see if that directory has anything else there. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, I didn't understand the thing earlier. If you get anything like that do let me know too. It would be really nice to have such a tool. gppande «talk» 14:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

William J. Wallace: New Article

The article William J. Wallace is in the process of being created by a user now. It has no references whatsoever, and I cannot find anything on the Internet to suggest it is legitimate. The only other hit is here on Wikipedia at St. Michael's Basilica, with many contributions by the same editor as the newly created article above. One other hit which will eventually show up in Google is ALS, which is where I first became aware of this new article.

I'm a bit of a skeptic by nature, but that doesn't mean the article is not legitimate. What's an editor to do? Isaacsf (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's obviously an essay, not permitted here on the 'pedia. It lacks verifiable references. You can put the {{notability}} and {{references}} templates at the top. Or you could nominate it for deletion. Other editors may have other suggestions. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Shortcut for VP:ALL?

Can we have a shortcut for the "all" village pump, like WP:VPALL? — Omegatron 16:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

AddPortletLink()

Hello! Today I got four to five javascript messages "AddPortletLink()" everytime I wanted to load a new WP page. I then removed all of my monobook codes, which solved the problem. Is there a possibility to avoid this message AND using some monobook codes?
Kind regards, Tirkfl (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I am having the same problem, all of a sudden this started happening. Solution anyone? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about Wikipedia "API"?

How are websites like www.musicwn.com and www.mog.com getting Wikipedia content to show up?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.90.107 (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

They could have downloaded a copy of the wikipedia database dump or are sending queries to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php (wikipedia's api) and are downlading pages as they are needed (which is really not allowed) or they could just have copy/pasted articles over, which would require prober attribution. For more info on the api try searching mediawiki.org or going to the api.php page above. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 13:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of pages

Recently my watch page list has been clogged up with several edits, notably deletions of pages which redirect to real articles, such as "In Soviet Russia, Wikipedia finds you" is redirected to Soviet Union, gets deleted and then shown as one of many ugly red links in the watch list. So these vandals creating these nonesense pages are clogging up people's watchlists with the subsequent deletions. Can something be done to stop this? Its annoying, or rapidly block the vandals. Tourskin (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but the obvious suggestion is not to watch pages you don't want to see changes to. I personally love seeing the deletion log notice for articles in my watchlist - I only watch a few hundred articles and it's nice to see when one's deleted so I can stop worrying about it (if I requested it) or investigate why it was deleted (if I missed the AfD/speedy notice). --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 07:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Red dotted border in diffs

The red dotted border that has begun showing up in diffs today is distracting and confusing; please remove it. Badagnani (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am robotman here to help. Assign a task on the Wikipedia and I will promptly complete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.103.45 (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Plot summaries

Why do plot summaries in several video game articles seem to have been cut down to a synopsis? The detailed descriptions of plots were ridiculously useful when trying to find out about a film, TV show or video game. Particularly for when there was something in the story that was missed or misunderstood.

As if the removal of trivia sections wasn't bad enough. Wikipedia is now officially useless for the media as pages basically just consist of information from IMDB and review scores from rotten tomatoes or metacritic or something now. Brilliant. 86.29.39.199 (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Need help with editing my userpage-userboxes

I need help editing my userpage. I currently added a whole lot of userboxes to the first two sections of my userpage. Now, it looks all disorganized. Please help clean it up a bit, yet keep everything still on the page plz. Maybe even add some text, to go along with it too. I don't spend a whole lot of time on Wikipedia, and currently my job is requiring me to work a lot more hours.User:Byankno1 Chris Batchelor(Byankno1) 01:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

GA vs. A

I never really undestood a thing: looking at all the projects, the A rating is considered superior to the GA rating. However, the GA rating has been offered a lot more "style" (logo, nominations page, etc), and usually that would make people, especially those that are not very familiar with the system, think the GA is better than A (at least I did). Is there any (good) reason why A is superior to GA? diego_pmc (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia cited

I just watched a programme on the telly which featured the presenter searching Wikipedia for an article. Can anyone let me know if there's a template to add to that particular article's talk page (or if it should be added elsewhere). Thanks Craigy (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My grandson has just been diagnosed with Stereotypy. I have tried to get my hands on anything that could help me understand this malady.

I am not finding his symptoms that I have read about this conditions.

He is extremely bright. Quick intellegent responces that belie his just turning 7. He has been doing the same thimng since he was an infant. Now it is much worse. His whole body stiffens up and he begins to make a moaning sound that is now getting louder.

He is aware that it is happening, but is unable to stop until it is over. It is almost like a mini seasure.

He would like to stop. He is questioned about it at school and has resigned to telling his friend that he will "out grow it".

The fact that this has been going on since he was 2 to 3 months old, tells me that it is involentary.

Does thi ssound to anyone like Stereotypy? Can anyone think os anything other conditions that exhibit these same symptoms?

I will be most grateful for any input. Diana S. Lane diana@frontierlending.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.203.77 (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

wiki help

why doesn't wikimedia put all it's prodgeton a downloadable version avialable to download online so you can use wikimedeia offline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.6.58 (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is changing all the time so a download would rapidly date, and much of it works in conjunction with the rest of the Internet as many of the references are links to other websites. But more importantly this is not a novel to be read from start to finish, but a reference work to be consulted, so why try downloading the whole 2.5 million articles when you might only need a few hundred articles? ϢereSpielChequers 07:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

dance education

IDisasterpooh (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Đs there really dance schools that promote dance educations?

I like wikipedia Ironman88988 (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Messed up jumble of HTML?

