Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive AJ

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals).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

Senior Editor

And yes, I've read the FAQ. And I did see it posted. However I don't the reason for objection is strong enough.

For most people on Wikipedia their are I.P. users, Registered Accounts, and Admins. I think their needs to be a middle level between Registered Accounts and Admins. For example, admins may page protect, delete pages, block users, ect. Most users often come across situations were they might need to protect a page or if they are monitoring AfD and an article needs deleted, they instead have wait for a Admin to delete that article. A middle level, which could be called a Senior Editor, would be able to delete articles and protect pages. The process would work like:

Editor ———> Request for Seniority ———> Senior Editor ———> Request for Admin ———> Admin...ect.


The senior editors would NOT have the power to block a user, but they would be able to make edits to protected pages, protect pages themselves, delete articles (including speedy) , restore deleted articles, ect. They would have to go through a process that would be similar to RfA. I don't have any ideas on this, but it could be possible to become an Admin without being a Senior Editor. I don't know. I'm just throwing the idea out there. Thanks! WǐkǐɧérṃǐťTalk to me or learn something new! 01:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea, but what with the whole admin rehaul thing going on, this may be the last thing that those people there would want to think about. What I might suggest, though, is that you run the idea by at WP:RfA or tell them to come here. I might also suggest that the process of becoming a "senior editor" (or an alternative name) might be similar to the current GAC process, whereby a user is put on a list and reviewed by one admin, and if he or she deems that person acceptable, then they would get the status. Maybe to make it sound more appropriate, we could only give these people the rights to do certain things, like protect and maybe delete. Or maybe a page may be deleted fully if two "Senior editors" press the delete button. Who knows. └Jared┘┌talk┐  01:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Admin rehaul? Where is this being discussed? Corvus cornix 01:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. Admin overhaul. See this signpost article. Also, I was thinking that Wikipedia:Limited administrators would be a good place to start looking, and possibly the talk page, for suggestions on what to do. └Jared┘┌talk┐  01:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You may also want to peruse Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform, to see if someone has already suggested this, or make a new proposal there. └Jared┘┌talk┐  01:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Possibly a board of Admins (say 5) who could approve "Seniority." The purpose of the "senior editor" should be encyclopedic. WǐkǐɧérṃǐťTalk to me or learn something new! 01:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah. It's Requests for Adminship that is being discussed (although perusal of the mailing list indicates that this has been discussed ad nauseum for months now), not Adminship per se. Corvus cornix 20:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I would strongly oppose granting delete powers to users through a less extensive review than the current RfA process. The word of one or two current admins is nowhere near enough. Look at various recent failed RfAs. DES (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I sort of agree. But what's outlined at Limited administrators is appropriate, I think. └Jared┘┌talk┐  01:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It says articles created within 3 days. That would prevent a person avoiding AfD and would allow Speedy Deletion for vandalism. I think they should also be allowed page protects. WǐkǐɧérṃǐťTalk to me or learn something new! 02:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly, vociferously, vigorously oppose. The last thing we need is yet another class of users around here. This is overly bureaucratic and serves no purpose. If a person can be trusted to delete something or protect something, they certainly can be trusted to block someone. We don't need yet another class of users. --Durin 02:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    Why? The standards for adminship are insanely high! WǐkǐɧérṃǐťTalk to me or learn something new! 02:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    The only standards that should exist are that the community trusts the editor to not abuse the tools, and that the editor has enough experience on Wikipedia to be able to handle most admin situations that come along. There are some editors, unfortunately, who apply ever-increasing personal standards to the position, which only causes reactions such as yours. It's really too bad. One good bit of news: there has been a recent upsurge in the number of people requesting adminship. Hopefully that trend will hold steady. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    So change the standards. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    Exactly. If we can trust someone not to go insane with two extra buttons, we can trust them not to go insane with one more too. If not, they shouldn't have any extra ones. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    Why don't we just give them all root, then? And regardless, the standards for adminship have gone way beyond "can trust not to go insane w/ the buttons" - and part of the reason is that it's not easy to desysop. Here's my proposal. Have these powers (delete depending on article age, etc. maybe also let them semi-protect) but have it be something that any bureaucrat can give _or take_. --Random832 23:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The merits of having limited administrators aside, there is no reason to believe that people will not just bring their absurd standards to this, as well. The only way to avoid that is to have that aformentioned "Senority board", which is a very bad idea. The community should have the power to decide who gets tools, not a clique of five people. -Amarkov moo! 04:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There are so many things a non-admin can do to help out, that it doesn't help much to create limited adminship. Either the community trusts you, or it doesn't. All admin functions should be limited to admins, with the possible exception of closing XFDs as keep/merge/redirect/no consensus. YechielMan 04:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
YechielMan is right. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 05:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree as well. Adding another class of editors will just confuse the general process more. The Wikipedia community as a whole must be able to confirm if the person is trusted or not. We can't have a class which has half of the admin tools with approval from a clique of admins. And yes, I'm sure that RfA is a grueling process, but it is a step that must be taken in order to trust someone with the tools. Sr13 (T|C) ER 11:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
One of the ideas used at wikiversity is probationary admins. Basically, if one admin thinks someone would make good admin, the take them on as a apprentice. The bureaucrat promotes the user to a admin, and the trainer keeps a eye on them for a week. After a week, the community votes on how well they handled the trial period and gives a yes or no on full adminship. --Rayc 05:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Rayc, your suggestion would encourage cliques and admin abuse. A rogue admin could take a friend on as an apprentice, and ask them to make an inappropriate admin action on their behalf, hoping that it will be hidden among the friend's hundred appropriate admin actions.
Perhaps, under certain circumstances, probationary adminship could be granted through RFA (and perhaps it could even be an option along Support, Oppose and Neutral). For example:
  • An RFA where there is a numerical consensus to promote (80% or more), but the opposers raised one or two serious concerns that were not adequately addressed by the candidate or the supporters (possibly because they were raised too late). Probationary adminship should only be used if the RFA would easily pass if there were no serious concerns. What constitutes a serious concern is left to the closing bureaucrat's discretion, but I'm thinking along the lines of diffs which suggest the candidate would abuse the tools, or glaring inexperience with an area in which the candidate has indicated they wish to use their admin tools (when the candidate has indicated at least two other areas where they have sufficient experience).
  • An RFA where the candidate indicates that they wish to focus on a severely-neglected but important area (such as image backlogs), and there is about 70% support (slightly falling short of numerical consensus), with the supporters applauding the candidate's contributions to that area, and the opposers mainly stating that the candidate should not focus on only one area.
  • An RFA where the candidate is a bot focusing on a severely-neglected but important area, and there is about 70% support (slightly falling short of numerical consensus), with the supporters hailing the benefits of the bot, and the opposers mainly stating that bots should not be granted adminship.
  • An RFA where the candidate is a former administrator who was desysopped for abuse of admin tools, and there is about 70% support (slightly falling short of numerical consensus), with the supporters stating that the candidate should be given another chance given their past history of positive contributions, and the opposers harping on the incident that got the candidate desysopped.
Probationary adminship should last a week or two, after which another RFA is run where the community decides whether the candidate passed their probation or not. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No to what encourages more stratification within the community. - Mailer Diablo 17:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Who gets to decide the board of 5 admins? The Senior Junior editors? And who gets to choose them? :) No more layers needed, please. Aim to make things simpler, not more complex. – Riana ऋ 17:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I think powers should be individually assigned, on request, for performing specific tasks. There's no need for it to be all or nothing, and this is already possible with trivial software modifications to create a group for each power. This would hopefully also defuse a lot of the hullabaloo around RfA, as we wouldn't have to be as careful about it if we weren't giving out as much power. Besides, it's good as a matter of security principle to follow the principle of least privilege, and it would allow people to gradually phase into adminship while under observation. Dcoetzee 17:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not, as currently worded. Probationary periods are easy to fake-out, and we've seen recently how much damage a rogue user with the extra tools can do in 17 minutes. There are any number of things that person could have done that would have been even worse, moreover. Meanwhile, I don't even trust our current administrators enough right now to mentor new admins on a one-on-one basis; the only protection we have against more rogue actions is the global scope of RFA, and that anyone (even an anon. user) can participate to alert us. That's how the 'pedia as a whole works, and that's how the granting of (the dangerous) powers and tools should work. Is RFA's culture sprained? Probably, but doing an end-run is not going to solve that. Change the culture. Support decent users who are on the borderline. Encourage users to run. Nominate someone you think might pass. -- nae'blis 17:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Potentially a very bad idea indeed. And I say that even though the idea of having a middle point at which to aim without trying for adminship was appealing for a moment. Until sense reigned. All of the above objections are valid, so I won't bother repeating them. Adrian M. H. 19:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, then the less complicated on the structure, the better. Hence there should not have any extra tiers of users.--Kylohk 14:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Future of Wikipedia

Are there plans for Wikipedia to evolve from a collective encyclopedia to a full blown interactive source of education with concrete indexing, say Mathematics with subindexes for basic mathematics followed by Algebra, Geometry, and Trigonomics, followed by Calculus, etc. in a logical coherent learning format including programmed learning, exercises and examples? Can Wikipedia eventually provide an online school or university for all people? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.147.225.143 (talk • contribs).

Are you talking about a Wikiversity? -- ReyBrujo 05:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; Wikiversity and Wikibooks might be what you are looking for. --Iamunknown 05:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of Wikiversity. Thank you. :)

Policy on the use of "cleanup" and other templates in articles

This proposal was on the wrong page. Apparently, policy proposals should be placed on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy). The original proposal and all related comments have been moved there. --PeR 21:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Spelling standardization talk header

I am very much tired of seeing and or or reverting changes to Orange (colour) and similar pages where some editor, usually an anon, has gone through and substituted every "colour" with "color". It is equally frustrating (although less for me, I admit a bias) when an editor on an American English-standardized article to see someone change the article to Commonwealth English (I'll revert that too, though.) It also violates WP:ENGVAR when someone does that, and editors can be quite touchy about people trying to standardise a mixed-spelling article, even in good faith. Since that's the case, wouldn't it be a good idea to create a talk header template for such frequently-abused articles indicating that the article should generally keep using whichever variation is established? I designed a template for this idea: 

{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
|-
|[[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|50px]]
|This article's spelling has been standardized to {{#switch:{{lc:{{{spelling}}}}}
|american='''[[American English]]'''.
|british
|commonwealth='''[[British English|British]] or [[Commonwealth English]]'''.
|#default=a variety of English ('''Please clarify by specifying a variety in the template.''')
}} This spelling is established{{#if:{{{revision|}}}|, and has been established since <span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title={{PAGENAMEE}}&oldid={{{revision}}} revision {{{revision}}}]</span>|<!--no revision specified-->}}. {{#if:{{{reason|}}}|{{{reason}}}|<!--no special reason specified-->}} As such, '''please do not change the spelling standardization!''' Changes to the spelling variation to the article, including moves - if the article's title has a variation - may be reverted on sight, according to the [[WP:MOS|Wikipedia Manual of Style]]'s [[WP:ENGVAR|policy]] regarding [[American and British English spelling differences|national varieties of English spelling]]. If consensus on the article's spelling becomes unclear, please remove this notice.
|[[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|50px]]
|}

Example:

This article's spelling has been standardized to British or Commonwealth English. This spelling is established, and has been established since revision 121515871. In addition, it is so because Nihiltres thinks that it should be so, and because he wants to give a silly example special reason for spelling standardization. As such, please do not change the spelling standardization! Changes to the spelling variation to the article, including moves - if the article's title has a variation - may be reverted on sight, according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style's policy regarding national varieties of English spelling. If consensus on the article's spelling becomes unclear, please remove this notice.

What do you think? Nihiltres 23:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea, in theory. However, most of the editors who will change English styles are the editors who will not read talk pages or know the guidelines (anons, newbies). I would just revert the changes and warn the user with the {{lang0}} - {{lang5}} warnings. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I like this. However, I agree with the comment above that it would not reach the audience before the act; but rather I think its key use would be in quickly tracing the history and/or during legitimate spelling/grammar/punctuation corrections. For the former situation, the tag should consider subject (is it generally specific to a geographical location and/or dialect) as well as the original dialect it was written in; and in iffy situations (read: most situations) it should be clearly discussed on the Talk page before officially adding the tag. The tag, when added, should be done via a single edit with an all-caps edit description so that it can stand out as to when the tag was added. Now during disputes, it'd be easy to see what consensus was reached. Also, during legitimate reviews of the article, it'd help me easily choose which spelling/grammar/punctuation checker I should have selected.
Some extraneous thoughts: given my above concerns, the tag should be smaller as it serves more as reference rather than deterrence. Perhaps a small item along the side of the page rather than a banner across the width. If only we could protect specific segments of articles or perhaps sections (or can we?), it would be handy if this tag could be protected after consensus was reached as to what language the topic should be in. This would avoid confusion arising from editors changing the tag after it has been added. One last thought: the tag should provide for a link directly to the archived discussion regarding what spelling form is to be utilised. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 23:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Adding "small" capability is easy. I'm working on a version that will have a double setup for talk page revision and article revision, and for protecting the template, it can be used on a protected talk subpage and that page can be transcluded to the main talk... that's an admin issue though, I don't want to make more work for them. One moment while I finish the double version by working out a little bug. Nihiltres 02:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd think a comment in the article (near the top) would be more likely to be noticed than anything on the talk page, e.g.

<!-- This article uses [[British English]] spelling, not [[American English]] spelling.

DO NOT CHANGE THE SPELLING!

