Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Village pump proposals   post
The proposals section of the village pump is used to discuss new ideas and proposals that are not policy related (see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) for that).

Recurring policy proposals are discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals). If you have a proposal for something that sounds overwhelmingly obvious and are amazed that Wikipedia doesn't have it, please check there first before posting it, as someone else might have found it obvious, too.

Before posting your proposal:

  • If the proposal is a change to the software, file a bug at Bugzilla instead. Your proposal is unlikely to be noticed by a developer unless it is placed there.
  • If the proposal is a change in policy, be sure to also post the proposal to, say, Wikipedia:Manual of style, and ask people to discuss it there.
  • If the proposal is for a new wiki-style project outside of Wikipedia, please go to m:Proposals for new projects and follow the guidelines there. Please do not post it here. These are different from WikiProjects.
Shortcut:
WP:VPR
Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar). Please add new topics to the bottom of this page. Archive
Village Pump
Village pump
News (post)
Policy (post)
Technical (post)
Proposals (post)
Assistance (post)
Miscellaneous (post)

Contents

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

[edit] Redirect on Contribution pages, "redirect=no"?

uhh....i think people just don't really have an opinion on it. I, for one, have almost never encountered the situation you've outlined. On the offchance i do click on a contribution that's a redirect, i just click the history or diff links instead to see what changes the person made. I suppose a better place to ask would be the technical section... --`/aksha 02:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, this is definitely a good idea. `/aksha is right - move this to a technical section and it'll get noticed and maybe even implemented. Good luck. Nihiltres 18:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea (found it annoying myself before), but yeah this may have been better on the technical pump. -- nae'blis 19:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change of autoconfirmed suffrage from 4 days to 100 edits

Although semi-protection is an effective deterrent for all but the most determined vandals, the current suffrage of 4 days allows determined vandals to create sock farms.

I propose that the suffrage be changed from 4 days to 100 edits.

With the change in suffrage, a sock puppet would have to make 100 edits without getting blocked, before they can vandalise a semi-protected article. This should deter even the most determined vandals. If they make 100 edits that are beneficial to the encyclopedia, before making several vandal edits and getting blocked, Wikipedia will have a net improvement. Of course, sock puppets could make many edits in user space and sandboxes, and this is something RC patrollers will have to be wary of.

Do note that 100 is an arbitrary number.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Given a decent broadband connection I can make 100 edits in under an hour (probably much faster if I just sat there and reverted vandalism using pop-ups). It's a lot faster to make 100 edits than wait 4 days. --tjstrf talk 19:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Consider the time taken to create a sock puppet, and the time taken to make 100 edits. This proposal will increase the net effort needed to vandalise (very little effort is needed to spend five minutes creating ten socks, and four days later, using them to vandalise). In addition, consider the quality of their 100 edits. If these 100 edits are vandalism, they will be blocked before they can reach the 100-edit mark. If these 100 edits are beneficial (e.g. vandalism reverts, spelling corrections), they will compensate for the vandalism. Of course, RC patrollers will have to be wary of users who make many edits in their user space or in the sandbox, or use other methods to artificially inflate their edit count. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Account creation is tracked in the user table, but number of edits is not. Hence calculating the age of an account is a simple (low impact) database operation, whereas calculating the number of edits currently requires a full query of all page histories. Given that autoconfirmed status is looked up before every edit, keeping the overhead low is a major reason for using age rather than number of edits. Dragons flight 19:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
That is a valid concern. Instead of constantly parsing contribution/page histories, perhaps there could be an editcount variable, which increases by 1 when a user makes an edit, and autoconfirmed status could be granted once the variable reaches 100. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Look at it the other way around ... wouldn't it be better to multiply by two the autoconfirmed suffrage everytime one vandilizes a page. This could be done automatically, for example everytime that person has a vandal tag on his/her user talk page, hence, the established users have 0 days of suffrage and thus multiplying this value by two gives 0 again which means this could be implemented.
We could do it in another way, everytime one creates an account, he/she has to make an edit to, say, the mainspace, talkpagespace, userspace, userspace, wikipediaspace, wikipediatalkspace in order to be granted this status. This would also assure such users are participating in the general discussions and not just disrupting the system. Lincher 21:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
They could just write a script that would make and revert a single insignificant change to many articles until the limit is reached. No one would think twice. There are plenty of ways to circumvent this automatically. I'm not saying it's not a good idea - making things harder for vandals but not so much for legit contributors is good - but it's not foolproof. Deco 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Heck, why not just change the suffrage period from 4 days to two weeks? or a month? there are always talk pages if new editors really want to edit semi-protected articles, and there is still AfC and Requested moves. I would support an edit count combined with a minimum time period. This covers both aspects. Zunaid©Please rate me at Editor Review! 07:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that an an edit count is too vulnreable to fraud to work. Only if combined with the existing 4-day time limit would it work. Also, I cannot supprt the suggestion of extending the time period without some study showing that it would have a significane amount of added beneficial effect. --EMS | Talk 17:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replace "Editing help" with "Cheatsheet" link