Hello, I am a contributor to the Wikipedia article Katara, and recently I have been having trouble wih some HTML on the page. Right below where the references are cited, there is a section entitled, Appearence in other media. I have tried multiple times to sort out this HTML so that it will work, but to no avail, eventually I gave up on the idea and tried removing the entire section as it contained a very minute amount of information that could be replaced shortly after. However, once I deleted the section, the entire reference list was deleted as well, even though they are in different sections. If someone could un-tangle the HTML or figure out how to get rid of it without deleting the references I would be most thankful.([[User talk:Kurowoofwoof111|talk]]) (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

==Assistance required== I have noted the actions of one editor who appears to be on a campaign to remove images. Despite the many challenges to his actions, he is relentless in identifying images for deletion. Please check the edit history of User:Fasach Nua who does not seem to make any substantive editing other than challenges and deletions. Bzuk (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC).

I thought this page was for discussion of the village pump itself. My first impression is that the editor in question relies too much on the WP:BRD style of editing, but VP talk is not the place for Dispute Resolution. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have redirected this request to the Administrators' Noticeboard. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC).

Editing Conflicts between edits

I have found a technical problem with Wikipedia. Often, I am editing articles and talk pages. I go to save the page, but somebody had already edited the page before me, and I loose all the information I was going to add. I think there should be a way to have Wikipedia keep your edit in the raw form, so you know what you did, and if the two edits do not conflict, you could copy and paste your edit without having any conflict. I hope that maybe something can a be resolved. Thank You! --Ŵïllî§ï$2 (^Talk!/_Cont.) 13:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes that can be frustrating, but there are several partial solutions.

1. If you are making changes in one section then click on the edit box for that section rather than using "edit this page". This doesn't help if someone else is editing the same section, but it does if someone is editing a completely different part of the article.
2. If you are doing a long complicated rewrite consider making some saves as you go rather than have it all count as one edit.
3. You can copy the work you were doing, cancel your edit start a new one and paste in your changes.
4. Or before you can cancel your edit copy your version to your Sandbox, start a new edit and copy and paste the bits you want to change from your Sandbox.

ϢereSpielChequers 07:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediation needed in conflict!

Hello! I hope this is the proper place to post this. I have came across a conflict with an participant in the talk-page of List of Swedish queens. The conflict is about which peopple should be included. Simple enough, as it may seem, there is an issue about this. In the 15th century, the Swedish regents did not have the title of king, nor did their wifes have the formal title of queen. The regents did, however, have the independent position of a king, as did their wifes have the position of queens, and for this reason, the regents are given a place in the list of kings in history. This is the policy chosen in the list of kings in both Swedish and English wikipedia, and until resently, the regent consorts have, accordningly, been given the same place in the list of queens, both in Swedish and English Wikipedia.

Now, this have been questioned by a user in both wikipedias. I have suggested that the matter should be treated with a majority vote, but the user refuses to respect this. Instead, he simply changes the revision-history of the article. This is a discussion which is also going on at the same article on Swedish Wikipedia at the moment. There, the majority are so far in favor of including, in policy with the fact that the regents are included in the list of kings, with the condition that the regent consorts are marked in some way, just as the regents, are, indeed, in the list of kings. Oddly, he does not seem to wish to exclude the regents from the list of kings. I have tried to ask him why he will not accept my suggestion of a majority vote. On Swedish wikipedia, he has told me that he is not interested to discuss with a non registered user. I would respect a majority descision no matter what the outcome. I hope that someone is villing to help. All I ask, is that he could respect the need for a majority vote. Please, could some one take part in the discussion, no matter what opinion, and ask him to at least respect a majority descision. Regards--85.226.235.208 (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please ban User:Bg007

User:Bg007 is offensive and xenophobic, his edit log I believe claims that edits by me have been "anti-Serbian" and on my talk page he has said that "If someone is rasist that is Croats.If you don't know facts don't write." I am not a Croat or of any Balkan heritage but I see him as promoting intolerance. His openly discriminatory and predjudiced views towards Croats declaring them all racists is unacceptable. I request that he be banned immediately.--R-41 (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Parson's Function Question

I would like to discuss with someone who is an EXPERT on PARSON FUNCTIONS how to get them "activated" on a site other than Wikipedia. - Ixthis888 (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Translating infrastructure (e.g. image EXIF metadata boxes)

Hi - I'm new to translating... I noticed that the translation of the Wikipedia infrastructure (tab headings, exif data field descriptors, etc.) are incomplete for the Afrikaans language. I would like to improve this aspect, but can't find out where one can change or improve the translation of actual Wikipedia infrastructure. Just to reiterate -- I'm not talking about translating the content of articles, but rather translating the wikipedia navigation and infrastructure text -- Can someone point me in the right direction? FMalan (talk) 07:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I am being harassed by User:Bg007

User:Bg007 is accusing me of being "anti-Serbian" and that I am somehow "denying" war crimes committed by the fascist regime in Croatia against Serbs in World War II. This is completely false and irritating. I have NEVER done such a thing, and I have personally known and have been friends with a number of Serbs, including a high school teacher I had. I have told him this and advised him to stop attacking me some time ago, but he has refused to listen. His accusations against me are the result of me mentioning with a reference to the UN war crimes tribunal that claims that the Serbian government sources exaggerated losses in the 1990s Balkans wars to rally their people to the government's side during the wars. I ask that he be given a warning not to continue this uncivil behaviour.--R-41 (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Category

{{editprotected}} The main village pump page currently is a member of Category:Wikipedia community forums; however, that category has been moved to Category:Wikipedia noticeboards. Please update the category link accordingly. --Russ (talk) 10:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 03:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Headings and subheadings

I have seen two forms of headings in articles. Instead of using = signs, I'll express them with +.