Please see [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English]] -->

Such a comment could be added by a template that was subst'd (and the links would not be "clickable". -- Rick Block (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's two combinations to address Bossi's concerns.
{| class="messagebox small-talk"
|-
|[[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|50px]]
[[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|50px]]
|This article's spelling has been standardized to {{#switch:{{lc:{{{spelling}}}}}
|american='''[[American English]]'''.
|british
|commonwealth='''[[British English|British]] or [[Commonwealth English]]'''.
|#default=a variety of English ('''Please clarify by specifying a variety in the template.''')
}} {{#if:{{{revision|}}}{{{talkrevision|}}}|<!--null-->|'''This spelling is not established.'''}} {{#if:{{{revision|}}}|This spelling was established in the article at <span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title={{PAGENAMEE}}&oldid={{{revision}}} revision {{{revision}}}]</span>.|<!--null-->}} {{#if:{{{talkrevision|}}}|It was established in the talk page on <span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}&oldid={{{talkrevision}}} revision {{{talkrevision}}}]</span>.}} {{#if:{{{reason|}}}|{{{reason}}}|<!--no special reason specified-->}} As such, '''please do not change the spelling standardization!''' Changes to the spelling variation to the article, including moves - if the article's title has a variation - may be reverted on sight, according to the [[WP:MOS|Wikipedia Manual of Style]]'s [[WP:ENGVAR|policy]] regarding [[American and British English spelling differences|national varieties of English spelling]]. If consensus on the article's spelling becomes unclear, please remove this notice.
|}
{{-}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
|-
|[[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|50px]]
|This article's spelling has been standardized to {{#switch:{{lc:{{{spelling}}}}}
|american='''[[American English]]'''.
|british
|commonwealth='''[[British English|British]] or [[Commonwealth English]]'''.
|#default=a variety of English ('''Please clarify by specifying a variety in the template.''')
}} {{#if:{{{revision|}}}{{{talkrevision|}}}|<!--null-->|'''This spelling is not established.'''}} {{#if:{{{revision|}}}|This spelling was established in the article at <span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title={{PAGENAMEE}}&oldid={{{revision}}} revision {{{revision}}}]</span>.|<!--null-->}} {{#if:{{{talkrevision|}}}|It was established in the talk page on <span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}&oldid={{{talkrevision}}} revision {{{talkrevision}}}]</span>.}} {{#if:{{{reason|}}}|{{{reason}}}|<!--no special reason specified-->}} As such, '''please do not change the spelling standardization!''' Changes to the spelling variation to the article, including moves - if the article's title has a variation - may be reverted on sight, according to the [[WP:MOS|Wikipedia Manual of Style]]'s [[WP:ENGVAR|policy]] regarding [[American and British English spelling differences|national varieties of English spelling]]. If consensus on the article's spelling becomes unclear, please remove this notice.
|[[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|50px]]
|}

Example:

This article's spelling has been standardized to British or Commonwealth English. This spelling was established in the article at revision 121515871. It was established in the talk page on revision 123456789. In addition, there's a good reason, like this example one. As such, please do not change the spelling standardization! Changes to the spelling variation to the article, including moves - if the article's title has a variation - may be reverted on sight, according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style's policy regarding national varieties of English spelling. If consensus on the article's spelling becomes unclear, please remove this notice.
This article's spelling has been standardized to British or Commonwealth English. This spelling was established in the article at revision 121515871. It was established in the talk page on revision 123456789. In addition, there's a good reason, like this example one. As such, please do not change the spelling standardization! Changes to the spelling variation to the article, including moves - if the article's title has a variation - may be reverted on sight, according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style's policy regarding national varieties of English spelling. If consensus on the article's spelling becomes unclear, please remove this notice.

Nihiltres 04:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC) (updated to fix a sentence structure bug 12:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

  • Personally, I prefer a comment in the wiki code for such articles, because the people who change it would have a hard time claiming they didn't notice it. - 131.211.210.18 13:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I support this. I'm tired of seeing editors waste time discussing how to spell an article's title on the talk pages. I'd also like to see WP:ENGVAR expanded to a separate page to be more detailed about its rationale, and then all those who wish to discuss color or colour etc. to the end of time to be sent to its talk page and ignored.. LukeSurl 00:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, I would suggest removing the flags had having something which is more to do with language than nationality, otherwise it looks like claiming territory, possibly provocative. LukeSurl 00:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that this may be cleaner on a full proposal page - I'll prepare one. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 22:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion may be held at Wikipedia:Proposal for a spelling standardization talk header. If you are interested or opposed, please participate in the poll there, or make suggestions for the improvement of this template. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 02:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose. This problem isn't severe enough to warrant yet another enormous talk page template, so wordy that no one will even read it. If a noob or PoV warrior comes along and Americanizes or Briticizes an article inappropriately, simply revert with an edit summary of "Rv. reversal of dialect, per WP:ENGVAR" and move on. PS: If a template could logically be applied to every single article on the system, the template is a bad idea. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'll have to admit, I didn't actually read the whole template. (Or really any of it for that matter.) I think it's too big and unsightly, as well as it promotes a segregation among editors of different English speaking countries (the flags...). I just don't think it's appropriate, and as SMcCandlish said, it's really not enough of a problem. └Jared┘┌talk┐  22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment A simple way to deal with this problem will be to first reach consencus on the spelling, and then reverting any subsequent changes unless it is discussed on the talk page.--Kylohk 22:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Better make sure any British version of this template says "standardisation", eh? ;) FiggyBee 19:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Please post further comments on the relevant talk page. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thisisbossi (talk • contribs) 20:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Architecture / building database

Dear Wiki, > > I would find it very useful to be able to find particular architectural > buildings - and also I am often curious about who were the designers of > particular buildings. For instance I have recently visited the new Gehery > winery in Spain (which you have in your data base) but I do not know who was > the landscape architect or the design engineer. > > Would it be possible to arrange a search / data base (and I am not very > computer literate) which told you: > > Country > Name of building > Town > Postcode (or other method of finding the building) > Architect > Engineer > Landscape Architect > Contractor / subcontractor > Owner > Contact details / opening times > Other information which might include references to other published > information, specification details etc > > I would find this interesting both for historical buildings - but also for > modern buildings ie when passing an interesting building and being able to > find more information about it. > > I can find no data base that gives me that information. During a recent > visit to Spain - I found it frustating to neither be able to find buildings > I remembered from magazine articles (inspite of remembering the name of the > engineer) - nor to know who designed buildings that I passed. > > Would wiki be interested in developing this. The information would no doubt > be supplied by your readers.

Mrsra 19:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There are informative boxes attached to the upper-right-hand-side of some articles devoted to specific buildings but not all. If you see one that should have such a box and does not, post a message at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Architecture/infobox or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture.—msh210℠ 19:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this information is interesting, but it is also very likely that no one has yet come along to add that info. Feel free to be bold and track down the information yourself, then add it into the article for others whom may be curious. Sláinte! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 21:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The informative box is {{Infobox building}}, which allows you to easily type in the names of the architect, several types of engineers, designers, etc. You can request for more fields to be added. –Pomte 21:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

EZ Wikipedia for Windows Mobile 5 and 6 devices. We need a quick search function.

As an IT guy, I love wiki.

I was wondering if we WM5 users could get a little program that installs a quick launching wiki menu, for the pedia or wiktionary.

WM6 will be out soon, but have a coder team work on WM5, which should be relatively cheap since its just a link setup, and then WM6.

The reason i ask is because I have a wikipedia quicksearch on my google desktop sidebar, and its awesome!

Also, my boss needs a fast solution to your thinktank. A simple installer would be awesome.

You could probably generate more traffic and public awareness by pairing up with cell companies like Cingular to include a Wikipedia (or other) program already installed with Cingular WM5 or WM6 devices.

~Jonathan Smith Engineering │ IT Certification Manager S. Bravo Systems, Inc. │ Corporate

  • All the quick search bar does is pass whatever you tell it to the same form handler as the sidebar box. You could probably whip up a bookmark for a browser to handle that in a few minutes. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"discussion still open"

Consider the following scenario: User A asks a question. User B then posts a comment or answer. A does not consider B's reply sufficient, so awaits further responses. A might (or might not) post a reply to B indicating as much (i.e., that A is awaiting more). Sometimes, in fact, B did not mean his reply to be complete, and knows that A will await more replies. But: Other potential helpers who see a reply posted will be less likely to read the discussion, figuring it's taken care of, or is being taken care of. So the question is never resolved — not by B, who answered incompletely but with good intention, and not by anyone else, who thinks that the discussion is resolved.

This does happen. Look at WP:VP, WP:RD, and WP:HD, and you'll see that it actually happens pretty often. (I suppose it must happen on WP:NCHP too.)

I therefore propose the following: A new template {{open}} (or some other name for it) that reads something like:

THIS DISCUSSION IS STILL OPEN. The issues involved have not been resolved to the satisfaction of the original poster. Please read the discussion and help resolve it.

It would be only for use by the originator of a discussion (original poster), and would need to be followed by ~~~~.

Thoughts? — The Great Redirector 20:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If the original poster wants the discussion to remain open, then they can say so; all they have to do is write "I'd like more responses, this discussion is still open." or something. I don't see the need for a template – Gurch 06:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
A few reasons:
  1. The yellow all-caps are eye-catching. (This item doesn't really answer Gurch's point.)
  2. The person who didn't answer the question and hopes others will, but posted something, as in my scenario above, can use the template to alert others to the fact that the question is still open, where the original poster might not do so out of diffidence or something. (This item doesn't answer Gurhc's point.)
  3. The existence of a template will encourage people to use it where otherwise they might not write such a thing.
  4. Whatever bot automatically archives the page (whether it's this page or WP:HD or another) can be programmed to skip questions that have the template in them.
— The Great Redirector 17:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
There's a simple way to prevent a bot archiving a section, at least for a while: it's ~~~~. --ais523 17:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see the point of this. Generally discussions aren't defined as "open" or "closed", but rather are open by definition as long as people keep responding to them, and closed by definition when they're not. We already have issues with people misunderstanding {{historical}}, no need to add to that. >Radiant< 16:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The point of a discussion is to improve an article, not to have a completed discussion. The best way to get more responses is to say that you're going to edit the article unless there is further discussion. (It's best, obviously, to do this only if (a) there has been no response; (b) responses haven't been on point, and you explain why, or (c) you summarize the discussion to date and explain why you think the edit change you want to make is appropriate, based on that.)
    • Adding an "open" template also is problematical if the editor wanders off and doesn't return. At what point can someone remove the template? And given that it's undated, reviewing the page history is needed to figure out if someone in fact has posted afterwards, if the template were at the top of a section. (If the template is not at the top of a section, another editor posts below it, yet the poster isn't satisfied, does he/she then move it further down in the section?)
    • Finally, the template implies that the originator of a discussion owns the section, since apparently he/she is the only one authorized to post such a template. But others may feel the discussion is incomplete; do they post a different template to say so? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

redirects from/to official names

There are templates for redirect pages; see WP:TMR if you're unfamiliar with these, or WP:R for redirection info in general.

Among the templates are {{r to scientific name}} and {{r from scientific name}}. These are meant, afaIct, to be used for plants, animals, and the like, redirecting an organism's common name to or from its name in binomial nomenclature. E.g., see Balaenoptera brydei or Almond-scented millipede.

There are redirect articles that are not of species or the like, but which, like species, are redirects from an official name to a less-official name, or vice versa. For example, redirecting from a full name to the better-known partial name (e.g., Nicholas Barthelot Lemann) or from a real name to a better-known nickname (e.g., Chamunorwa Kwenda), or vice versa. For most of these, there is no appropriate redirection template,[1] so I've been using {{r to scientific name}} and {{r from scientific name}}. Do you think that that's appropriate, or do you think something else (already existing) is better, or should new templates (perhaps {{r from official name}} and {{r to official name}}) be created? — The Great Redirector 18:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Text associated with the template indicates the template's use as: "This is a redirect from the binomial nomenclature to the common name." This description attempts to restrict its use to the scope you've described - nomenclature relating to biological organisms. For Personal Names (which you mention) it might be useful to have templates such as Template:R to alias or Template:R to pseudonym and the obverse, Template:R from legal name. There are other scientific-colloquial pairs that might bear treatment in a simlar manner. For instance, drug brand names (market name) vs. drug generic names (INN) vs. drug trade name (legal entity name) {example - Seduxen vs. Diazepam vs. Valium); the naming convention for drugs is to use the generic name as the title and there exists Template:R from brand name and Template:R from trade name. Gene naming is an exercise in disambiguation among synonyms where one symbol is the official and all others are synonyms: example - MAP2K1 (official symbol) = MEK1 (colloquial synonym symbol) = "protein kinase, mitogen-activated, kinase 1" (official name) = "MAP Kinase Kinase 1" (one of many colloquial synonym names). What is my point? My point is that there will be identifiable clusters of official-colloquial name mappings and where such clusters are identifiable, a dedicated R-template pair would likely be useful. For the large number of such name mappings where an identifiable cluster is difficult to readily identify (for instance, "U.S. Territory of Guam" and "Guam") the primary generic template is Template:R from alternative name, which is blind to official vs. colloquial usage. The question is whether it would be useful to have a generic Template:R from official name or not. It would not be a bad idea, but it could create as many problems as it solves in the absence of verifiability of the official status. Ultimately there are three places the 'official' designation verifiability can rest: in the template text, which would be suitable for official-colloquial pairs that emerge from an identifiable single officiating agency; in the target article; as a citation on the redirect (verrrry rare at present). I'll think on this some more later, but I think I've tossed out enough opinion and example fertilize this discussion for now. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've been bold and added {{R from full name}} and Category:Redirects from full names. Note that the text found on both those pages indicates that the template and cat are for redirects from "...a title that is a complete or more complete name...", not necessarily a complete one. — The Great Redirector 19:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ For some, {{r from abbreviation}} might be appropriate.