I propose we change the link to Help:Editing to point to Wikipedia:Cheatsheet, in the editing-mode layout. eg:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)

It's technically difficult to add an additional link (as previously proposed and supported), and a few editors suggested it would actually be preferable to simply replace the "Editing help" link (at MediaWiki:Edithelppage), for clarity and simplicity. I agree, but this is a major change and will require strong consensus. Please comment/show support. Thanks :) --Quiddity 21:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC) - Updated per 2nd comment at 02:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Support - The Cheatsheet is significantly more helpful to most users, and the Edit Help link is already standard fare on most welcome mats. Vote Cheatsheet for ArbCom! oh wait, I got my forums confused... Doc Tropics 21:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - I strongly support this change, however I don't support the verbiage change. I think it still needs to remain "Editing help" linking to the Cheatsheet. Simply putting "Cheatsheet" isn't explicit enough and new users will ignore the link out of confusion for what "Cheatsheet" refers to. --Wolf530 (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't considered the wording, only the utility of the change itself. I agree with Wolf that the term "Cheatsheet" lacks the clarity of "Editing Help", which should probably be retained. Doc Tropics 01:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Proposal above updated accordingly. -Quiddity 02:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support but the cheatsheet would need to be given a prominant link to Help:Editing so that the more detailed information can be obtained easily. Tra (Talk) 02:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks, that link looks great! Tra (Talk) 02:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    np, you beat me to the reply! I've tweaked the See also section too. -Quiddity 02:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks good, nice job : ) Doc Tropics 03:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for asking a question rather than voting (unfortunately I don't have a strong opinion): is the term cheatsheet adequate in tone for an encyclopedia? My non-native speaker "feeling" would go for quick reference or quick reference card. Just bad feeling? —Gennaro Prota•Talk 05:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
If enough editors feel strongly about it, "Cheatsheet" could be renamed as you suggest; however, there is probably a general understanding that the term has no negative connotations in this context. Doc Tropics 05:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I (months ago) moved it from "Wikipedia:Quick guide" to "Wikipedia:Cheatsheet" in order to match with the existing meta page m:Cheatsheet. Wikipedia:Reference card is already an incoming redirect, so it could be moved there; I'm happy with either.(Also it's not a "vote", people often just add bolded initial words to give an "at a glance" summary of the state of a thread. You could add comment before yours for example :) -Quiddity 05:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I like the change though, as I said above, I don't feel strongly about it (the main reason is: while it may help getting started earlier, which is good, it may also induce skipping a thorough read of the complete manual, which is harmful in the long run). What I would suggest anyway is eliminating the link redundancy at Wikipedia:Cheatsheet: off-hand it isn't obvious to me what's the difference between Help:Editing, at the top of the page, and More editing help (last table row), for instance. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 06:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    Done, it was redundant to the arrow/link back to help:contents too. (Anyone can edit it, it's not locked ;) --Quiddity 06:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Much more readable and accessible to newbies. Lincher 14:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolute Support, the "Cheatsheet" is more newb friendly. It's much easier to glance at that the edit help, and I think it will help Wikipedia.++aviper2k7++ 01:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Another Conditional Support: The cheatsheet is much better for syntax, but I think the "Editing basics" bullet points at Help:Editing should be somewhere on whatever page "Editing help" links to. I wouldn't want new users to miss these points, as they are very important. Could we summarize them on the Cheatsheet? Also, I think "Sign comments on talk pages" should be added to the Editing Basics list and the cheatsheet. -- Renesis (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    Signing talkpage posts is already heavily reminded at the top's of those pages via MediaWiki:Talkpagetext and at the bottom via MediaWiki:Edittools. I won't revert your addition at Cheatsheet, but I don't think it's necessary.
    Adding the "Editing basics" bullet points would greatly increase the size of the page, and I think its brevity is one of its strong points. I'd suggest that the mentions elsewhere (intro/tutorial/help:editing/How to edit a page/etc) are sufficient; We want to get people started editing, more than we need them to start off perfectly. (imho, and all that :) -Quiddity 21:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    Wow, I had never noticed the MediaWiki:Talkpagetext template text. Anyway, I still do think it is useful on the cheatsheet. As for the bullet points... I don't mean we need to move the entire text to the cheatsheet but listing a few of those points would be helpful, I think. -- Renesis (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    It's new, in the last few weeks - top of talkpages. As for the Cheatsheet - it's a normal wikipage, edit at will; discuss if drastic or reverted. :) --Quiddity 01:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that enough support (with zero objections)? I can announce it at WP:CBB if not; otherwise, I'll put the editprotected tag/request at MediaWiki:Edithelppage tomorrow. -Quiddity 03:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Support; this would reduce confusion for new users (who are most in need of the link). --ais523 14:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change. the wub "?!" 21:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion: New Yearbook about PC and Video Games