++Example++ ++ Example ++

There is a space between the 'equal' signs, is there any difference? Tentimesone (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Tentimesone

There's no difference between them. Use whichever you prefer. Tra (Talk) 17:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested Move

See proposal in subsection below.

From Village Pump (proposals)

Why is this place [the Village pump] named what it is? People have to read the image caption on the main page to understand it. How about something more straightforward, like "Community Message Board" or at least "Village pump (Community message board)" (or maybe "Village pump: Community message board")? --WikiWes77 (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one, we have 5 village pumps, "Wikipedia:Village pump: Community message board/proposals" (WP:VPCMB/PR) is too long a name. Otherwise, its pretty much just tradition. Its been called the Village Pump for a long time. Mr.Z-man 21:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What about just "Community message board" or just "Message board"? That would be more friendly to new users. Old users are used to "Village pump", but I think that with a re-direct, another name should be fine.

And I noticed this is categorized as a "Notice board". --WikiWes77 (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, I believe that the term "village pump" is clearer than "community x" (noticeboard, orwhatever). For one thing, community x doesn't clarify if it's for the community, by the community, of the community, etc.

That and I think there's something to be said about "uniqueness" in naming, sometimes. - jc37 00:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

How about just "general discussion" or "discussions"? I'm rather attached to the tradition too, but that doesn't mean it isn't a bad and unclear name. Dcoetzee 01:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Village pump? What's that? Where Wikipedians go to order water? "General discussion" would be OK with me. However, we could keep the "Village" part. "Village discussions"? "Village noticeboard"? --WikiWes77 (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A village pump is a water well powered by a pump. Villagers in the past used to congregate and discuss matters at the village pump as there was often a long queue for the water, it usually being one of the few places for water in that village. The name is fairly apt, not that I'd be opposed to renaming. x42bn6 Talk Mess 02:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone understands that context. I didn't when I was a new user. Like I said, people may have to read the image caption on the main page to understand it. When people look at a link, they ought to have an idea what the page is about. In addition to my last couple suggestions, we could consider "Village talk", since it's basically a general talk page. --WikiWes77 (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this page, strangely enough, goes against Wikipedia:Naming conventions, if it can be applied to this namespace. However, if we can't agree on a new name for it, we can always create re-direct pages with better descriptions. --WikiWes77 (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really a message board, it's a forum. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 20:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support changing the name to "Message board". Village pump may be confusing for non-native English language speakers, and they may think that "Village pump" is a water pump. doña macy [talk] 16:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support I'm not really against the current name, but it is a bit misleading. I'd be interested to know how many users see a link to this page, but believe it is about something completely different to what it actually is. I know I did. Someone had to point me in this direction. I know what Village Pump means in that sense, but it's not clear as to how it's applied here on Wikipedia. I don't care how it's done, just something to make things more clear. What's the point in tradition, when people are being confused by it? --.:Alex:. 16:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, a link to it is included in user welcome templates, so it's common. --WikiWes77 (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose We already have a Community portal so renaming the pump to something similar would be confusing. Renaming it something like Discussion board may invite to much discussion of the debate/bulletin board sort that we don't allow. Rmhermen (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - it isn't that hard to figure out. We don't have to reduce everything to the lowest possible level. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The name fits fairly well, in my opinion. The main WP:VP page explains why it's called what it is, and it also, when you think about it, is a place where the Wikipedia "village" pumps out new ideas to improve things. Changing the name would be a bit too much work, considering all the different ones we have and all their archives (No, it probably won't kill the servers (although it may slow them down), but that's not the point), and further keeping in mind that you're going to confuse the hell out of people who expect the village pumps to be where they are. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 04:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A move automatically generates a re-direct from the old name, so it shouldn't be a problem. Please see the discussion above the "support" and "oppose" notes. --WikiWes77 (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• I would prefer keeping it as it is; a new user looking for centralised discussion will most likely hit the "Community portal" option in the "interaction" menu first of all, and Wikipedia:Community Portal has a link and description of it right at the top. I suppose there are bots that could manage mass-moving of archives if desired, though. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 08:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Not necessary per tiny plastic Grey Knight. Kusma (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Village message board sound good. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Village does not make the rename much clearer. If you wanted to make it clear it should be Community message forum 70.51.8.222 (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with 70.51.8.222 - where's the logic in removing "pump" but leaving "village". I don't see any reason to change the name. JPG-GR (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read the discussion above, you would see better. I kept the "Village" in my proposal because of the tradition associated with the pages. It also implies, similar to "Community", that it is a place for the Wikipedia community. "Pump" does little or nothing to let new users know what it really is. --WikiWes77 (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I read the discussion. But, as my userpage is not a hut, "village" doesn't seem to work. JPG-GR (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. I don't want a Wikipedia where everything has become genericized. It is a slightly obtuse name and is made intriguing by being so. I find it hard to believe that anyone is really confused by it and I see no evidence for the same. On the confusion front, changing it will leave thousands, maybe tens of thousands of named links to the Village Pump confused by redirecting to a different name.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You may be right about people not being confused, but there is always a need for explanation text accompanying the Village pump link for new users. --WikiWes77 (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - JPG-GR is right about how leaving village is slightly illogical; if we're going to keep tradition, keep the whole name. Just make it more clear in the templates that this is the place to come for a certain of advice - that is far more useful to readers of all competence in English. Compare "for help regarding policy and technical matters, go to WP:QZTVVD" with "we have a cool Village Community Messageboard!" for usefulness in finding help regarding policy and technical matters. Knepflerle (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Withdrawn -It looks like the proposal has failed. That's okay. However, I want to see what people think about a merge proposal with Wikipedia:Help desk. See the Help desk talk page. --WikiWes77 (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