The "Vandalpedia"

This may have already been proposed. It may even already exist. But I've been thinking. If vnadalism is such a big issue on the Wikipedia, how about we let it happen, but not ON the Wikipedia. Place a link, easily viewable, on the mainpage, to a "Vandalpedia". This "Vandalpedia" would be a full mirror of the Wikipedia on which people will have the full right to vandalize it in any way. It probably wouldn't deter the problem much, but at least a little bit. Madhackrviper 15:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia probably counts.GDallimore (Talk) 15:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought awhile back about an idea to add links to Uncyclopedia on the user vandalism templates - giving bored people something amusing might deter them from vandalising Wikipedia for amusement. As for a link on the Main Page: Forget it, that's just an acknowledgement of the problem vandalism poses, and who'd use it? Vandals and trolls are rarely rational. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 16:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Personally I feel that we should not have to assume good faith when it comes to blatant or persistent vandals. Still, until such time as the policy is reverse, I will still show it. -- KirinX 16:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:AGF states: When you can reasonably assume that a mistake someone made was a well-intentioned attempt to further the goals of the project, correct it without criticizing. If it is obviously "blatant and persistent", then you can't "reasonably assume" it was well-intentioned. Thus "assuming good faith" in the face of blatant and persistent vandalism is actually against the guideline, which also states: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. dr.ef.tymac 17:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Nice, thanks. Now if only blocking admins that remove perfectly reasonable AIV reports, would actually refer to that. Or perhaps blocking policy needs to be changed to reflect that. I don't believe vandals have any intentions of contributing positively, so if an IP is blocked, so what if a user who inherits the IP a month later has to apply for an unblock? This policy of never indef blocking IPs is just contributing to the vandalism problem. It's a big huge revolving door. -- KirinX 17:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Vandalpedia, huh? How about making a large dedicated "graffiti wall" so people can write whatever nonsense they like, and it would all be gone by the end of the day!--Kylohk 21:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
We already have one of those, too: WP:Sandbox. GDallimore (Talk) 21:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget the interwiki. 129.98.212.51 01:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you'd be surprised at how organized Uncyclopedia has to be. People get blocked for cracking unfunny or lame jokes, for goodness sake! bibliomaniac15 01:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Uncyclopedia takes its humor quite seriously I have noticed when I go there. It greatly looks down on vandal style humor and heavily uses satire or parody. Uncyclopedians don't like vandals any more than we do. Captain panda 02:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, even humor has its quality. Of course typical politically incorrect stuff brings lots of laughs. Just look at Borat! But if what you write isn't funny, then well, you are going to hurt many people's feelings.--Kylohk 22:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I suppose I should clarify and qualify what I said: when I mentioned Uncyclopedia, I didn't mean to imply that we should redirect vandalism there - I meant that giving bored people something to do rather than vandalize Wikipedia would encourage them to stop, assuming boredom is their motive. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 15:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes I wonder whether there are edit wars in Uncyclopedia. But still, their article on Edit Wars certainly is a humorous but truthful way to assess the situation!--Kylohk 22:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Vital Articles

Would it make sense for the various project teams to make more detailed forks of the WP:VA page for different specialities? (Using, for example, a naming scheme such as: "Wikipedia:Vital {subject} articles", where {subject} is one of the VA sub-section headings.) I know the main VA page still has a lot of topics to address, but I'd like to be able to work on expanding the tree for the few subjects in which I have an interest. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It might be useful with this to look for WikiProject top/high-importance rated articles - those will often be vital. As for creating specialized lists, as long as all of the articles are arguably vital, sounds fine - Nihiltres(t.c.s) 17:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Maintenance

Is any one interested in starting a special group known as Wikipedia:WikiProject Maintenance? The Wikiproject Maintenance is a specialized group of people that are just dedicated to cleaning up Wikipedia and making it a better and reliable place to be. If anyone as any comments about this please go to my talk page or write below. This could be huge step forward for Wikipedia.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 01:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What would it be? There's no way for a single Wikiproject to maintain all of Wikipedia... -Amarkov moo! 01:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
As Radiant noted, there are already some projects for this purpose. Placeholder account 23:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Tables for deletion

As some might already know, we now have a "Table" namespace. Eventually we'll need a place for deletion discussions - right now, it seems it would default to Mfd. Should this new namespace be handled at Mfd, or should it be handled at Tfd? --- RockMFR 04:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd think TfD, since the two are going to be quite closely interrelated and the deletion criteria for them will probably be similar as well. (Plus the initials work.) --tjstrf talk 04:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Thus far all of these tables were templates at some point, and I've seen no discussion that suggest that they will be anything more than what templates were. I'd prefer that they be kept at TfD. --Iamunknown 04:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
(ec) x 3 I would suggest MfD for now, seems the best place, since everything without a proper discussion page goes there. -- ReyBrujo 04:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And now it's gone. [1] --- RockMFR 22:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Move protected much-edited pages

May I suggest that every article in the top 10, 25, or even 50 of Special:Mostrevisions is move protected? Some already are. Let's use common sense: there are a lot of revisions for most of them (by definition), and there's not a chance in hell that (m)any would need to be moved. The openness of our wiki is important, but let's invite people to experience it in more constructive ways.

See the history of Adolf Hitler. Are there better reasons than "BCUZ" to move some of these pages? GracenotesT § 01:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've advocated this before, we should common sense and move protect the obvious (e.g. Tree, water, George W. Bush. John Reaves (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not against this idea, but only after several moves have been reverted. -- ReyBrujo 02:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I could arrange that :P Personally, I see nothing wrong with a small amount of ignorance of the protection policy, especially since move vandalism makes everyone depressed and nervous. GracenotesT § 02:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Eh, I guess we'll see what happens. No exigencies implicated in this, but "why not". GracenotesT § 02:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
First and foremost, we are an open free encyclopedia, and ideally, all articles should be open (as in, not protected). Everytime we protect an article, at least personally, it is a step back in our mission. And second, because we may encourage massive move vandalism of less known articles. -- ReyBrujo 03:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
If you're talking about semi-protection, that's perfectly correct. But move protection? GracenotesT § 03:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Sounds reasonable. If an article has no plausible reason to be moved (I mean come on, is Bush going to change his name any time this century?) then a moveprot doesn't hurt. >Radiant< 16:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Isn't this covered by point 3 at WP:PROT#Move protection? –Pomte 21:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • That point certainly is an argument that it could be a good idea for someone (an administrator) to take a more systematic approach to protecting high-revision pages. As for "all pages should be open", common sense says that if there were in fact consensus to move (rename) a high-traffic page, it wouldn't be much of an effort to get an administrator to do so, and obviously this would be extremely rare. So add a support from me. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Yep, it's covered; I thought that Mostrevisions would be a good place to start. GracenotesT § 20:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot proposal - automated article sorting

I brought this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting several days ago, but there hasn't been any activity there. It seems to me that a bot similar to AlexNewArtBot could be used to automatically sort more than just new pages. A bot could scan articles at WP:AFD, WP:FAC, WP:PR, etc., determine the subject of each article (through the rules system used by AlexNewArtBot), and then post a notice on some page that editors with expertise in that subject could monitor (probably a subpage of the relevant WikiProject). This would provide WikiProject members with a central location to see all articles under the purview of their project that are currently undergoing any sort of Wikipedia process. Is this a good idea? Is it possible? jwillburtalk 02:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I can probably try to experiment with something like this (ANAB was approved under promise not to write anything into the mainspace, it does not said anything about the wikispace 8-) ). The rules required might be more complex then for the ANAB Alex Bakharev 05:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
That would be great, Alex. I wish I knew more about regexps, so I could help out. jwillburtalk 01:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a proposal to add a new upload link, to Project:Upload, to the sidebar. Discussion is at MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext#Proposal for mass overhaul, matching Commons. Uncle G 18:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Start Tag?

What do people think of this? After a stub is no longer a stub, it can be tagged with a "start tag" signifying that it is no longer short,etc etc(whatever a stub is defined as) but now a start(whatever a start is correctly defined as). There could be the same start tags as there are the same stubs (eg "disease stub" with "disease start", and once the stub gets enough content it can move on to the start tag, where more people will have ability to see it and possibly work on it. Thus once the start taged article is worked on long enough it will then go on to the next up level (but by then the article will be far better than what a typical 'start' type article looks like. I know there are already articles labeled as "starts" on their talk page, but there are also "stubs" labeled as such on their talk page as well (articles that are usually rated by their wikiproject) and furthermore, not everyone looks (or bothers) to look at the discussion page anyway (personal random choice really)(Furthermore this is not to say that a "start" tag will trigger a impulse in someone's brain to say, hey lets make this article beter, but they can also say that for the stub tag as well true?..applies to new users in particular). Unless of course youre thinking that having MORE tags is a bad thing, and now it would take FOREVER to implent into the countless "start" articles, im sure it can be achieved.(Probably with the creation of a new wiki fix up project? or bot?). So yeah, sorry if this has already been asked before or its written in the wrong place. Thanks in advance. petze 03:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There are thousands and thoudsands of stubs, and no matter what you object, it will take a very long time to do that. There should always be an improvement impule in one's brain. Labelling something as Start rather than Stub will do nothing. IMO, the rating of articles with Featured, Good, stub, or none is fine enough, without A or B. Reywas92Talk 03:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That depends on the individual new users then again. I was on wikipedia for years and years and looking at articles, didnt make me want to improve them even after i signed in with a user name (so as a new user). I would have liked it if someone else did in a few months time but that is not the same. Start from stub wont necessairly do nothing, but it would be a way of beter organizing maybe? And wouldnt having something, be better than nothing? I mean they can be 'nothing' when they are rated B's or A's in their talk page, after the start improvment? And once they are nothing they can be worked at until they become Good Articles? I dunno my random 2 cents. Thanks for the input either way. Oh btw it wont take that long... only as long as every other wikiproject out there individually ;).petze 04:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Any other proposals?Suggestions?Comments?Does silence mean we dont like ur idea, plz go away lol? Give me advice peoplee...hehe. petze 07:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't this just be redundant to the wikiproject banners? For stubs, the tag serves as an open plea for someone to fix the article since nobody is currently editing it, but once a page is start class there is obviously someone who knows and cares about the page so it's assumed that it will improve normally. On an unrelated note, would you please go to your preferences and uncheck the "use raw signature" box, so that your sig will link to your userpage and others can contact you more easily? --tjstrf talk 07:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah but why stop at getting it out of stub? Dont we want more than just "start" type articles filling up wikipedia (better than a million stub articles but still..) and you cant say 100% of people who turn a stub into a start, necessairly continue working on it... but i guess I could be wrong. Ah yeah thanks, i had no idea about the raw sig thing... i just assumed i had to type in "four tildas" with the double closed brackets to make a link to my page. Still new to this alll.... Thanks for ur comments either way. Later then.petze 08:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, don't understand. Articles are categorized (stub, start, A, B, etc.) on talk pages - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ. Hundreds of thousands of articles have already been so categorized. There really isn't any reason to duplicate the assessments by putting them on the articles as well. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, any tag that is a quality indicator should be avoided on the article itself, since it may appear unsightly. Only FAs and maybe GAs should be labelled, albeit with a small one, so people can know whether the article is the cream of the crop.--Kylohk 13:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Protecting the featured article

The feature article from 2 days ago was corrupted with an explicit (gay sex) photo for a short period of time. I could also see someone going into a feature article and incorrectly/intentionally changing something less obvious. While there are many people who could catch it, the most vulnerable article on Wikipedia is the feature article.

It would be great if there were people who could monitor the article...but it would be even better if the article was locked while it was featured. Changes could either be made once the article was no longer featured, or a separate "proposed changes" page could exist while the article was featured, and changes could be made by committee during or after the article is featured.

Johnny1926 14:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death, so here it is in a nutshell. For the duration of its stay on the main page, the featured article probably has a hundred worthy editors checking on it from time to time, who will revert vandalism. Also, protecting our most visible article takes away from the "anyone can edit" portion of the philosophy. --Phoenix (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
In fact, front page Featured Articles almost always stay unprotected. As a result, you could imagine the chaos on the Wii article when it was up front. What a mess to clean up, with vandalism popping up every second.--Kylohk 22:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Wii was a good example. It was semi-protected in the hours leading up to its main page stay, then was unprotected for the duration, then later reprotected. --Phoenix (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Consensus can change. That this has been "discussed to death" is not a valid reason to prematurely close the discussion. In December 2006, several editors conducted an analysis of vandalism to Main Page featured articles. The findings of fact (please note that vandalism by newly registered accounts, self-reverted vandalism and template vandalism are not included in the statistics):
  • 70-85% of anonymous edits to Main Page featured articles are vandalism.
    • Featured articles are in a vandalised state for 6-10% of the 24 hours they spend on the Main Page.
      • Semi-protection is used occasionally on Main Page featured articles, and often lasts several hours.
Per the above statistics, I believe we should review our policy of not protecting Main Page featured articles. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
15-30% good edits from anons alone? That's above the "90% of everything is crap" rule-of thumb. Excellent. Let's keep it that way. We still get plenty of improvements.
This does worry me about current demographics for the longer term though. We used to count on 90% of anons being honest (or at least, >50%). In such cases, pages do not actually even need to be patrolled. This is a major problem, because wikis depend heavily on this kind of anon demographics. I have some ideas about what we are doing wrong, but what do other people think? --Kim Bruning 13:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the page history of Gilwell Park, on the Main Page yesterday, it is unacceptable how many reverts had to be made during that 24 hours. IMO, the featured article of the day needs to be at least semi-protected. Reywas92Talk 14:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Dang! William Monahan's history for its day was much worse, with even more vandalism from IPs (than from logged-in vandals). Reywas92Talk 14:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion? Yeah, I actually agree with you and think it should be semi-protected as well, but I respect the fact that the arguments against it probably have more merit than those for it. --Phoenix (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Is anyone taking into account Wikipedia's credibility? How many people are turned off Wikipedia when they come across vandalised pages? If Jimbo changed stance, you'd all jump ship. How long does Jimbo spend fighting vandalism? Not much. He's probably more concerned with maximum publicity (which can be tapped for his commercial efforts) than with producing a decent encyclopaedia... I'm torn between wanting vandalism to just stop (not gonna happen), and wanting it to soar until the people with their fingers in their ears ("lalalalala, I'm not listening") are forced to pay attention. --Seans Potato Business 13:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Audio

I just want to bring attention to this template used to listen to an article's title pronunciation. My main problem with it is that it includes nothing less than three links —"pronunciation" or "listen," "info" and "help" (example here)— which are very distracting and add unnecessary clutter, where a simple audio icon linking to the Image (file) page would suffice. All the needed help and information can be placed there, so there's no real reason to clutter the article with "microsoftian" links. I've been trying for months to remove the links, but the talk page is not exactly bustling with activity. I would like to get this issue resolved once and for all. Thank you for your help and support! ☆ CieloEstrellado 09:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should only be the image of the speaker thing that is already there. No parentheses, no links, just that. That makes the most sense. └Jared┘┌talk┐  01:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Since Antidisestablishmentarianism already has {{inline audio}} at the top, I've removed the (info) links. I see no reason for someone to need to get to the Image: page of a pronunciation other than maintenance or to find who uploaded it, which can be done by looking at the wikilink and they'd know how to do this. I think it's better to keep (info) for other cases such as song clips, and (help) provided {{inline audio}} isn't nearby. –Pomte 09:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
We need to provide an easy link to show who uploaded it, to comply with the GFDL. There's no guarantee that no GFDL audio files will be used with Template:Audio. More talk at Template talk:Audio-nohelp. --Kjoonlee 11:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
*Falls on floor* Seriously, I'm talking about having less links, not more! ☆ CieloEstrellado 12:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The links aren't really that obtrusive and of course we shouldn't violate the GFDL just to make things look prettier. To get rid of the info link, you can direct the main link to the info page, but that would make it more tedious to access the audio file. –Pomte 12:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm dead serious as well and we can't get rid of the info links. The help links can be reduced if and only if we can provide an alternative help link. Hence Template:Inline_audio, and the -nohelp audio templates. Other than that, I agree the help/info links aren't really that obtrusive. --Kjoonlee 14:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you dislike the links so much, you can put ".audiolinkinfo {display: none}" (without the quotes) inside your monobook.css page and they won't be displayed at all. --Kjoonlee 15:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not looking at a private solution here, I believe the links should really not be there. We don't do this for images and we do not violate the GFDL by not doing it. Really, how many people actually listen to these files? It just doesn't justify the cluttering for the rest. ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
But we do link to the image page from the images. It's impossible not to link to image pages. And please don't say people don't listen to the files. That's insulting to all the people who work hard to record and upload their files. Also, it is a private situation you're facing here. --Kjoonlee 16:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It looks as if you're trying to coerce your own preferences onto other users. That doesn't seem very compatible with the NPOV policy. --Kjoonlee 16:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
If people do think info links are cluttersome, they can hide the links themselves. --Kjoonlee 16:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see MediaWiki talk:Sp-contributions-footer#Proposal: useful tools. This is a small but very useful change and some other wikis already done this. — Alex Smotrov 23:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please correct the descriprion in the Home page name with dictator instead of dicator.