Hi,

I tried to find a place to submit this, but ended up here. It's about a new post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-10-21#the_Book_of_Games_Volume_1_.28The_Ultimate_Guide_to_PC_.26_Video_Games.29

How long does it take before a new article is verified? I am the publisher of the book, and would like to contribute if I could. Is it possible to get in contact with someone that will work on the article? We could send a press copy of the book to the person.

-Bendik Stang

[edit] Expire (delete) unread articles

[Note: This was initially but imporperly placed in (perrenial proposals)] --EMS | Talk 21:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that articles which go unread for an extended period of time be automatically removed. After all, the goal of an encyclopedia is to transmit knowledge. So an article which is not being read is not a useful part of an encyclopedia.

It seems to me that the first thing to do is to obtain statistics on how often articles are being read, and get some idea of what consititutes an unread (or rarely read) atricle. Even without that, I would suggest the following standard for removing articles:

  • An article which goes unread or unedited for 90 days should be automatically removed.
  • Accesses by bots and the "random article" function should not be considered reads for the purpose of this standard.
  • A user which selects pages at a rate of more than 100 reads per hours for 10 accesses or more should not have their accesses for that period counted as reads. The same should also apply to edits. (This is suggested as a way to thwart editors who would access pages to "refresh" their expiration timers.)
  • A page which is deleted under this standard should
    • be replaced by a template stating when and why the deletion occurred,
    • have its article and discussion histories removed to prevent a trivial revival of the article, and
    • be protected against being restarted for at least 90 days.
  • Secondary issues:
    • When the random article function is used, should the use of a link in the article cause it to be considered read?
    • The editing of a article accessed through the random article function probably should reset the expiration timer.