New listed proposal: Village message board

The above is my proposal (Village pump would re-direct to Village message board). --WikiWes77 (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Even bolder proposal: dump the pump

Just a thought - our community has long outgrown village size, and many villages now have running water anyway - let's replace our own village pump pages with something that works better. I doubt that they genuinely serve as a central forum, simply because editors are likely to be loathe to include them on their watchlists, given the amount of diverse traffic they generate. We already have centralized lists of discussions - {{cent}}, the community bulletin board (in fact just one of these would be quite enough) - we don't need to have a centralized place for discussions. Discussions should take place on the relevant talk page (or a specially created page), then they could be watched by the people most interested in them, without watchlists getting clogged up with irrelevancies. Matters which really are of community-wide interest could then be simply advertised (with just one edit per topic) on the centralized list, which I guess many more editors would be willing to watch, or at least visit regularly.--Kotniski (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There is redundancy in the Wikipedia help pages. It's probably a good idea to merge some of them. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Integration. I've proposed a merger of the Village pump and Wikipedia:Help desk. See the Help desk talk page. --WikiWes77 (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandals

We now have a Wikiproject started and operated by sock puppets – Wikipedia:WikiProject Brahmoism. There is an invitation to join this project which reads as follows:

==Project Brahmo==

Perhaps all the Brahmo vandals and other species of puppets should sit and discuss these things. To help out, start from here: WP:Brahmo, Make Love not War. Project brahmo (talk) 11:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This ad is on Talk:Keshub Chunder Sen page. User:Ronosen was blocked indefinitely – Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ronosen. The blocked user is a heretic propagandist without the support of even a single Wikipedian till date. His own organisation Brahmo Samaj or any branch of it does not allow him a free hand to express his views (that are deemed original research in Wikipedia). As a result he has been vandalising Wikipedia pages pushing his POVs and throwing out those of others.

All persons involved are possible new sock puppets.

For more information on Ronosen, please see Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Rono Sen

An open project by sock puppets ia making Wikipedia ludicrous On the Brahmoism projeect page he is seeking discussions amongst sock puppets of his own on such subjects as follows:

Current Brahmoism controversies:

• Who founded the Brahmo Samaj?
• Who founded the Brahmo religion ?
• Are Keshab'ites Brahmos ?

My questions are: 1. Is Wikipedia a right platform for such debates? 2. Can one blocked vandal, carry on his propaganda war in such a manner? 3. Is Wikipedia powerless against such high technology on slaught by a blocked vandal? - Brahmachari (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Is Brahmoism a real and notable thing (regardless of whether you consider them heretics or not)? If so, then a Wikiproject to improve related articles — not to promote the religion itself, which is never the goal — seems appropriate. As to whether these particular users should be in the Wikiproject, or working on the encyclopaedia itself, I do not know. What are your opinions on the separate issues? Your comment is a little blurred on the distinction above, as I read it. As to your question #3, Wikipedia is not powerless against any vandal; nor is any wiki, providing it has enough people willing to undo a piece of vandalism. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 14:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I see a claim that Brahmoism is one of 9 legally recognised religions in India; if so, that would seem sufficient to make them notable enough for a WikiProject to exist. If, for example, a user has previously been blocked for edit-warring over Brahmoism-related articles and now wishes to engage in discussion with people regarding what should go in, that will probably look well for him on an unblock request. He shouldn't try to dodge around his block in order to do so, obviously. Finally, WikiProjects are for anyone interested in improving the relevant articles; this does not mean that you have to agree or be aligned with the topic itself. For instance, members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia do not need to be living in Australia, or have ever done so, they just need to be willing and able to make contributions to Australia-related articles. If you have useful material to contribute to Brahmoism-related articles, maybe you could join a Brahmoism WikiProject yourself? --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 14:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The 3 controversies on WP:Brahmo which trouble User:Brahmachari also trouble many other Brahmo editors. Is it not better that they are discussed in a WikiProject rather than on the talk pages of vandalised articles. As we have seen at Keshub Chaunder Sen all the Brahmo factions (there are at least 5) are sufficiently armed with RS citations in favour of their own POV. Also, whoever did the RFCU and blocked User:Ronosen as a SPA with "his" 15 accounts was sloppy, only 12 of them were SPAs (or a mix of SPA and multiple accounts) (with 3 innocent bystanders also blocked) which were maintained by 2 Brahmo factions in the ratio of 10:2. They were probably blocked for using zombie IPs associated with Ronosen rather than for Sockpuppetry. Finally, "I" was never "Ronosen" but with the other faction. If User:Brahmachari is so concerned that the WP:Brahmo collaborators are SPAs, let him file a formal request.Reformedbrahmovandal (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I moved this discussion to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Wikipedia:WikiProject Brahmoism to get more commenters. Please direct further discussion there. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 07:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda & Partiality

I would like to express my dissapointment concerning the system on which the english wikipedia's function seems to be based on. Countless political points with no or irrelevant references are kept, as well as articles that based on the conventionts the wikipedia community has made itself should not exist.