Thanks, laaris@yahoo.com

New category for articles

Hi Wikipedian community, I have created a new category entitled "Articles which have been seen by internationally recognised figures who have published work in the field" and added the article [[locus of control] to it. This is because I have e-mailed several people, who I know have published work on locus of control or the related area of attributional style, about this article, and had some very good replies. True to Wikipedia's policy of anonymity, I shall name no names, but just let people know that I have had some helpful replies from people in the United States (I have had less response from the e-mails which I sent to figures in my own country, the United Kingdom). My question is - do you think it is a good idea to have a category such as this? The article on locus of control is still assigned to a category indicating it needs attention from a psychology expert, but I am hoping that this tag can be removed in the very near future. ACEOREVIVED 20:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your word is not a reliable source, and you've given no way for others to verify that internationally recognised figures have indeed seen the article. At the least, the category needs a rename: merely being seen (not necessarily read) by experts has little relevance on the present quality of the article. A variety of experts have probably seen Wikipedia articles in their respective fields, but we have no need to track them in a category as this isn't an important fact to know, and having the category can mislead people into believing the article is reliable or meets the featured criteria. In your specific case, the input of those figures are relevant and you can make a note of it on the talk page. –Pomte 22:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I have listed the category for deletion at WP:CFD. DES (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Customisable Edit History - Remove Reverts And Associated Edits From View

My proposal is to solve the problem of working with an edit history by allowing reverts and reverted edits to be temporarily hidden from view. Take for example, the Genetic engineering article, started in October 2001. I find it very difficult to believe that the current version is the product of over five and a half years work on that article. If you take a look at the edit history, you'll probably find it difficult to see past the continuous vandalism and reverts. The presence of these edits in the edit history, while potentially important in certain situations, are not necessary and are in fact a hinderence, when trying to see how an article has really developed. If you were willing to spend the time, you'd see that the article has grown reasonably large at times and sections have been removed to put in other articles. I would like to repair this article using versions from its history, but without an easy way to sort through the edits, I can't justify the time it would take. I'm reluctant to contribute to the article, if my contributions will get lost in a sea of vandalism and reverts. This seems like a relatively simple-to-implement improvement to the edit-history. --Seans Potato Business 19:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No it would not be easy. One way would be to add a rev_type field (v,r, or e) to specifiy wether an edit was vandalism or a revert. Admin rollbacks would count as "r" and the edit's reverted as "v". There still is no easy way to deal with "undo" or revert scripts. By letting sysops flag any edit retroactively, it would probably just become a distraction (wasting time flaggings revs). Anyway, history pages could have a "hide vandalism and rollbacks" link to hide those. Still, as I said, that would only cover some of the reverts and I'm not sure the schema change is worth it. Voice-of-All 19:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Seems difficult to implement, unless there was a way for the software to detect two revisions containing the same content and hide the second one and all the revisions between the two. GDonato (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't the software "know" when an edit is a revert? Doesn't it record when a previous revision is re-saved to make it the current revision? --Seans Potato Business 21:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Recent changes "knows" admin reverts, thats about it right now. Voice-of-All 22:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
If this became a default it would make 3rr vios harder to spot too. GDonato (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Isn't there some way that the software could compare the more recent edit to edits prior to determine if there are any perfect matches? Then for cases where revert edits are themselves reverted, perhaps that could undo the status of that first revert as well as the original pages reverted. ...Er, did that make any sense at all? And for spotting 3RR -- just make it an option where you could toggle show/hide reverts. People actually looking to enforce 3RR can still do so. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 22:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It's possible in theory, but that generates too much overhead. Voice-of-All 23:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, so, all is not lost. Wikipedia is a long-term project: a change can be implemented so that reverts are noted as such, along with information regarding the version that was reverted to and the edits that occured interim (i.e. the vandalism). Such edits can then be toggled on and off. It would not help me in my situation right now, but will help people (including me, hopefully) in a few years time, for so long as Wikipedia exists. --Seans Potato Business 02:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
IMO, an edit type field can and should be implemented. I previously suggested permitting editors to flag edits as vandalism reverts. As for using this to adjust how the history is presented: Technically that is doable (say with a value included for how many generations the revert is good for), but care is needed. For example, reverts that go back more than 15 generations probably represent a major revert or an intervening editor who fails to use the preview button. In the former case, you would want to see how the article evolved before the much earlier version was restored. In the later case, you just want to be past the prattle.
A better option may come with the approved versions facility that is being worked on. At least in principle, one could get past the vandalisms and edit wars by restricting their view to the versions that have been approved. Once again, this would not help you in your current situation, but would aid future users after this feature is implemented. --EMS | Talk 22:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
As the main developer on that project, I can say that these two ideas are unrelated. Voice-of-All 03:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to totally disagree with you on that. It seems to me that the approved versions facility will provide a way of providing this kind of restricted history. However, as a software developer myself I am well aware that you need to attend to one thing at a time here. After all, noone can restrict their view to approved versions until the facility is in place. However, I do advise flagging versions as having been approved. --EMS | Talk 03:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't expect there to be enough stable versions to really make a followable history. Is this kind of that you were thinking of? Voice-of-All 03:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Can't you just ignore the edit summaries indicating reversions, and take the diffs around those? The skimming would take longer, but not by an outrageous amount of time. More simply, take random diffs around 500 edits, see what sections get deleted, and restore those if they're legitimate. Do it one bit at a time, and it doesn't matter if your efforts are comprehensive. our reason for being reluctant to contribute seems irrelevant. Regardless of whether this feature gets implemented, your contributions can get lost in reversions. The only way to stop this is to periodically come back and check on the edit history. –Pomte 22:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Creation of stubs for every human gene and RNA family

At the MCB Wikiproject we are gearing up to import several databases into Wikipedia. These would include families of RNAs in collaboration with the Rfam database and the complete set of publicly-available data on each human gene in collaboration with the Novartis/GNF SymAtlas project.

I'm worried that people may object to the automated creation of these stubs on the ground of notability and wanted to float the idea here. What are people's opinions? Should we restrict this to gene families, rather than individual genes, or should we regard this as the basis for future additions as scientific knowledge grows? Each gene stub would have several references to other databases and information, an example can be seen here.

Thanks for comments. TimVickers 21:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

How many of these are you going to create? I've always hated rapid creation of stubs, especially ones that won't have much of a future. Keep them only to gene families, expanding only if one goes further than a stub. Reywas92Talk 21:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The number depends on the level that we go into the database. I'd be most happy restricting this to genes with known or proposed functions, as these will have some literature associated with them and can therefore be easily expanded in the future. On the other hand, the simple completeness of Wikipedia having an entry for every human gene is attractive, and could help us recruit more expert editors from the science community. TimVickers 22:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if the bot creating the stubs put a list of known associated sources on the talk page. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, the references in the Entrez gene page could be used. TimVickers 22:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

How many are we talking here, and is there any reason they couldn't be bot-generated into a list by family and then split out upon sufficient development? This was done with "geographic locations" a while back and we've still got tons of botstubs around from that, I don't know about anyone else but that soured me on the idea of bot-generated articles a bit. At least if it were into families there would be some meat to the article, and they'd be more likely to get eyes on them and get expanded. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Depending on which estimate you listen to, there are about 20,000 human genes annotated at present. The bot proposal is for 10,000 of these to be imported, these are the genes for which published information is available. The question isn't really how these articles are created, that's just mechanics, but instead we need to discuss what the content will be and if this content will be useful and notable. For example, is the ITK (gene) a notable subject, or does this stub not contain enough information? TimVickers 23:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. I've added some wikilinks to the sample article, which I think the bot should be able to add, and commented on the talk page for it.-gadfium 00:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if it would be possible to create these articles in a gradual fashion rather than 10,000 at once. For example, maybe the bot could identify the top 100 genes (as ranked by number of GeneRIFs in the database) that have no existing Wikipedia article and create stubs for them. A list of these could be created on a subpage of the MCB WikiProject in an attempt to attract Wikipedia editors to the new stubs. Then after a month, do the next batch, maybe 200 for the second month. --JWSchmidt 00:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The bot won't create all the genes at once, that would be a tall order indeed. The first run is planned to create just 10 new stubs. What I'm trying to do here is get a feel for the community's ideas on the eventual scope of the project, which could run over many months. TimVickers 00:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

20,000 is one in every 88 articles! I really don't think articles should be made for every one. I'm not even quite convinced that the gene families are very notable or encyclopedic. Sorry. Reywas92Talk 00:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of the example page Reywas? Does this meet the standard of notability in your opinion? Do you think only genes that have been the subject of scientific papers should be included? TimVickers 00:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Your going to need reliable sources for each of these to show their notability, otherwise it's going to put intense pressure on CAT:CSD. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, so far there are three main proposals:
  1. Create a page for each gene.
  2. Create a page for each gene that has references in the scientific literature (meeting reliable sources)
  3. Create a page for each gene family and a list of the individual genes.
TimVickers 00:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd go for number 2, there's 20,000 gene's genes, but there they're not all notable, many of the notable ones are only notable because the are linked to a disease, in which case, a merge with the disease page may be all that is required. Also, don't forget we're an encyclopedia, outside users should be able to understand the articles, not just profesionals on the subject. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I choose number three. How many of them are there? Reywas92Talk 00:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a problem in that option with classification. If we use Gene Ontology terms, each gene could fit under one of several classifications, as you can see with the ITK (gene) example. This option might seem simpler, but it would be much more complicated than any of the other options. TimVickers 01:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I would support number 2, also, I made a couple of style edits to the sample page. It had some extra line spaces between the box and the start of the prose content, creating extra whitespace at the top. Second, the title wasn't bolded in the first use. Also, most of the links on the template box under "function" and "Orthologs" are external links. Links to Wikipedia articles, if they exist are preferred (a link to an article explaining what Orthologs means would be nice as well, I had to look that one up) Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, we seem to be coming to consensus on proposal 2. This would involve the import of approximately 10,000 individual genes into stubs with 76,000 separate citations added to these stubs in order to meet WP:Reliable sources (numbers from GeneRIF statistics).

That's an interesting point Mr.Z-man, we could create a page for each GO term, and then use Wikilinks rather than external inks to the GO pages, however, then you would lose the classification information you get on GO pages such as this. I think external links are a better choice for the infoboxes (as with the standard Chembox). TimVickers 01:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Having a article for every gene is not so bad? As time goes on, more and more research goes into each, and the articles will definetelly(sp?) not stay stubs forever. I am going for number 2.petze 04:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well...I hate to rain on the parade here, because it's great to see information on genetics and such, but do remember individual articles must assert, and show, notability, since we're not, among other things, a directory. I think bot-copies of a directory of genes, for however noble a purpose, would be counter to that. Now if the various information could be ordered by gene-family, with some additional information on the family, that would probably work quite a bit better. If it turns out later that a ton of information on an individual gene is available, a splitout article can always happen later. Right now, though, I'm convinced a lot of these may remain permastubs. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