I suspect that this may result in the removal of a substantial number of articles, but if no one comes to Wikipedia looking for information on a given topic, is it at all fair to consider that subject notable? --EMS | Talk 05:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a few questions: is the usage rate for all articles generally constant or are some articles read on a cyclical basis? Are articles related to Arbor Day and Halloween accessed more frequently as these dates approach? Could there also be articles related to these two topics, which are perhaps of a minor or marginal nature, and which might see no use at all except during some segment of the calendar year? A great many U.S. colleges and universities are operating on a reduced schedule during June, July, and August, and might not the fact that a majority of their students are away on vacation affect the usage of Wiki articles?
Just generally I'm uneasy with the idea of deleting information (because the minute I trash something I'll have need of it) and I think this proposal has the potential to strike at the core of what Wikipedia is, or is not. If the Wiki is to set a standard as a knowledgebase I would think that completeness must be part of the perception, if not the reality, of what the Wiki is. And if the Wiki is not perceived as complete, in some sense, then I suspect it becomes less likely to be used as the first source referred to when a person first 'looks up' a particular subject. I also wonder just who the Wikipedia is intended to serve. Is it to be a useful reference for everyone, no matter how arcane or obscure ones interest may be, or is this to be an encyclopedia for the casual masses, who, for example, are intrigued by The DaVinci Codes and turn to the web just to read a little more and see what's out there?
In other words, do we entertain the hope that Wikipedia might be perceived as a standard tool for serious research of some kind, at some point, if not now, or are we content for Wikipedia to serve as a kind of enormous fan infobase for devotees of a great diversity of topics? Both forms of Wiki would serve a valuable purpose, but they are not the same animal.
Also, I feel it should be pointed out that anyone who wrote an article, only to find it deleted ninety-one days later, might well become disenchanted with Wikipedia, and thus disinclined to ever write to another article, or another, or another, because the fruits of their labor did not, in effect, sell to the reading public (or their search engines). You might also discourage other people from ever writing anything, out of the concern that their efforts would not be sufficiently popular to generate sustained interest, as the seasons turn. Cryptonymius 17:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
With regards to cyclical reading: I find it hard to believe that Halloween would go completely unread for the rest of the year. The goal is to have a bar low enough so that an article that is of any legitimate interest will easily stay in Wikipedia. Perhaps the time on this should be 1 year instead of 90 days. (I actually suspect that much of Wikipedia is accessed daily, but a reasonably long expiration time is needed to protect marginal articles against the effects of randomness. For example, and article that gets accessed twice a week on average could easily have a month where it it not accessed at all. Hence the 90-day period.)
The concerns about Wikipedia as an enormous infobase and the concern over editors being disenchanted in their work vanishes are related. Once again I ask of what use an article is if it is never accessed or if anyone other than the creator cares that it is there. Such articles contribute to the article count, but do not contribute to the mission of the encyclopedia. It seems me that if an editor is not producing usable content that their becoming disenchanted is not a bad thing. In fact, we are constantly deleting undesirable/non-notable content. IMO, this is a wonderful test for non-notability.
As for "completeness": "Wikipedia is not an indiscrimiate collector of information". It is not intended to be "complete". This leads to another consideration: If an article is not being accessed, it is not being checked for accuracy either. Remember the incident of that fake biography which created such a scandal within Wikipedia a year or so ago. That article went unnoticed for months. Under this scheme, it would have vanished of its own accord in a reasonable period of time.
Finally, do note that I have called for there to be a usage study first, so that the viability of this proposal can be determined. The "random article" function currently returns mostly stubs on parks and people that provide little usable information. It would be nice to see that buttom return more in the way of solid content more of the time. --EMS | Talk 19:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
This just increases systemic bias against important but less popular subjects. The Superman article would never be deleted by this, but articles about certain species or chemical compounds might. I just think this is a terrible idea.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Why in God's good name would you expect Superman to be deleted under this proposal? It is an actively edited article and a regular target of vandals! Look at it's edit history! This article would need to have the Earth demolished by a kyptonite meteorite to go unread for any significant period of time. --EMS | Talk 21:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
He said it WOULDN'T be deleted. Read his comment again. --tjstrf talk 22:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Please no. The fact that no one on an electronic encyclopedia reads something for x period of time means very little. There's no cost to keeping it, and a detriment to someoen who eventually wants to use it. Trollderella 21:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
If it's not being read, it's not being edited. If it's not being edited, the content is not being validated and/or improved. First versions on this medium are generally lousy, but if several editors are involved an article will improve quite fast. Also, given the current popularity of Wikipedia I would think that any useful article is highly unlikely to go unread for any significant period of time. --EMS | Talk 21:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
This proposal violates my general principle that bots must never be given more power than humans. The community would never allow such a blind massacre on AfD. An admin who repeatedly deleted articles without even glancing at their titles, content, histories, talk pages, logs, or linked pages would be reverted and desysopped. No amount of usage studies will change that.
The software could help us out by generating lists of unread articles, which thoughtful humans would comb through in search of non-notability and vandalism. But the software cannot take any action that we wouldn't. Melchoir 22:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
If an article is completely unread for an extended period of time, on what grounds would you consider it to be notable? --EMS | Talk 22:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Any of them. The existence of multiple, nontrivial, published reviews is a standard measure; there are others. Note that notability pertains to an article's subject, not the article itself. An article's readership can suffer from factors that have nothing to do with its subject, such as a poorly chosen title, insufficient incoming links, or improper categorization.
Moreover, notability is a criterion for deletion only because it tends to single out topics which are impossible to cover encyclopedically: they are so little-known that we cannot meet our content policies of verification and neutrality for an article. Your proposed process cannot identify these non-notable articles; it doesn't even care when the content standards have already been met! Melchoir 01:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This idea is patently absurd. There are many notable encyclopedic subjects which people only rarely would need to know about or research. For example, who's going to look up minor Senators of Alabama from the 30's? However, that is no excuse to go about deleting them when the information they contain is useful and necessary to our encyclopedic nature. Encyclopedias, in case you haven't heard, are supposed to be all-encompassing. Why should we delete pages simply because they are not of popular interest? This would additionally give us an even stronger bias towards the temporal and current vs. the timeless and historical. Rejected. --tjstrf talk 22:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this for real? This proposal is so absurd that it costs me a major effort to believe it was done in good faith. -- Ekjon Lok 22:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hum. "I suggest that [books] which go unread for an extended period of time be automatically [burned]. After all, the goal of [a library] is to transmit knowledge. So [a book] which is not being read is not a useful part of [a library]." We were reshelving a bay at work today; I'm fairly sure some of those books hadn't been touched in four, five years. But they're still useful books, in potentia, they just need their reader to come along. I think the analogy is illuminating... Shimgray | talk | 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Perfect parallel. I remember checking out a copy of Kidnapped from my library which hadn't been read since 1954. --tjstrf talk 22:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I hope you tore it up, it was clearly not-notable. Trollderella 22:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
This is a phenomenally terrible idea. -- BrianSmithson 01:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The proposer of the topic should consider WELL ESTABLISHED policies: 1) wikipedia is not paper. There is no compelling reason to remove a well-referenced article merely to "make space". Wikipedia has infinite space. There are reasons for deleting articles, but simply to remove them because they aren't being used is silly. Consider the average University Library. They have millions of volumes, and only a few thousand are ever on loan. Some LARGE majority of the books in a University Library may go YEARS between check-outs. Yet, the university maintains space for them, not for the fact that they HAVE been used, but that they MIGHT be used. Past performance is never an indication of future performance. 2) Notability is established OUTSIDE of wikipedia, and is NEVER revoked. Once external, independant, third-party sources exist to verify notability, THEY NEVER STOP EXISTING. Thus, once notable, always notable. The fact that an article goes unread doesn't eliminate the existance of the sources used to write the article. Thus, there is no compelling reason to delete merely for lack of utility. 3) Wikipedia is a place to collect knowledge. To delete VERIFIABLE knowledge for any reason runs counter to Wikipedia's purpose. I would agree that this MAY be one of the worst proposals I have seen here. What purpose would it serve to delete a verifable and notable article? --Jayron32 02:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Saying an article hasnt been edited/read for 90 days (excluding bots) so lets delete, I wonder how many FA would fall into that category. Even ignoring that Wikipedia is as much about the collection of knowledge as anything else, while we may write an article on something today because nobody reads or edits that page for 90 days doesnt invalidate the information. There enough stub, poorly formed or unsourced articles that survive AfD, how could it be contemplated to let a bot just delete an FA/GA because nobody as has read or edited it for 90 days. Gnangarra 03:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What I am seeing are a lot of knee-jerk reactions, as if articles should be here because they are here. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information. I really think that this is an idea that needs to be researched. How often are articles accessed? Are there articles which go largely unread? If so, what kind of content do those articles typically have? From there other questions will follow: Are these relatively unaccessed articles worth keeping? What do these articles say about the Wikipedia notability standads? Noone seems to have an answer to those questions. The concern about FA articles is valid, but I strongly doubt that topics which noone cares about become FA's. At the least Wikipedia should come to know how it is being used.