And in order to prove my point,

1) As clearly stated at MOSMAC "In articles dealing with the predominant ethnic group of the Republic of Macedonia Use "Macedonians" (only if the meaning is unquestionably clear) or "ethnic Macedonians", " In articles where there is a need to distinguish the aforementioned ethnic group from the other ethnic groups inhabiting Macedonia Use "Macedonian Slavs" or "Slavic Macedonians" to distinguish them from the other ethnic groups in the region" The latter has been frequently been violated at articles or section concerning these "Macedonian Slavs", a term which is insistently avoided and replaced with "Macedonian" contrary to the convention made. 2) At the same page, the wikipedia community made another convention stating:

"Deprecated names (province) The following name is deprecated:

The name Aegean Macedonia should be avoided for general use, except in articles describing the irredentist concept. Note that Aegean Macedonia can be considered offensive for some Greeks, but the Greek government has not raised issue." Nevertheless, an article "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegean_Macedonians Aegean Macedonians", not to mention the propagandistic statements with no references, saying horrible things about the greek nation's behaviour towards these group of people. And although the page had been nominated for deletion, it still exists. And on top of that, I am informed I donnot have the right to re-nominate this monstrosity so soon for debate.

3) I also disagree with the concept of some conventions themselves, such as the right for this nation to use the term Macedonians to identify themselves, but for the greek people to try to avoid the use of plain Macedonians to identify themselves, but need to add Greek next to Macedonia. Talking about neutrality..

4) The concept of the conventions indicates that for internal reasons, each side may use the terms it recognizes, as well the internationally accepted terms used when refferring to the UN and the organizations, in respect to their onomatology. And although at FYROM related articles, the internally accepted terms are used freely, the Greece related topics are invaded with propagandistic maps of uncertain quality, using terms as Aegean Macedonians, Rep. of Macedonia, as well as balling up Arvanites and their language with the Albanian immigrants. All these points confuse the reader, who cannot distinguish what macedonia really means. It's like a ball of confusion. Not to mention the maps indicating pieces of modern greece as slavomacedonian terriroties. And if someone dares to express his/her troubling about the, as stated by the wikipedia itself, offensive terms "Aegean" or whatever they may come up with, the response is of Points of Discussion such unutterable level: "This is the section where major points of the Article should be discussed. Please put your objections here so that they can be adressed.P m kocovski (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)-Point 1- Article name Aegean Macedonians or Ethnic Macedonians in Greece. I believe some users have expressed concern that Aegean Macedonians may be ambiguous. That is a legitimate point and should be discussed. NB: crap about being offended or about irredentism is not worth taking note of. BalkanFever 11:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)" - "Please watch your language. Are you not civilized?--Dimorsitanos (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)" - "Your comments- Please note that comments like this are not tolerated. If you do it again, you may very well be blocked. BalkanFever 02:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)"

I hope the wikipedia community can give some conviencing response to my worries and prove me wrong.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Where have we failed?

Pessimists have been predicting the collapse of wikipedia. Are they right? Take a look at this:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Money Masters

Obviously no consensus, but the article gets deleted and we loose some more editors. Will Wikipedia become a free copy of Discovery Channel? Where is our harmonious collaborative spirit? Where is our indepence from the Powers that Be ?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Why did you bring this up at a forum for discussing the Village pump? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Where would have been more appropriate?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy?--Kotniski (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha, how about pasting this right in the "Wikipedia" article, right in their faces. --N0tverycreative (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:VPAll should no longer transclude Assistance

{{editprotected}}

The Village Pump All still transcludes the Pump's Assistance page, which it should no longer do (as the Assistance page is deprecated... ahem... closed. 70.187.155.89 (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for the note. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Transfer

Please transfer this foto to commons.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[Image talk:Metro Gazi.jpg|thumb]

I have done this for you, the image now exists at commons:Image:Metro Gazi.jpg. Next time, the Help desk is great for requests like this one :-) --Commander Keane (talk) 11:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Article -> page

When did the "article" tab turn into "page"?—Markles 22:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For me, an article like Cattle still says "article", although other projects like Wiktionary use "entry" and project pages in Wikipedia use "project page".--Commander Keane (talk) 11:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Now it says "article" again. Did it change back-and-forth, or were my eyes playing tricks on me? I suppose I'll never know.—Markles 12:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah it changes back and forth. A while ago the underlining of links used to switch on and off for some users, currently the line under the tabs appears and disappears for me, and now your problem. I tried to find a relevant Bug but could not find anything, perhaps if we grabbed some screenshots we could report it on Bugzilla or Village pump tech, it is not a critical problem though.--Commander Keane (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

algorithm in computing

hello everyone.. need a guideline in what i have mention..if its ok,i needs someone who can text malay

tq —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.160.44.102 (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Algorithms on Wikipedia is no longer active and is only kept for historical purposes. You might like to initiate discussion at WP:VPP. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Upgrade wikipedia

Hi there,

I got 2 ideas how you could improve wikipedia and I want you to know them;)

1. when you enter in the english wikipedia a german query there are no results. wouln'd it be better to search in all wikipedias? So first it would be written that in english there is no article. then a big bar and then the articles in other languages. So when I understand german, french and english i could enter for example a name of a semi-famous person in the searchbar on the right top of firefox(btw the setting of the language will be needless). like this i could see all results. if there are no results in german or french i can just read the english version and dont need to switch the language.

2. a rating of the articles by the users. when you google there is always a match from wikipedia. but there are a lot of articles which dont worth to click on them, because their content is bad. and it would be great if you could see the rating already in the google query result. supplementary you could do a ranking of the articles by the most cliks and the best rating. Why dont do a little competiton: the one writer who got the most clics and best rating wins by the end of the year something.

I know that this is the wrong place for improvment ideas but I found no other email adress. it would be cool if you find soon a buttom on the front page with a forum link.