How about an entirely new wiki for the genes? GeneWiki ? With perhaps thirty thousand genes, it may deserve its own wiki, and be easier to write articles around each notably gene, around each family, around different theories surrounding certain classes of genes, etc, it will be a lot of articles. DanielDemaret 12:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
That's possible, but not what we need to decide here. TimVickers 16:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, I agree that a complete list of all the 20,000 - 30,000 predicted genes would not be notable, mainly as many of these may not be real and they may not be annotated as genes in the future (as noted in this review). Therefore, however attractive option 1 is in terms of simplicity and completeness, I don't see it meeting notability. This leaves us with deciding on our cut-off criteria. Being specific is useful here. Looking at the example posted ITK (gene), I certainly feel this is a notable subject, and with the addition of the references in it's Entrez page would make a reasonable stub. Comments? TimVickers 16:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
"Looking at the example posted ITK (gene) [...] Comments?" It needs more context data to be a useful general encyclopedia article. It should in the text clearly specify which species have this gene, on what named molecules, and what genes it is associated with in terms of genes evoluting from other genes. Futher: alternative names if any and if the letters stand for anything - if not then say so. Further: humanize it by adding dates and places and people. Somebody at some time at some place did something that lets us know the data in the article. So tell us the story. WAS 4.250 20:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I know such a page requires more text in order to become a comprehensive article, but these initial entries are intended to be stubs, not fully-fledged articles. In my opinion, a stub containing a short definition of what the gene is, a list of references for more details and a box containing a plethora of links to information in other databases is a good solid stub. Such a stub will form the basis of future additions, such as you describe, and could one day become a full article, perhaps even a featured article. TimVickers 22:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
If there are adequate sources to eventually fill out stubs as I suggested, then it is appropriate to create such stubs. My !vote is in favor of creating all such stubs. WAS 4.250 23:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Option #2 looks good to me. I'm okay with stub articles, and think the articles would grow over time provided the particular genes are discussed in enough references. If a particular human gene as been cited a number of times in scholarly literature, then I would consider it notable. In general, I like the idea of bringing this information to the masses, in a more readable and accessible manner, as Wikipedia usually does. --Aude (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Another advantage we haven't touched on yet is the ability to bring Wiki-based annotation to the wider scientific community. With the Rfam RNA database (about 570 RNA families) the Sanger centre would not only put its data on Wikipedia in the public domain under GFDL, but it would also promote this Wikipedia resource at scientific meetings (see here for discussion of this point). This expansion of Wikipedia's coverage of bioinformatics could help us recruit a large number of experts to further expand our coverage - a beneficial cycle. TimVickers 23:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
This proposal has a great potential. This may not be the stuff for every Tom, Dick and Harry, but it may attract new scientific contributors. The fact that such a transfer from a database is possible, is proof that wikipedia is gradually being taken more and more seriously by the scientific community. In my opinion, go for option 2, since this conforms to Wikipedia:Attribution. JoJan 19:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Might be handier to cooperate with the knewco/omegawiki/wikidata people on this kind of thing? Though I'm cool with this either way. It'll be fun. :-) --Kim Bruning 19:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi everyone... I've been spearheading the creation of the gene pages (including the example ITK) and so I'm very interested in the discussion above. Thanks all for the great discussion so far... A few additional comments to the above...
  • The idea of presenting gene families instead of individual genes is not a good substitute I think. The reason is that there are many layers of how to describe gene function. The biologists in the room will probably recognize the distinction between "molecular function" and "biological processes"; gene families generally tell you something about molecular function (e.g., "Genes in Gene Family X catalyze a certain chemical reaction and bind to DNA"), but genes within that family can have very diverse biological functions (e.g., "Mutations in Gene Y are associated with diabetes", "Gene Z is involved in immune response to viruses", etc.). IMHO, WP pages on gene families I think is a good idea, but not a substitute for indivdidual gene pages.
  • Agreed, we can definitely err on the side of creating fewer stubs. As Tim mention above, original bot trial proposal was for 10 genes only. Part of the goal of this was to define a threshold amount of information to make a useful stub (i.e., one that is likely to nucleate further manual contributions). If it's not clear where that threshold would be based on 10, we can make a conservative guess and do 100 in a second trial run. For those who are interested, here are the proposed bot specs.
  • Although we could go off and create a completely separate wiki instance, I really would like to do this project with WP. Not only because the obvious domain names have already been registered ;), but I really think there is a huge potential synergy here. As Tim mentioned, our gene portal already has a substantial user base, but our gene portal is pretty much for well-structured content only. WP is the natural home for unstructured information on gene function. (Other biological wikis either have a different focus or lack critical mass.) I view this project as bringing together the critical mass on the biology side with the extensive infrastructure and expertise at WP. Perhaps as an indicator of good things to come, our ITK stub is already the third hit on google when searching "itk gene"... AndrewGNF 01:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew, this is somewhere I think Wikipedia can gain a great deal by drawing in expertise to add content, and the experts we recruit gaining through free and open distribution of the information they contribute. TimVickers 02:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If anybody is interested, I've written an essay on this topic. TimVickers 17:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I would second the comment above about adding more information. Dates and people in particular (ie. history). That may be difficult now, but in the future as more history is written, that may be possible. Take the story of the discovery of DNA for example. If similar stories are written in the future about the research on particular genes, then this should be added. Database and basic scientific information is good, but don't forget to add encyclopedic value (and historical context) to avoid just being a copy of a database. Carcharoth 23:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There is precedent for doing the stub approach in wikipedia. Didn't a bot create articles for all the cities, towns and villages? Many of these have now grown as i believe many of these gene pages will grow.
Consider that there is far more to gain from this approach than just 20,000 new stubs. This is a fantastic recruitment tool for scientists who are very sceptical of the whole wiki, anybody can edit, approach. Just look at how many of the science articles are underdeveloped for proof of this scepticism. While no one wants wikipedia to become elitist it is hard to imagine who else will feel comfortable enough to come in and fact check/improve these science related articles. I think if these stubs are set up there is a very good chance that scientists will come into wikipedia and improve the content of the gene articles related to their own research. I'll bet money that in the process they will improve many of our other science related articles too. Who knows, they may even hang around edit regularly?
In summary, if this proposal happens, and I think it should, wikipedia will get a massive amount of positive press for bringing together amateur science editors with those from academia and biotech. More to the point, i expect the positive press will be where it really counts (from the perspective of recruitment), in the scientific journals. So let's not focus on whether each one of these stubs is notable or not and focus on whether the whole package is notable. Think about where wikipedia heading in the next five years not what wikipedia is now. David D. (Talk) 19:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image URLs

I'm not really sure how easily this could be accomplished, or if it could be at all, but my school system has recently blocked all wikipedia images because of the adult entertainment sections of the website, it's really annoying to search for some sort of plant or animal and not be able to see what it looks like. Earlier this year I was instrumental in getting the complete ban of wikipedia revoked but I was told that there is no chance of doing that on this one unless wikipedia was willing to host all its non-school appropriate images in one place that they could then block. It does not seem like it'd be hard to have a check box that you simply check if the image is an "adult" image, but then of course I don't really know about it. If this is not possible, how hard would it be to produce a "safe" list, a list that people can go to and put "safe" image url's onto that I could compile and give to the tech department at school. They won't just ban the adult ones because wikipedia is ever changing and new pictures would be added daily. Mrstenoien 6:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored, Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates, Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship, and Wikipedia:Pornography. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It's highly unlikely that photos of nudity would appear on pages about plants and such. Suggest that your school block certain pages, or pages with certain keywords. wikipediatrix 21:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the tech people down at the district office blocking certain pages is not acceptable because of the ever changing nature of wikipedia. Thats why I was thinking of a whitelist of pictures instead of a blacklist, although a whitelist would be very hard to keep up to date it would be better than no pictures whatsoever, where would I go to get help compiling a list such as that? User:Mrstenoien:Mrstenoien 4:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Any whitelist would be an open invitation to vandals, who would replace the images in it with dodgy ones. It would work no better than self-certification. An encyclopedia editable by anyone cannot be guaranteed to exclude any particular type of content, all of the time, because some of the people who edit are there to create mischief. Notinasnaid 17:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Committee of verified experts on each article

Has wikipidia ever considered trying to aim toward identifying experts contributing to each article or subject on wikipedia. I've noticed that sometimes, a user will become very possessive as though their interpretation of a subject is that which should be shown on wikipedia, using the excuse that those others contributing are not experts on the subject. However these people often aren't experts themselves.

And when an expert does disagree with the views of one or even many users, they face an uphill battle to get the truth into the articles, what I think you term anti-elitism. Supposed 17:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That is the aim of other Wikipedias, not ours. We aim at being verifiable, not truthful, and verifiability can be achieved by anonymous (in example, when they edit and add a reliable reference to back their claims) contrary to truth (where, indeed, you may need to be considered to be an expert in order to be trusted with the edit. As for these subjects you talk about, point them to WP:OWN whenever you find one. -- ReyBrujo 17:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
You may be interested in Citizendium. Corvus cornix 19:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Extra information for highlighted words

I suggest that the user should be able to obtain extra information on those words that are underlined and highlighted in a requested topic. So if I was reading a topic on water and the hydrogen was highlighted I could either hover of the word for a moment or alt-e (or something) and get an introduction to that subject. I am not sure how this would effect the time it toke to load the page, but it sure would be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.239.202.214 (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean like those annoying popup-on-hover advertisements some sites use? They tend to interfere with reading the page, cripple older computers, generally distract from an article. I definitely oppose this idea. Why not just click on the link, read the lead section, and then click back? --Selket Talk 15:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Try Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups.
ALR 18:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Having a built-in system may create some significant technical issues with older computers, accessibility features (i.e. font sizes and screen resolutions), and other mouseover programs such as the translation/dictionary tool that Mozilla Firefox provides. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 19:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar proposal

I'm proposing a new barnstar. It's still here: User:Rhanyeia/test. Is this the place I should enter it? Rhanyeia 10:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you use Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals. Or rather, you used to. Now it's tagged historical so I think you just put it up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards. --tjstrf talk 10:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone left a link on top of Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals that this would be a good place. I will still ask somewhere before putting it anywhere. Rhanyeia 11:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I decided to put it there as you adviced me. If someone is interested in, it's here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards#A barnstar proposal. Rhanyeia 13:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Individual Comic Book Pages

I do not know if pages that discuss individual issues of comic books are wanted. For my own personal reference, I have made summaries of many comic books, and was considering posting them. Pages for comic series, i.e. Detective Comics, exist, but individual issue pages, i.e. Detective Comics #27, do not. Are these wanted, or not? --TheCoolestDude 16:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Most likely non-non-notable. Maybe ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics about what has happened before with any such articles, an example of which is Dragon Ball Z: Volume 1. It should be better to combine individual summaries into the main article, as long as it doesn't get too long. –Pomte 21:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I am dubious about articles for individual TV episodes, or fictional characters, see WP:FICT, which i generally support; and this seem less desirable than those. i would think this would be a bad idea except in some extraordinary circumstances (if a particular issue is very famous, perhaps because it sold for a very high sum, or was very different from other issues and had significant mainstream media coverage). But normally i don't see why mentions in an article about the series isn't sufficient. There are other wikis where more detailed coverage might be plausible. DES (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I think starting a page on Detective Comics 27 with a summary and prices it's sold for would be a valuable addition to Wikipedia, but I think the vast majority of comic-books are not individually notable and as such probably shouldn't be added. -Halo 19:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as doing page on individual books, i say go for it! I would suggest making a "Notable Issues" Section or something similar on the series page, and have links to those issues where a summary would be desirable... Just my two-cents, but I hope it's worth something! Tylerofmaine 17:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, according to Wikipedia's notability policy, if a publication has over a certain number of copies published, then it is notable. So, if there are more than 5,000 copies of a comic book distributed, then it is notable. And if it's notable, it has a place on Wikipedia. The Transhumanist    20:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot proposal for WP:ABUSE

I have thought of the idea of having an automatic archival bot, possibly ExtranetBot (my bot), on this Wikipedia page. As it is widely used here, it will definately require one in the future, but I have thought this through and should be actioned now. For this bot to work, WP:ABUSE will have to create a new process of reporting and actioning on abuse, using template messages (similar to WP:ACC) that the bot can read and then take action. I am currently in the process of creating a template system for WP:ABUSE and should be done soon. I believe this is a great initiative and will definately help those tired people to stop archiving. Let us know what you think as my bot, ExtranetBot is nearly ready if we can reach a clear consensus here. Extranet talk 06:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image thumbnail for A class articles (Americas next top Barn star)

Quality
FA
A
GA
B
Start
Stub

The Feature Articles (AF) have a ()Star thing and the Good Article (GA) class articles have a round stamp image, but nothing for the A class articles (or B class). I thought that there could be a little Thumbnail photo/image for class A articles like the others, this may help motivate some people to work harder to get there article form GA up closer to FA class, because I know for many people the Jump from GA to FA class is a big one that requires a lot of work and more knowledge of the subject and Wikipedia. I see so many people with the little FA and GA Thumbnail pics on their user page showing off how many articles they have worked on and such. They have become a little like the Barnstars people give one another, becoming a little like bages of merit. “Keeping people around is harder than recruiting them; bored editors quickly leave” [citation needed]. I think Wikipedia most Valuable resource would be the people that edit it. Not the only the people that edit one line of text, but mostly the people that have passion for a subject and given the right positive reinforcement will become vary productive Wikipedians. So do any other Wikipedia members have ideas or experience with some thing like this. We could have people submit their own original take on what the A class Thumbnail Image should look like, and then vote on the entries. Max 16:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

--What do you think?--

If so, why not make symbols for each article class and display them all on every page? I can imagine that indicators for articles might be a good idea, especially for readers who could get an idea of how complete or incomplete the article is considered. It would take a lot of work, though - on that basis I'm not sure about it. Nihiltres 16:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. see commons:Category:Vote symbols, in particular Image:Symbol_possible_vote.svg, Image:Symbol_opinion_vote.svg, and Image:Symbol_keep_vote.svg. Nihiltres 16:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Image:Symbol_keep_vote.svg () would be good for A-class, and perhaps Image:Symbol_opinion_vote.svg () for B-class and Image:BA candidate.svg () for Start, though I'm skeptical that symbols for Start and B would actually be useful. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I passed my Idea by Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) and the good news according to him "it is technically possible to change it Wikipedia-wide (talking about the adopting of symbols or Images for A-Class, B-Class articles), if there's a consensus to do so, as it only requires modifying one template. "
it could look some thing like this, But this is only a thought:
  1. Featured article: The best of Wikipedia's articles.
  2. A-class: Essentially complete; a few omissions may be detected by a subject expert.
  3. Good article Good article: Well-written, nearly complete coverage of pertinent topics.
  4. B-class: Useful for most readers, but needs expanded coverage.
  5. Start class: Provides a significant amount of information, but serious gaps remain to be filled.
  6. Stub class: A placeholder for future work, usually a few paragraphs introducing the topic and/or a few external links.
  7. NIL: No directly corresponding Wikipedia article.
How would some thing like this be? Every page could have it's "class" shown in the top upper right hand corner of the page, like the Feature Articles()Max 00:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
A-class is attributed one a project-by-project basis, whereas Good and Featured article follow a defined process. For that reason, I disagree that A-class articles (or classes below Good, actually, as the boundary are always sort of subjective) should benefit from any

icon. Circeus 23:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I think that articles below the "Good Article" class will actually, benefit from the icon, it will draw people to the pages that need the most help, Because there is vary little editing to do to a FA or GA page, But with pages below GA, there is much work that can be done as the Article is needing much more work, and this will get people to see where there efforts will be best spent Max 00:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This proposal will make more sense after we've implemented stable versions. Until that happens, article quality, especially for the less-watched articles which haven't achieved FA or GA, will remain, well... unstable.--Pharos 00:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I think this will show that there is a "Grading scheme" not only for FA and GA Article's but Class A, B the start class and Stub, so it would not be to hard to find where the articles place is. Max 00:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, no top-right stars or any thing like that. But if we expanded the Article classes to include A and B class, can we then start tracking the number of A and B class article’s? I was just thinking this because it shows how many FA Article’s there are in relation to all of Wikipedia’s Articles. Now If we could know the numbers of article’s in the different Article graded classes we could start using the numbers to track Wikipedia’s Quality Growth and completeness. Wikipedia has to be proud to have 1,745,000 article’s, But at the same time start to improving what we have By developing a better “System” of Grading that reaches all across Wikipedia pages and sections, with standard criteria that helps move Wikipedia away from rapid expansion and dissimilar criteria to a Grading system that helps make the focus on the Quality of Wikipedias work a Top Priority . I think it would also be helpful because more articles would be peer reviewed, helping to avoid the negative attention Wikipedia gets when Articles are found to be slandering a person or un-encyclopedic. The more Popular Wikipedia Becomes the more the need grows for Wikipedia to be seen as a creditable source of Knowledge. With an Expanded Article Grading System the growth of Wikipedia will be in the right Direction, no longer the massive spreading out, but focusing on Increasing the Quality. Max ╦╩ 22:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • If we limit ourselves from corner badges, we'd need a spot to put these new rating images. If we made a general article quality template for talk pages of articles outside any existing WikiProject, then this proposal would make sense - but we wouldn't need a full badging system. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 00:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Need Help I have been trying to make a Template to help rate Article quality. And after many hours I see that I have no Idea how to make a template. Can some One recommend a pre=made template or even better have a Idea of how to build one? Max ╦╩ 15:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Back to contents
Project Active Assessment Peer review Collaboration Portal Notes
Anthropology yes