I hope you enjoy my ideas

Greetings Patrick

14.09.2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.98.44.34 (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I enjoyed your first two ideas, but I am not sure what the forum button on the front page is for? --Commander Keane (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

http://getsatisfaction.com/wikipedia maybe? or he/she could be talking about the mailing lists. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 16:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Towards New proposal policy

Many community members strongly disagree with the current policy. We are proposing a modification of languages criteria to star a wikimedia project, with a community draft]. feel free to contribute with your opinion:

thak you, very much. — Crazymadlover —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC).

Iosif Shklovsky's photo

Please to put Iosif Shklovsky's photo in Commons (request from pl wiki). 82.160.253.226 (talk) 07:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are talking about Image:Shklovskiy Iosif.jpg, unfortunately the image is not freely licenced so it is not possible for Commons to host it. It is used on English Wikipedia under a fair use provision.--Commander Keane (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong?

I have beenon a number of wikipedia websites and have been told to post this but don't know where. What do i do to make it better? Request: GET http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monasteries_dissolved_by_Henry_VIII_of_England, from 82.21.217.181 via knsq1.knams.wikimedia.org (squid/2.6.STABLE21) to () Error: ERR_SOCKET_FAILURE, errno (98) Address already in use at Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:04:06 GMT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morecambe1 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominations are now open for the annual "Jimbo" Awards for 2007–2008.

Most welcome development in Wiki-ing during the period from autumn 2007–autumn 2008.

The nominees are: /Please comment./  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 06:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Least welcom development in Wiki-ing during the period from autumn 2007–autumn 2008.

The nominees are: /Please comment./  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 06:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Racism alert

Hi, could any administrator check if this was not a racist declaration? Just to add, the referred user (Opinoso) is being accused of the same bad posture at WP:PT. Thanks. --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment I don't think that particular edit is racist, Borderlining on ignorance I believe is the correct term. Still this is uncivil and I would suggest that user read WP:SOAP. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 01:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

LANGUAGE POLICY COMMUNITY DRAFT. APPROVAL PROCEDURE

Dears community members:

the Language proposal policy community draft, is looking for a approval procedure. Please provide ideas to fix the approval mechanism of this community draft.

Crazymadlover —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC).

Major problem on Commons

I can't post this on commons, but the upload page and help desk pages have been sabotaged. There is an overlay advert for "Ass Pus Productions" on both pages. The Help Desk page on Commons has the advert overlaid over the whole page, on the upload page it is just on the top. Both pages have lots of red-link categories at the bottom. Can someone who is an admin on commons please check this out? Mjroots (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Not seein' it — Commons looks clean and functional from here. Either the issue's been fixed, or it's on your end, as it seems. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Something Awful: Vandalizing Contest

Yeah, the website Something Awful is having a vandalizing contest. Just letting everyone else know. Keep the look out. GENERALZERO (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding new sections

Is there a feature for adding new sections to an already established page or do you have to just add one manually to another section? (You know, copying the section thingy, pasting a new one and renaming it.) --N0tverycreative (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The people at the Wikipedia:Help desk will be more than happy to answer your query. For talk pages, like this one, you can use the "new section" tab. For articles you have to do it manually, as you suggest.--Commander Keane (talk) 05:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Administrator hypocrisy

Why do some administrators complain that an article they don't like could one day take up to 10 or 20 K when one look at their own user page, let alone their talk page will immediately show that they have created far more useless words? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.190.104 (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Admins are users who are probably the most important on Wikipedia. If you want to create an article join wikipedia (WP:JOIN), create a sub-user page (such as this one) and add info on that. After if it has references (WP:CITE) and the associated relevance (WP:NOTABLE) it will not be deleted on Wikipedia when you create an article page for it (WP:CREATE). In addition their user page space is always guaranteed, you might as well fill it in personally to make it feel more comfy and home-like. I mean look at mine. My userpage is my own personal space. If I obey Wikipedia then I am entitled to it. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 01:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Block template bug

the blocking template sometimes does not include </div> in the end so that the colour of the template to stop. see [2] > [3] if you know the source of the template, tell them... --CuteHappyBrute (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for Wikipedia

Every wikipedia article should display, at the bottom or on a linked page, all other articles that reference it. Surely it would not be hard to implement this. Please pass this message on to the wikiGods.unsigned by anon at07:40, 3 December 2008

I believe this already exists with the Special:WhatLinksHere page. For example at any article look under the search bar for the toolbox, and click the "What links here" link.--Commander Keane (talk) 08:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

HELP!!!!!!!!

A few monthst ago I made an awesome page calleed FP3 player. OK MAYBE IT needs a little help but its a strart now I want to start a page called WikiUber a new Wikifauna to describe people like Jimbo Wales and other people AKA admins but I cant find the new page button BrainiacMatt (talk) 05:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no "new page button." You create new articles by clicking on broken links. That opens an empty edit window where one can insert text for a new article. This question belongs on the Village Pump page, not it's talk page. HTH — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust Article

Has been vandalized, I dont know how to revert & fix--Woogie10w (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You can see the link "undo" in article history. Just click it.--Kwj2772 (talk) 07:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad admins

I know that all the admins are responsible and trusted in the community but I have seen a few cases where admins behave badly. I not here to report any specific circumstance but since I have been on wikipedia for a long time, I'd like to know where issues regarding ill-tempered or badly behaved admins are dealt with. In addition to this what policies are the most important on Wikipedia? I realise WP:DELETION, WP:CIVIL and (now) WP:SOAP are candidates for this. But what about policies such as WP:AfD's, and on WP:NFC? I just want to know the policies of wikipedia that are most important so I can have a greater insight. I have never come across other such policies, how many are there? (I have also read these policies for any admin who thinks I should read them). Also can I change my username myself (owing to the "move" page tab) instead of requesting it? I look forward to the replies. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 01:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a better place for this question would be Village pump proper or the Help desk. I think it is fair to say that there isn't an efficient way to deal with bad admins on Wikipedia. You can start a discussion about a bad admin at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, or open a Request for comment and there are failed attempts at a bad admin policy such as Wikipedia:Admin recall. Wikipedia:Five pillars summarises the most important policies. Also at the bottom of that page you will see a link to Category:Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines. A request is the only way to change a username.--Commander Keane (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Redundant Policies

What's up with Wikipedia:Village pump (redundant policies)? Did somebody fiddle with the header on the VP pages? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Rename village pump subpages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) -> Wikipedia:Village pump/Policy
• Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) -> Wikipedia:Village pump/Miscellaneous
• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) -> Wikipedia:Village pump/Technical
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) -> Wikipedia:Village pump/Proposals
  • Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/New format for proposal page -> Wikipedia:Village pump/Proposals/New format for proposal page
  • Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals -> Wikipedia:Village pump/Proposals/Persistent proposals
• Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) -> Wikipedia:Village pump/Assistance
• Wikipedia:Village pump (redundant village pumps) -> Wikipedia:Village pump/Redundant village pumps

Along with talk pages and archives

These pages are subpages of Wikipedia:Village pump, and should be named accordingly. Just like we don't have Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (incidents) (we do have Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents), the subpages of Wikipedia:Village pump should be named in a similar manner. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support - It is standard naming, and leaving them at an incorrect name is pointless. I'm sure people will argue that they are really-quite-used-to the old names - these people will get used to the new names, no big whoop. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, til someone can give me some sort of reason for doing this. Firstly, I kind of like that they're not subpages. I don't think of "Village pump" as a parent grouping that splits off into mere sub-topics. Village pump pages are special. I think of these pages as very different from each other, and each important and unique enough to be at the top level in the namespace. Besides which, what would be the actual practical benefit to making this change? Equazcion •✗/C • 07:02, 4 Mar 2009 (UTC)
• Tend to agree with Equazcion; these are not really subpages. The parenthetical naming style is very common in Wikipedia space anyway, probably more common than the one with slashes: WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), WP:Naming conventions (use English), and many similar. Though if this were part of a comprehensive effort to standardize the way we name pages in project space, then I'd be sympathetic. --Kotniski (talk) 08:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• Also agree with equazcion. I see no good reason for doing this. Garion96 (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• If the page moves facilitate easier searching, eg it would be possible to put an internal search box at Wikipedia:Village pump that searches all the subpages and archives, I think it is a good idea.--Commander Keane (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  But why would you want to search all village pumps at once? Unlike AN, ANI, AE, AN/3RR, etc etc, the village pumps do not form a contiguous whole; they cover fundamentally different issues. Besides, since you can just put "intitle:Village pump" into the search bar to search all village pumps and archives (AFAIK) this is not relevant anyway. I don't see any other reason to do this. Happy‑melon 11:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  If "intitle:Village pump" allows equivalent searching to the subpages scenario then the page moves may not be needed. Although the different Village pump pages should deal with different issues theoretically, in practice, for example, there are "technical proposals" that can end up in tech or proposals and "policy proposals" that can end up in policy or proposals. I think an overall search is desirable, but maybe I'm the only one :P --Commander Keane (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  If you mean keep the pages where they are and search all at once I have to agree. rdunnPLIB  12:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  How about just one Village pump, which is surely the point of the whole idea (villages don't have separate pumps for discussing different subjects). Whether an issue ends up at VPP, VPR or VPM seems to be pretty random anyway. VPT is rather different and could be renamed to Technical issues or something. Just a thought.--Kotniski (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  Sounds like a good idea in theory; however, I think that a village pump of 439 K isn't such a good idea. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  Good point, but it would be great (regardless of whether we have 1 pump or several) if a bot could be trained to remove threads to a subpage when they got above a certain size (leaving a note, obviously), and then move them back into the archive when they conclude. That way the pump page(s) wouldn't get too large, and we could watch them without our watchlists being overwhelmed with large discussions that we've already decided we're not interested in.--Kotniski (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: As Happy-Melon pointed out, all VPs and archives can already be searched at once, since all their titles have the same prefix. In fact, the search box at the top of this very page will do that for you already. As for having all of VP on one page, we've already got that too: Wikipedia:Village pump (all), which displays all the current VP threads on one page. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:27, 4 Mar 2009 (UTC)

  Well, you learn something every day. It's not very useful though, as you can't edit it directly.--Kotniski (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per Equazcion (Aggreeing espescialy on with Equazcion on the subpages).  rdunnPLIB  11:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - with all this side tracking... Is there a reason that VPM isn't just "Village pump"? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 15:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Probably simply to encourage people not to use it unless their issue doesn't fit in one of the others - essentially, to make it the obvious last-port-of-call rather than the first. ~ mazca ^t|c 10:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - it would be way more trouble than it's worth, especially considering that for consistency, everything linked from Wikipedia:Village pump archive would also have to be moved. That would be an incredibly messy process, because all the archives made before October 2004 are not subpages of the village pump. Per equazcion and Kotniski's arguments, there is very little point in this action. Re: merging all the sections of the village pump, it was split in September 2004 due to page size concerns. At that time, the village pump was the main forum for discussion in Wikipedia, before WP:AN and WP:ANI]] took over that role. I oppose unsplitting, because it allows people to specialise; for example I prefer to read the technical village pump and only rarely read the other sections of the pump. Graham87 11:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