I like the idea of adding small symbols. On that note, there is a problem with A-class - some projects have a good peer review for it, but many don't, and I have seen articles A-ranked that wouldn't pass GA...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What about using the thumbnails right on the article page just like in case of FAs.?Amartyabag TALK2ME 16:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact IMO by definition A-class articles should've all passed GA. Therefore the GA icon serves well as the "article status identifier" on those articles. The A-class is simply an extra attribute above the GA mark stating that the article is a high-class GA. It's like FA is scoring an "A*" in public exams, while A and GA are both "A"s. But there exists "A1" and "A2" under the item "A", where "A1" is the A-class and "A2" is GA. --Deryck C. 09:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject World music/Topics uses its own set of icons with templates like {{A-classicon}} for that purpose. –Pomte 05:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming Convention: Countries

Alright, ladies and gents. I noticed looking around the MOS that there is no standard naming convention for countries, it appears to be on a case by case basis, and typically using the Common Form of the country name, some times incorrectly. Furthermore, it's somewhat odd that the proper names of countries are redirected to the article anyway, such as:

In all of these articles, the first line begins with "The (Proper Country Name), or commonly known as (Common Name)...", or something along those lines.

I ask simply, for the sake of accuracy, why can we not have a Article Naming Standard for Countries outlined that reflects the accurate name of a country?

I ask this because not so much that people call France The French Republic, but because in discussions over the naming of United States brings up far too many straw man arguments that setting a standard that can be applied fairly to all country articles while maintaining the accuracy of the article.

The standard I would propose is this: The article itself will go by the Proper Translated Name, as used already in the first line and along the top of the infobox. The common name will redirect there to ensure proper searching.

The first line of all country articles will begin the same, such as: "The French Republic, commonly known as France... The above will rarely deviate. I know this will consist of a high volume of page moves, and many people will simply oppose such an idea on this alone. While a valid argument, at the same time a standard needs to be set for country articles that applies fairly to all countries. I also might add that straw men need not apply, I think we've heard all of the straw man arguments out there regarding this issue. I'm looking for more intelligent discussion on this subject. I will not be able to reply until later tonight. Review MeCASCADIAHowl/Trail 20:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Standardisation for standardisation's sake really doesn't seem helpful... what actual benefit would this bring beyond a warm fuzzy feeling of organisedness? Shimgray | talk | 22:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The Manual of Style requies that the most common name in English be used. The most common name for France in English is France. The most common name for Mexico is Mexico. The most common name for the United States is arguable, but United States feels right. Corvus cornix 22:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Changing <references /> to {{reflist}}

Just to get a wider consensus, User:Vishwin60 has proposed* a bot that will change all <references /> tags to {{reflist}} tags in articles, as of now only in articles within the scope of WP:USRD. There are advantages to {{reflist}}, such as the ability to use multiple columns, but most articles don't have enough references to split it up into two columns anyway. It also makes the references small, but if this is done everywhere we may as well just change the stylesheet to automatically display references in a smaller font. An obvious disadvantage is the thousands (potentially hundreds of thousands if all articles are changed) of edits that would be required for such a change. What do you think? If I've missed an advantage or disadvantage, forgive me. Perhaps another option would be to get a database dump, and find only articles with more than 10 references, and if so, replace <references /> with {{reflist|2}}, otherwise leave the article alone. —METS501 (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC) *Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Rschen7754bot 3 - Request was rejected, but may of course be resubmitted should consensus change. --kingboyk 23:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Assuming they don't use multiple columns, the extra edits seem like an unnecessary waste of server resources to me. --YbborTalkSurvey! 18:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
WTF??? Unnecessary server resources? Compared to Wikimedia's huge server farm, it's barely a blip. Also won't cause any database locks either.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 18:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, if you say so, I really have no expertise in the area. I just don't see why it's worth it to instiute such a "change" which won't really change anything. --YbborTalkSurvey! 18:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ybbor. It won't cause any database locks, but it's just a waste of resources. —METS501 (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind also that according to the bot policy, the onus is on the bot operator to show that the bot is useful. A change that would require thousands of edits that could be done with a simple stylesheet change is not useful. —METS501 (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[double edit conflict] The change is for a first step in GA/FA noms. It is also for standardization of all USRD articles, not all of Wikipedia. And please stop complaining about extra edits; it's making the resolution process a hotbed of anger. Mets501-Please do not make a big fuss over this; it is driving everyone at USRD crazy. Unfortunately, you are making the Highways department a hotbed of anger, so please chill.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 18:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, I was under the impression that this might soon become the case for all of Wikipedia ("as of now only in articles within the scope of WP:USRD" emphasis mine). Pardon my ignorance, but how/why is the change to {{reflist}} a first step toward GA/FA? Does it really impact the quality of the article? Why does standardization of the method for displaying references matter if the way its displayed ends up the same? --YbborTalkSurvey! 18:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Right now, USRD is in a state of trash. Therefore, we need to start to clean up these articles by doing the conversion. The underlying reason for the conversion is that 99% of all GAs/FAs have this or something similar to this. And yes, how the refs look have a bit to do with the quality of the article. The section should be non-intrusive to the rest of the article.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 19:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Mets501 - why are you making a big deal out of nothing? Server resourses aren't a big deal - if these guys want to do it, let them do it. Unless there is a hard-line rule set down by the wikipedia governing bodies, don't worry about it. -- master_sonTalk - Edits 18:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

One could argue that the OP is making a big deal out of nothing by wanting to change, using a bot, to the template where, in most cases, it's not needed, and where it is could be done manually as-and-when required -Halo 19:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

For the benefit of those who haven't seen the previous discussion: what is the benefit of this change? Can you provide a link to the proposal? The last time I checked, the <references/> method was not deprecated in any way. Does WP:FA? actually forbid it? CMummert · talk 19:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

WT:USRD houses the original proposal. What I am trying to say is that 99% of GAs/FAs have something similar to {{reflist}}, in which those articles must have lots of references, reliable sources needless to say. See DNA and (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction for examples.  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 19:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've written several FAs and commented on other FACs, and I've never heard of this template. It's most certainly not a requirement for FA. --kingboyk 19:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Then that's considered the 1%, then?  V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 20:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Where on earth has this 99% figure come from anway? Is it hyperbole? Martinp23 20:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I know. WP:FA? says that meta:cite is "recommended". That's the cite.php <references/> system. CMummert · talk 20:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The documentation for Template:reflist says If used with no parameters, it will simply produce a reference list in a small font. Small font is certainly appropriate for FA articles that are supposed to have dozens of references. But small font is totally inappropriate for articles with only a few references; it simply makes the references difficult to read without saving a great deal of space. If you want to set a reasonable minimum (I'd say 15 rather than 10, myself, but don't feel that strongly), I have no objections, but please don't suggest changing every article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how a small font is warranted, especially if the motivation is to "save space". This is not a paper encyclopedia, and space is not an issue. CMummert · talk 18:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see the purpose for a mass implementation of this. The reason most GA/FA quality articles use {{reflist}} is not because it is so much better than <references/> but because they have so many references, (2 dozen+) that reflist just makes it easier to read, as the casual reader doesn't look at the references in great detail. For most articles with 3 or 4 references (that usually aren't in in-line style anyway), readibility isn't as much of a concern. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
It may well be true, but where did you get the statistic that most GA/FA articles use reflist? CMummert · talk 20:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
That seems to be the argument presented in support of this proposal; I was illustrating why that is somewhat faulty logic. I have no idea where the statistic came from. It used to be 99%, now its just generalized to "most." Though 4 of the first 5 articles on WP:FAC now do use reflist. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggest first getting consensus at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. That consensus then can be used to support the bot's task. (SEWilco 17:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC))
For the sake of information, {{Reflist}} appears to be used in about 34000 articles. Of all 1342 FAs, 417 have reflist and 925 do not. Gimmetrow 15:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we all agree that any article with no references section should be given {{reflist}}? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this would be not be a wise thing to impose on people, and no existing list format should be changed without the consensus of the people at that article. People get very touch about references. DGG 08:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Can't you do a trial run on 925 the FA articles and see the responses by users? And refere them to this discussion? --Shines8 21:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Many editors won't care or won't notice, but some editors strongly dislike "small" refs even for long lists. It's unfortunate that reflist wasn't written such that {{reflist}} simply produced <references/> (without font resizing), {{reflist|1}} produced one-column small, and {{reflist|2}} produced two-column small. Gimmetrow 00:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

So you would normalize one possible stylistic variation while hundreds of others would persist. Seems kind fo futile if you ask me. --Infrangible 23:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Upgrading the references seems like a good use of resources to me. The importance of references can't be underestimated. If the improved functionality encourages a few people to add a few more references, then go for it. Savidan 18:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has often reverted people changing "my" references to reflists before, I still agree that standardisation all over Wikipedia would be good. MadMaxDog 10:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the reason for the standardization? {{reflist}} is a nice shortcut for the lazy, but I can't see how it is any better than using <div class="references-small"><references/></div> (or variations of this for multiple columns). If anything, {{reflist}} should be the thing that is getting replaced. --- RockMFR 19:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Code and or Code samples for Articles with Pseudocode

I have recently written some C# code based on pseudo code in some WP articles. Would it be appropriate to edit the article and add the code samples? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.213.132 (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Guarding history

This is a repost of my comment to Portal talk:Current events.

By chance i'm going trough some of the older events pages (like May 2006 for instance). If I diff to the versions that were originally archived, i find a LOT of changes. broken links, self promotion, vandalism, adding unimportant information etc etc. This is really starting to become a problem in my eyes. It's a lot of pages of course, but apparently few people keep this on their watchlist or something. Perhaps we need to setup a system to tackle this issue a bit more thoroughly ? I don't have any direct ideas, but I see it as a problem that needs dealing with.

Addition

With the current system it's even worse. You have pages for 365 days in the year, and no way to know if people are patrolling them after a couple of weeks have passed. I think that we for instance could at least add categories to the various pages, so that we can use Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Day in history or something to regurly take a look at the recent changes to all of these pages. Or we could setup some sort of special RSS feed perhaps that shows all the recent changes to these pages. I think this is really important, we should take better care of history then we have so far. Any feedback or ideas on how to do this ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, adding these subpages to a category would allow recent changes patrolling as you suggest. This would miss any changes to talk pages, but that's considerably less important.-gadfium 20:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Relevant templates are useful for checking recent changes:
Special:Recentchangeslinked/Template:Events by month links
Special:Recentchangeslinked/Template:Months
–Pomte 20:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Good point Pomte... I don't know why I didn't think of that !! OK, i'll add similiar links to several talkpages / projects etc that deal with these sets of articles. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Video on Wikipedia

Hi all. Someone has proberly come up with this before but how about wikipedia has short videos on educational subjects like an egg hatching or the different earthquake types. If we did this it would be comparable to microsoft encarta. Of course there would be problems like people uploading irrellevent stuff or working out who should have the powers to upload the correct videos but if we got past that it would be an even better encyclopedia with people seeing how it really happens and for those people who learn from watching rather than just reading!Wiki.user 19:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in the Video policy on Meta-wiki. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 20:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Uploading of videos is allowed and encouraged. You have to use Ogg Theora, though. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Internal article references

Hello.

I notice that your articles can make reference to other articles. However, the other articles make no reference to the referencing articles.

For example. The article on Strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP) makes reference to the Oprah Winfrey page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_Winfrey), but the Oprah Winfrey page provides no indication that it is being referenced from the SLAPP article.

I have written applications that make such two way linking the norm. Yet Wikipedia seems not to support it.

Just a suggestion.

Kurt Christensen

Kurt... if you click on "What links here" in the toolbox panel, it will show all the articles that reference the one you are in. Blueboar 19:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

search convenience

When I browse to Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page, using Firefox or Internet Explorer, the first thing I usually want to do is to search for something. But I first have to click in the 'search' box.

It's a small thing, yes, but it would be more convenient if the main page, when loading, would automatically place the cursor in the search box by default. And if I didn't want to search, this change wouldn't create any new inconveniences, as far as I can tell.

Thanks, Sally --S411ygal 15:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The "other" natural surfing method is to use the arrow keys to scroll up and down the Main Page to look for information and links that are on the Main Page to look around Wikipedia and this should be slightly more common - but you can't scroll if the focus is on a text box, at least not for Firefox or Internet Explorer. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your time.--199.244.214.30 17:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, I don't mean to be a pest, but perhaps I could change the URL I use? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page/search doesn't get me where I want to go, but is there some other such URL I could use for strictly searching? I normally call up Wikipedia through an icon on my Bookmarks Toolbar in Firefox.

I understand now, btw, why using the arrow keys is important on the Main Page, and I agree that that functionality is essential. --S411ygal 18:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Special:Search might be the page to look for (full URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search). x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
In Firefox, you can add Wikipedia to the search bar at top right (Google by default). –Pomte 19:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Depending on your browser, it should be possible to select the search box by pressing tab. — The Storm Surfer 20:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, Pomte, I like it! I have changed my browser search box to WP. Thx! --S411ygal 20:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Senior Editor

And yes, I've read the FAQ. And I did see it posted. However I don't the reason for objection is strong enough.

For most people on Wikipedia their are I.P. users, Registered Accounts, and Admins. I think their needs to be a middle level between Registered Accounts and Admins. For example, admins may page protect, delete pages, block users, ect. Most users often come across situations were they might need to protect a page or if they are monitoring AfD and an article needs deleted, they instead have wait for a Admin to delete that article. A middle level, which could be called a Senior Editor, would be able to delete articles and protect pages. The process would work like:

Editor ———> Request for Seniority ———> Senior Editor ———> Request for Admin ———> Admin...ect.