  If this section is what's worrying you - I would be willing to deal with it (it would require exactly 1 edit; most of the work can be done using any text editor). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

  Nope, that's not the section that is worrying me; replace all is your friend for that one. this is the one that would seem to take a helluva lot of effort to sort out without help from some kind of bot. There are also odd village pump pages like Wikipedia:Village pump sections and everything else listed at Special:AllPages/Wikipedia:Village pump and Special:AllPages/Wikipedia talk:Village pump. A lot of it is in subpages anyway but it just feels weird to categorise something like Wikipedia talk:Village pump/Agora at the same level as Wikipedia:Village pump/Policy. It's 12:40AM here so I can't quite articulate why ... I just don't understand the point of changing long-established page names without a very compelling reason. I've done quite a bit of cleaning out to make sure old archives, old page histories, etc. make sense on the VP, so maybe I feel a bit attached to the present, somewhat quirky and a bit old-fashinoned, way of doing things. Graham87 15:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see any links from these pages to other relevant VP pages; these are already subpages of the village pump. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support, You are right that it should be moved to the proper naming standard, but it will create quite a hassle with archives (and they do have quite a big of use not being subpages) but then again you do bring up a good point that Wikipedia should try to follow its own naming convention.Smallman12q (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Does it have one that would cover this? Where is it documented?--Kotniski (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• I really can't bring myself to support or oppose this. It's not, in principle, a bad idea but it seems to be little more than change for change's sake - both Village pump (policy) and Village pump/Policy are logical names for the page, and as it's already at the former there don't seem to be any compelling reasons to change that. As mentioned above, both brackets and subpages are used in this situation elsewhere, there is not a strong or necessary precedent. ~ mazca ^t|c 11:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The retitling has no utility. There is no overarching naming standard that the proposed change would function to make consistent. WP:VP does not function the same way as WP:AN does vis-à-vis its subpages. Instead, WP:VP is an information page that no one posts to, which is just shy of functioning as a soft redirect to the four main pages identified by topic.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• OpposeThis retitling would make Wikipedia different from Wikimedia Commons and other Wiki sites. Although only recently very active, I find the discussions in Village Pump helpful, and the replies to my postings prompt and informative. Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Dthomsen8
• Neutral I don't personally have a strong feeling one way or the other on this one. While Wikipedia doesn't normally use sub-pages the way that Citizendium does in namespace, I can understand the AN/I argument in that the pump is somewhat it's own identity. To some extent it does seem like a lot of extra work for minimal gain, but since I'm not forced to do "the work", it doesn't matter to me. — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 23:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support I just did a similar reorganization at the WP:TYPO project. You gain the nice links near the top that help navigate the tree. Plus it just makes the project feel better structured. It would be tedious especially for Village pump but if somebody is willing to do it, more power to them. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

  It's not tedious. If an admin moves a page which has subpages, the possibility "Move subpages (up to 100), if applicable" appears as one of the move options. This should deal with the various archives. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support I'm not sure why we should care about uniformity across projects or why we should treat the current titles as 'special'. I think the name changes are reasonable. Protonk (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - very limited (if any) benefit, large upheaval. The current system "looks and feels" better, too. Brackets are snazzier than slashes. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Seems to be trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist, this works fine, lets not cause any confusion, potential or otherwise. — neuro^(talk) 21:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, solution in search of a problem. Tempshill (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Any behind-the-scenes Wikipedia project page should be about usability first, an anything else later. Renaming would merely result in the page meeting some policy with no improved benefits for its users. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Why? If they are fine as they are, then there really is no point. They are just like news, not subpages. Not exactly much gain from changing them, way I see it... If it ain't broke, don't fix it!! AND it seems to me there are 3 people who actually support this, and like 20 who oppose it. Let's just remove the tag to this page, leave the village pump alone, and get on with our lives.173.48.223.2 (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Mojara

• Unclear Why aren't redirects a sufficient solution? With redirects we can keep the old names and create separate (and smaller) subpages. I think the proposal needs more thought. Phil_burnstein (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support This exact question came up in relation to my uContribs tool: "I contribute a lot to the various village pumps, can I see all my activity in one place?" (referring to the "page family" analysis). Also, it matches the conventions used at WP:AN and WP:REFDESK. Addressing Equazcion, yes these pages are "special" but in the same way as those others. The AN page family is where to discuss stuff with administrators, RD is where to ask about stuff where knowledgeable people hang out, VP is where to throw out your ideas for discussion. The anomaly is mostly VPT, which is often an uber-advanced help desk. Franamax (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support The sooner it's done the better. It makes navigation easier. I can just click the link at the top of the article to go to a different level, or type some extra characters in the address bar. Also, a hierarchical restructuring tends to be more toolserver-friendly in case any future bulk edits become desirable. SharkD (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The banner announcing this move discussion has already annoyed me far more than the titles of the VP pages ever did. - BanyanTree 23:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, although my first instinct was to support. I am convinced by the "oppose" arguments above. I kind of like uniformity, it usually makes things easier – but I fail to see that there is any problem here, and why we should fix this non-existent problem just for the sake of it.--Ezeu (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• This seems to be getting stale, with 7 supports (plus one effectively withdrawn) and 14 opposes. Time to put it to bed? Happy‑melon 12:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Yes!  rdunnPLIB  12:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I sometimes forget the names of VP pages and get annoyed when I try to go to Wikipedia:Village pump/Technical and get this. But all that can be fixed by just making the subpagey titles redirect to the current titles. There's no need to move stuff around. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Wikipedia:Village pump/Technical redirects to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    • And they all redirect. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this isn't going anywhere. Closing, no consensus to move. Happy‑melon 21:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.