The senior editors would NOT have the power to block a user, but they would be able to make edits to protected pages, protect pages themselves, delete articles (including speedy) , restore deleted articles, ect. They would have to go through a process that would be similar to RfA. I don't have any ideas on this, but it could be possible to become an Admin without being a Senior Editor. I don't know. I'm just throwing the idea out there. Thanks! WǐkǐɧérṃǐťTalk to me or learn something new! 01:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea, but what with the whole admin rehaul thing going on, this may be the last thing that those people there would want to think about. What I might suggest, though, is that you run the idea by at WP:RfA or tell them to come here. I might also suggest that the process of becoming a "senior editor" (or an alternative name) might be similar to the current GAC process, whereby a user is put on a list and reviewed by one admin, and if he or she deems that person acceptable, then they would get the status. Maybe to make it sound more appropriate, we could only give these people the rights to do certain things, like protect and maybe delete. Or maybe a page may be deleted fully if two "Senior editors" press the delete button. Who knows. └Jared┘┌talk┐  01:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Admin rehaul? Where is this being discussed? Corvus cornix 01:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. Admin overhaul. See this signpost article. Also, I was thinking that Wikipedia:Limited administrators would be a good place to start looking, and possibly the talk page, for suggestions on what to do. └Jared┘┌talk┐  01:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You may also want to peruse Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform, to see if someone has already suggested this, or make a new proposal there. └Jared┘┌talk┐  01:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Possibly a board of Admins (say 5) who could approve "Seniority." The purpose of the "senior editor" should be encyclopedic. WǐkǐɧérṃǐťTalk to me or learn something new! 01:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah. It's Requests for Adminship that is being discussed (although perusal of the mailing list indicates that this has been discussed ad nauseum for months now), not Adminship per se. Corvus cornix 20:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I would strongly oppose granting delete powers to users through a less extensive review than the current RfA process. The word of one or two current admins is nowhere near enough. Look at various recent failed RfAs. DES (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I sort of agree. But what's outlined at Limited administrators is appropriate, I think. └Jared┘┌talk┐  01:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It says articles created within 3 days. That would prevent a person avoiding AfD and would allow Speedy Deletion for vandalism. I think they should also be allowed page protects. WǐkǐɧérṃǐťTalk to me or learn something new! 02:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly, vociferously, vigorously oppose. The last thing we need is yet another class of users around here. This is overly bureaucratic and serves no purpose. If a person can be trusted to delete something or protect something, they certainly can be trusted to block someone. We don't need yet another class of users. --Durin 02:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    Why? The standards for adminship are insanely high! WǐkǐɧérṃǐťTalk to me or learn something new! 02:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    The only standards that should exist are that the community trusts the editor to not abuse the tools, and that the editor has enough experience on Wikipedia to be able to handle most admin situations that come along. There are some editors, unfortunately, who apply ever-increasing personal standards to the position, which only causes reactions such as yours. It's really too bad. One good bit of news: there has been a recent upsurge in the number of people requesting adminship. Hopefully that trend will hold steady. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    So change the standards. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    Exactly. If we can trust someone not to go insane with two extra buttons, we can trust them not to go insane with one more too. If not, they shouldn't have any extra ones. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    Why don't we just give them all root, then? And regardless, the standards for adminship have gone way beyond "can trust not to go insane w/ the buttons" - and part of the reason is that it's not easy to desysop. Here's my proposal. Have these powers (delete depending on article age, etc. maybe also let them semi-protect) but have it be something that any bureaucrat can give _or take_. --Random832 23:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The merits of having limited administrators aside, there is no reason to believe that people will not just bring their absurd standards to this, as well. The only way to avoid that is to have that aformentioned "Senority board", which is a very bad idea. The community should have the power to decide who gets tools, not a clique of five people. -Amarkov moo! 04:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There are so many things a non-admin can do to help out, that it doesn't help much to create limited adminship. Either the community trusts you, or it doesn't. All admin functions should be limited to admins, with the possible exception of closing XFDs as keep/merge/redirect/no consensus. YechielMan 04:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
YechielMan is right. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 05:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree as well. Adding another class of editors will just confuse the general process more. The Wikipedia community as a whole must be able to confirm if the person is trusted or not. We can't have a class which has half of the admin tools with approval from a clique of admins. And yes, I'm sure that RfA is a grueling process, but it is a step that must be taken in order to trust someone with the tools. Sr13 (T|C) ER 11:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
One of the ideas used at wikiversity is probationary admins. Basically, if one admin thinks someone would make good admin, the take them on as a apprentice. The bureaucrat promotes the user to a admin, and the trainer keeps a eye on them for a week. After a week, the community votes on how well they handled the trial period and gives a yes or no on full adminship. --Rayc 05:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Rayc, your suggestion would encourage cliques and admin abuse. A rogue admin could take a friend on as an apprentice, and ask them to make an inappropriate admin action on their behalf, hoping that it will be hidden among the friend's hundred appropriate admin actions.
Perhaps, under certain circumstances, probationary adminship could be granted through RFA (and perhaps it could even be an option along Support, Oppose and Neutral). For example:
  • An RFA where there is a numerical consensus to promote (80% or more), but the opposers raised one or two serious concerns that were not adequately addressed by the candidate or the supporters (possibly because they were raised too late). Probationary adminship should only be used if the RFA would easily pass if there were no serious concerns. What constitutes a serious concern is left to the closing bureaucrat's discretion, but I'm thinking along the lines of diffs which suggest the candidate would abuse the tools, or glaring inexperience with an area in which the candidate has indicated they wish to use their admin tools (when the candidate has indicated at least two other areas where they have sufficient experience).
  • An RFA where the candidate indicates that they wish to focus on a severely-neglected but important area (such as image backlogs), and there is about 70% support (slightly falling short of numerical consensus), with the supporters applauding the candidate's contributions to that area, and the opposers mainly stating that the candidate should not focus on only one area.
  • An RFA where the candidate is a bot focusing on a severely-neglected but important area, and there is about 70% support (slightly falling short of numerical consensus), with the supporters hailing the benefits of the bot, and the opposers mainly stating that bots should not be granted adminship.
  • An RFA where the candidate is a former administrator who was desysopped for abuse of admin tools, and there is about 70% support (slightly falling short of numerical consensus), with the supporters stating that the candidate should be given another chance given their past history of positive contributions, and the opposers harping on the incident that got the candidate desysopped.
Probationary adminship should last a week or two, after which another RFA is run where the community decides whether the candidate passed their probation or not. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No to what encourages more stratification within the community. - Mailer Diablo 17:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Who gets to decide the board of 5 admins? The Senior Junior editors? And who gets to choose them? :) No more layers needed, please. Aim to make things simpler, not more complex. – Riana ऋ 17:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I think powers should be individually assigned, on request, for performing specific tasks. There's no need for it to be all or nothing, and this is already possible with trivial software modifications to create a group for each power. This would hopefully also defuse a lot of the hullabaloo around RfA, as we wouldn't have to be as careful about it if we weren't giving out as much power. Besides, it's good as a matter of security principle to follow the principle of least privilege, and it would allow people to gradually phase into adminship while under observation. Dcoetzee 17:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not, as currently worded. Probationary periods are easy to fake-out, and we've seen recently how much damage a rogue user with the extra tools can do in 17 minutes. There are any number of things that person could have done that would have been even worse, moreover. Meanwhile, I don't even trust our current administrators enough right now to mentor new admins on a one-on-one basis; the only protection we have against more rogue actions is the global scope of RFA, and that anyone (even an anon. user) can participate to alert us. That's how the 'pedia as a whole works, and that's how the granting of (the dangerous) powers and tools should work. Is RFA's culture sprained? Probably, but doing an end-run is not going to solve that. Change the culture. Support decent users who are on the borderline. Encourage users to run. Nominate someone you think might pass. -- nae'blis 17:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Potentially a very bad idea indeed. And I say that even though the idea of having a middle point at which to aim without trying for adminship was appealing for a moment. Until sense reigned. All of the above objections are valid, so I won't bother repeating them. Adrian M. H. 19:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, then the less complicated on the structure, the better. Hence there should not have any extra tiers of users.--Kylohk 14:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (highways)

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (highways) on drafting a notability guideline for highway related articles. Please help draft the text of the guideline or express your comments at the talk page. --Polaron | Talk 13:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

artical tabs

i would like to bring up a small discrepancy in all the artical's tabs. the section refered to as the talk page has a small continuity problem with it's tab. it is labaled the discussion tab even though it is always refered to as the talk page. it might cause less confusion if the tab lable was changed so that new users would know that discussion and talk were the same thing— Preceding unsigned comment added by Homecookedskilet (talk • contribs)

Actually, "Talk" is used as a shorthand for the discussion page at all times. This is because it is simplier to type "Talk" than discussion on the search and the link on the browser.--Kylohk 19:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
As Roget's will tell you, talk and discussion are the same in this context. There should not be any confusion. Adrian M. H. 21:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd guess that "discussion" is used in order to avoid the impression that the page's are for 'chatting', which labeling them as "talk" might give. Subtle contextual clues, and all that. --Quiddity 17:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for Search Results.

Perhaps Wikipedia could adopt an approach similar to that of Google. If a search is unsuccessful, due to spelling or wording errors, there could be a suggestion made by Wikipedia (i.e. "Did you mean...?") to guide users.

A similar feature is available on MediaWiki but it is disabled on Wikipedia for performance issues. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Temporal Tagging feature (or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Idea Of Simultaneity)

I'd like to plant the idea of time based tagging for information in articles (where appropriate). The end result would be the ability to correlate disparate things together based on time rather than just category or link structure.

Specifically, I suggest the idea of smart tags that can be peppered throughout articles as needed to index the relevant data or paragraphs with a date. This could grow to be an offshoot of categorizing or stub sorting that would extend past the linked years (eg 1998, 1853, etc) we use currently, or perhaps it could be related to it.

The use case would be something like this: While reading an article about a historical battle, a user might use an interface to view all of the other things documented in Wikipedia that were happening at the same time around the world. We have that to a certain degree with the linked years, but it's simultaneously granular and terribly imprecise. Event X might take place over the span of a decade, for example, but the linked years might only reflect the first year and last year with no MediaWiki awareness of the interval between them.

With tags that could be added to define the arcs when events were taking place, a correlation of simultaneity could be made that might help people understand a subject more intimately than before. Cross referencing Medici plots with root cause analysis of fights in Germany, soviet build-up in Turkey while a new type of weapon is being demonstrated in the US, etc, etc. Our current system is still essentially an electronic copy of a paper encyclopedia, despite our assertions to the contrary. Adding more awareness of data to the indexing (past what categorization and 'What links here' can currently offer) could be part of the Next Big Step.

Instead of posting this as a feature request for MediaWiki, I'd like to bring it here for discussion first. If there are ways that can potentially make that happen with what we already have, that'd be great. If not, perhaps there are smarter ways of getting from point A to point B than I've suggested above, so feedback would be very welcome. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I for one love the idea. Don't have the first clue how you'd go about implementing it, but I like it. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 02:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
One possibility would be a category for each year, with all the years relevant to an article included in the article. The categories could each redirect to a list that transcluded their contents using CategoryTree. (The lists would be quite long, though, presumably; maybe year/subject intersections would be more userful? --ais523 14:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I like this, but I dread even more additional complexity of our wiki syntax. I guess it doesn't matter at this point, since we've basically abandoned the idea that regular non-technical people should be able to edit our articles...

But, ideally, this would be as automated as possible. We are supposedly getting a dynamic date formatting feature that works on things inside <date> tags, for instance, which I think is completely backwards. In my mind, we should have robust code for recognizing dates in plain text, and dynamically format all of them by default. For the cases that shouldn't be auto-formatted, which are in the minority, use nowiki tags. Then the automatically-recognized dates could be tied to your idea, maybe?

And I'm imagining something completely unlike categories. Like a dynamic moving timeline thing that you can zoom around in by year and location on earth.  :-) We should have similar mindmap-type stuff for categories, too, but who's going to write it? — Omegatron 14:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

See, now that's brilliant, that's exactly the kind of creativity that something like this could bring to the project. Anything that can use existing data is a good thing, because it reduces the workload needed to transform this into something usable. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Problems editing references

1. Has anyone else noticed how difficult it is to make even minor edits to text that has a large number of inline references (<ref> ... </ref>)? Trying to find the actual words of the text interspersed amongst reams and reams of reference text is bad enough, and then if you want to rearrange words or sentences it becomes a nightmare trying to keep track of what you're doing and not break anything. Highlighting the <ref> ... </ref> text in the edit window - say in a different colour - would be a start. Even better would be to show the references as [1], [2] etc. in the edit window when you don't actually want to edit them, with a facility to expand when you do.

2. When editing a section the preview window does not show the expanded references, which makes them impossible to check. I tend to temporarily add a <references/> tag at the end of the section, but it's easy to forget to take it out before you save. It would be good if the preview facility did this automatically for you.

Matt 11:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

A good idea will be to type <ref> onto the search box of your broser, then continously clicking "Find Next" until you can find the reference you can edit. Also, edit the article section by section and that can reduce the range over which you have to find the item.--Kylohk 19:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Look here for an example of using linebreaks to make code more readable. In fact, every sentence can be on a new line and the article will be displayed the same way; this also helps to show what got changed in a diff. I think some editors are against this though. To show a citation in preview, momentary get rid of the <ref> tag but removing the ">" or something, that will show the citation inline with the paragraph. –Pomte 19:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
If you use Firefox, consider using the wikEd Wikipedia editor. Among its many features, wikEd color codes <ref> tags making editing much easier. -- MarcoTolo 03:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow, this looks cool! Even better would be to colour code the whole of the <ref>...</ref> segments (rather than just the tags). I don't use Firefox, but once it's working reliably in all browsers this should be rolled out as the default for everyone, no? Matt 10:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
I had a go trying to get wikEd working in IE6 once. However, the way text selections work in IE6 and Firefox is sufficiently different that much of the code would have to be rewritten. (I could get the syntax highlighting to work, but then I couldn't actually edit the page...) --ais523 10:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
That might be a problem. But seriously, from what I can see this looks like a really great feature. If the resources are available I think it would be well worth implementing for IE if it's at all technically feasible. Matt 00:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

Inspired by this... I was thinking. It would be really cool if you edit a section and then preview your edit were to get a "dummy" <references> added in your preview so you can actually preview changes you made to your ref. I have no idea how this would be implemented (JS, mediawiki or cite.php extension), but I think it would be really useful. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

When I looked at the current logo, I noticed that the antialiasing is absolutely AWFUL. There's white edges on everything. While there have been multiple uploads of a better version, they've been reverted each time. I made one here, which has it all fixed.

First, why have they all been reverted? They work on both IE and Firefox, and should work in all other browsers. Second, could we put my version up? Thanks. ~EdBoy[c] 17:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but here's one problem. Your image is 24.17 KB, while that one is 11.69 KB. A big difference after 1 billion page loads. —METS501 (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I think most browsers would cache the image. —Dark•Shikari[T] 15:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I've wondered about this before too. I also notice there are two differences in the lettering between your image and the Wikipedia one: a bizarre apostrophe before the Omega and an accent over the Russian "i" are missing in your image. I think your image is correct, but why are they in the official image to begin with? Jason Quinn 03:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I took it directly from Image:Wiki.png. They're both still letters, so I really don't care. :P ~EdBoy[c] 01:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


  • There are at least 2 major character errors in the current Wikipedia puzzle-globe logo, and other minor problems.
  • User talk:Ambuj.Saxena/Wikipedia-logo is the most centralized discussion/link compilation that I know of. (There's even a petition at that link's projectpage)
  • Nohat has explained the problems with correcting the errors. But noone seems to have a solution.
  • Somebody with patience and brains (and either delegating or computer-graphics skills), needs to adopt this problem as a personal mission, lest it remain unsolved for another year. --Quiddity 20:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
copied to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Wikipedia Logo

Images without exact duplicates on the commons

I'm having a bit of a grump at the moment about the number of images, particularly those tagged as PD-art, often orphans, that are already available on Wikimedia Commons, normally in a higher resolution. I've come across these as I've been transferring images to the Wikimedia Commons.

I know {{ncd}} is meant to be used to facilitate the deletion of exact duplicates but what about non-exact duplicates. For example: Image:JoanOfArc.jpeg on Wikipedia and Image:JoanOfArcLarge.jpeg on Commons - identical image regarding colour and contrast, the Commons version is of a higher resolution. Commons is not meant to contain duplicate images itself, so transferring a lower resolution duplicate seems rather futile. Is it ok to tag non-exact duplicates of this type with {{ncd}} and hope they get deleted - or do we need a different template or system? Madmedea 20:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a different template should be used (so that it is still easy to check for exact duplicates), but I would support the creation of a template that says something like "this image file should be deleted because it is a scaled-down or compressed copy of an image on Commons". (And accompanying WP:CSD of course!) — The Storm Surfer 13:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Looking at WP:CSD#Images/media, images can only be speedied deleted if they "available as bit-for-bit identical copies on the Wikimedia Commons", the concept of redundancy also doesn't seem to apply against images available on the Commons. So I guess even if we did have a template, images would still have to be listed and go through WP:IFD as they don't meet the criteria for speedy deletion. A bit of a hassle but otherwise a policy change would be in order. Should the CSD principle of redundancy apply to non-identical images on the Commons?Madmedea 14:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not aniconistic

The page at Wikipedia is not aniconistic has a historical tag placed on it and a suggestion to post about it on this page. Is there any chance we can make this Wikipedia policy, at least as an extension of Wikipedia is NOT Censored? Certain articles, such as Muhammad have been subject to attack by certain parties which amounts to censorship. Any comments to revive this page and pass it as official policy? --ProtectWomen 05:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I see this not as a policy but as a garden-variety guideline. The community spoke pretty strongly in Talk:Muhammad/Mediation and at MfD. Even opponents of including depictions of religious leaders, who were in the minority to begin with, are nowadays at least overtly disavowing aniconistic motives for their actions. On the points raised by this brief and pithy page, I see nothing but consensus.Proabivouac 06:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
So the intention is to make this a proposed guideline again. I think its generally accepted by now. The next step would b to prose it on the talk page there. DGG 07:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no concensus and it is not generally accepted by now. In fact many people in the mediation were against pictures. I am working to file an arbitration case User:ALM scientist/Including Muhammad Pictures Against wiki-policies and wish to contact Jimbo sometime soon too on this issue. Please do not make it policy. --- A. L. M. 08:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Check if you could find any concensus Talk:Muhammad/Mediation_Archive_7#Suggestion. --- A. L. M. 08:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand, ALM. Your latest arguments have conceded that Wikipedia isn't censored, and are at least overtly based on (questionable) construals of undue weight and the profanity guideline. Supposing these are sincere, I can't see what the trouble should be with agreeing that Wikipedia isn't aniconistic: after all, this doesn't say that we should ignore considerations of due weight or the profanity guideline.Proabivouac 16:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

ProtectWomen has spam on multiple user pages so that they can come here and support it. We should not try to develop or rather enforce concensus like that.

Existing policies cover it, it is a great essay, but too specific for policy. I am hoping that ArbCom will codify that which consensus has already decided. Also, when making a proposal, it is not good to canvass only people who you know hold similar opinions, see WP:CANVAS. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 12:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the Canvas thing, I was half asleep last night. I knew ALM checks my contribs so that's why I didn't bother posting to his page. I just assumed he would tell his friends about it so I wouldn't have to.

Anyway, my understanding is that this IS a guideline already? I am a little confused. HighInBC, who is ArbCom and what do they have to do with this ? --ProtectWomen 15:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't object to giving it an {{essay}} tag so that it would similar status to Wikipedia:Tendentious editing for example, however would prefer if it wasn't a guideline or policy for similar reasons to HighInBC. ProtectWomen, ArbCom is the arbitration committee and you could find the WP:ARBCOM link helpful. Addhoc 16:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Addhoc, I placed the essay tag as that seems to be an accurate template and thank you for the WP:ARBCOM link. According to some, it already is policy (covered by WP:NOT#CENSORED). At least it had been suggested for a merge, so I placed the merge template as well. --ProtectWomen 16:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the merge tag from it. It is not going to merge with anyone without general community concensus. --- A. L. M. 22:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The merge tag is not final, it means that a merge has been suggested (which it has) and to discuss it.--ProtectWomen 16:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

AIC hazzard

My new Scientific Beliefs article is going to be delected. It's on AIC, so as such, it's incomplete. Really, it only has The structure laid out for the Wikipedian helpers to follow. Please try and put protections or something around AIC, so Wikipedia can't delete the articles because of being incomplete, because AIC is for new articles that are incomplete or anything like that, so that other users can edit, and help them with facts and structure! Please help.

Oh, and AIC has been renamed Wiki:Article in Construction, and i don't want that to be it's name, please help.

Article in Construction is here.

If you have an article idea that is incomplete, and you are worried about it being deleted before you can improve it... your best bet is to create a sub-page attached to your User page and work on it there... Once you have the core information (enough for a stub article) you can copy it into the main article space. Blueboar 14:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Delection of AIC

My new article is goning to be delected, this is my side of the delection discussion:

This page should not be delected because unlike the other resorces, this article is so that people with ideals can post the article here, and have people with more intelligence fill in the blank spots for them. A person whom posts and article by themselves is likely to make at least one or so mistakes, but by posting the article here, you have people coming in to help finish it and fix the mistakes, it can help in more ways then the other resorces, it can help lower delection by other users coming in and fixing it up and help it and ways that it fits the code and regulations of Wiki. If you made an article and it was going to be delected, post it here, and other users will fix it right up, and make it to where it fits the reglations. and when you are going to make an article, this place will help to provide facts and structure.

Please let the delection kinda slide. Please help me. Anyone who reads this. AIC is for Wikipedians, it's to help.

AIC {Article in Construction} can be found here

For the discusion page, come here.

Please help.

Nikro 06:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If the article does not meet the reglations then it should be delected. (sic). While it is true that articles can and do develop over a period of time, every editor has a responsibility to meet certain basic tenets of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines at the time of the article's creation. Such as notability, verifiability, spam/advertising, copyright and so on. Any article that falls significantly short of such standards is liable for deletion. Adrian M. H. 13:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Categorization scheme: Nationality -> Country

I have a new bold proposal to reduce controversy in our categorization scheme. I propose we categorize people by "country" rather than "nationality". Nationality does not equal citizenship even if that was the original intention. If one changes citizenship or has multiple citizenship it can be tagged by all that apply. Stuff ambiguous like "American people" would also be gone as a result of this since it is "People from the United States". -- Cat chi? 13:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This will not stop controversy... just change it's nature. You will simply get arguments over what country someone is from. This is especially true for historical figures... borders change, countries expand and contract through war, regions break away and form new countries, etc. Do we classify someone by which country controlled the territory they lived in when they were born, or during the majority of their life, or by it's current name? Take for example someone born in Dublin in the early 1800s... would you categorize him in "People from Ireland" or in "People from the British Empire". After all, Ireland was not a "country" at the time. The same would be true for an historical person from Tallinn in what is today Estonia... would you categorize someone born there in 1600 in "People from Estonia" or in "People from Sweden"... what about someone born there in 1800 (people from the Russian Empire?) And forget about trying to categorize someone from the Balkans... Yugoslavia? Croatia? Serbia? Boznia-Herzegovina? Greater Bulgaria? Austria? Hungary? Autria-Hungary? Venician Republic? Roman Empire? Byzantine Empire? Ottoman Empire? Some areas of the Balkans changed "country" multiple times during a single lifetime! Good intention, but it won't work. Blueboar 18:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
First of all this change is to effect current peoples mostly. Historic personalities are a completely different issue. Someone from Ancient Rome should be categorized as being "from Ancient Rome" and not as an "Italian" or being "from Italy".
The intention of categorization is to base it on a legal document called "citizenship" throughout their life. It is not intended to be based on what country owns their birth place today. I am not going to reply to specific examples since that makes it a content dispute. Someone from the ottoman empire who did not carry another citizenship should be categorized accordingly. Einstein carried 3 different citizenship throughout his life.
Ethnicity/race of a person should play no role in ones citizenship. Categories are navigational aids. Nothing else. If the person is Irish or something else it can be mentioned in the relevant article.
-- Cat chi? 20:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
To the contrary, nationality is an important thing. Of course, we shouldn't discriminate by ethnicity, but we shouldn't think it doesn't exist. What would be done with any nationality that doesn't dominate any state, such as Kurds or TauregTuareg; it surely makes more sense to categorise a Kurd from Iraq with a Kurd from Turkey rather than with an Arab from Iraq. What would you do with an ethnically Russian person born in one of the other former Soviet republics? What about someone born in Abkhazia: would that person be Abkhazian or Georgian? I echo Blueboar: good intention, but it won't work. Nyttend 00:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
What would I do? I guess there is no avoidance of specifics.
  • There is no reason why we cant tag an Iraqi Arab, an Iraqi Turkomen, and an Iraqi Kurd under the same "People from Iraq" category. It is completely noncontroversial to suggest such a thing.
  • To call a Kurd from Turkey as a "Turkish" can refer to both citizenship (everyone from Turkey is a "Turkish" citizen) but Turkish also means an ethnicity, (not everyone from Turkey is of "Turkish" ethnicity). It is problematic; the way we use it can be self contradictory.
  • No comment on Taureg, we do not even have an article about it.
Tuareg - Well, are they Libyan citizens? They can be tagged under Tuareg ethnicity and Libyan citizenship (article says they live in Libya). -- Cat chi? 10:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • An ethnically Russian person without a Russian citizenship should not be categorised as being from Russia. Whatever country he/she is from should be the category. If he/she is from Poland categorizing accordingly is nothing problematic.
  • Abkhazia is a de facto independent republic. Anything we talk about it will be in the gray area. Defacto counties such as Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, Republic of China, and even Sealand can be categorised like a regular country. There is a verifiable claim that these are countries even if the majority of the world disputes it. In the case of Abkhazia, everyone from Abkhazia can be tagged as "from Abkhazia" and "From Georgia" just like how a territory disputed by two or more countries are tagged as being the territory of those countries
I do not see leaving it "as is" a better solution. Lets either categorize by ethnicity or by country. Lets not mix these two with "nationality". Ethnicity can be controversial since it is a cultural issue and hard to verify. Someone can be 1/4th of a certain ethnicity, should he/she be categorised for his her 1/4th quarter or the other 1/4s. There are those living melting pots you know. Citizenship on the other hand can be based on a legal document. People typically have a single citizenship. Very few has dual, it is nearly unheard of for people to have triple citizenships.
-- Cat chi? 02:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
OK... how would you categorize Nikola Tesla? (just to use one that I know is controvercial and argued about a lot)... Serb? Croat? Aurstrian? American? Blueboar 12:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Nikola Tesla was born on 10 July 1856 in Austrian Empire. I assume he carried an Austrian Empire citizenship. On 30 July 1891, he became a naturalized citizen of the United States. So he should be categorized under Category:People from the Austrian Empire and Category:People from the United States. I am assuming that these two were the only citizenship he had. Weather he was born in modern day Croatia or weather his parents were of Serbian ethnicity does not affect his citizenship either way. -- Cat chi? 18:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Not a 'citizen' of the Austrian Empire, but a subject. Ditto other empires. You would call someone a 'subject' of the British Empire, but I don't have a clue if these empires had anything like the modern system of citizenship. As for his categories, why on Earth is there a Category:Serbian vegetarians, of which he is the only member? Category:Vegetarians by nationality is also hopelessly subdivided. A list of vegetarians might be interesting, but I'm not going to rummage through 34 different nationality categories to get a list of vegetarians. Why oh why do people insist on seizing on categories that are functioning just fine and subcategorising them into uselessness by 'nationality'? <sigh> Carcharoth 23:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
OK how about this. Would you mind explaining what a "subject of an empire" supposed to mean? Is it like citizenship in a sense that "being a subject" is being from that country? How about categorizing him under Category:Subjects of Austrian Empire rather than "nationality"? We have many people of a certain nationality who have never been to the nation (country/nation-state). Or people from a nationality that does not even have a nation (country/nation-state). Those are especially problematic and makes categorization difficult. -- Cat chi? 19:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Provisional support for this, but what if the person is from a state that has ceased to exists or an area that has changed hands? Not a deal breaker, just curious as to how we'd handle that situation. -Mask? 08:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Replied at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#nationality -> country -- Cat chi? 08:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_AJ&oldid=1124900652"