(BTW - I agree that blindly implementing this suggestion is a truly bad idea. You just plain don't do something like this unless you have a very good idea of what it is going to do.) --EMS | Talk 03:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Any article can become an FA provided someone put the effort into researching and writing. then you proposal should be to find out how and what is being accessed, without the suggestion of deleting stuff. Gnangarra 03:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The two kind of go hand-in-hand. I am making a certain assumption that unviewed material is almost certainly non-FA material. That assumption needs to be validated. It could be that stubs can be removed on this basis, but more fleshed out articles are better manually reviewed if not just plain kept. --EMS | Talk 05:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, wrong implementation. Instead of deleting them, have a Special:Unviewed page (or probably some better name) that would allow these articles to be identified. Then it gives people one more avenue to find articles that need to be reviewed. But certainly no automatic deletion. —Doug Bell talk 04:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That is an intriguing idea, and others have suggested above that a manual process would be more desirable. I can be flexible with this, as my concern is to remove the "clutter" from Wikipedia. Yet in the end I want something to come out of this that is a benefit to Wikipedia. I get a sense that there are a number of articles present that could be deleted but just are not worth the bother to find and flag. A system of this type may be able to cull things more efficiently. --EMS | Talk 05:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem is here is that 'clutter' is a thinly veiled term for 'things I'm not interested in'. Why would you think that unread articles are 'clutter' that need to be removed? They are gems waiting to be discovered! Trollderella 17:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
"Ancientpages" is not at all the same thing. I spot checked them and saw a collection of disambiguation pages and a few short (but well done) articles on small towns. I suspect that most (if not all) of these are accessed regularly.
I accept the insinuation about the meaning of "cluter". However, the issue is one of identifying what noone is interested in as opposed to what I am not interested in. 99% of this encyclopedia I will never use. At the same time, the relativity pages (which I edit) will never be read by 99% of the users of Wikipedia. I realize that this proves nothing.
Can anyone answer this question: I there are tracking a article usage currently? IMO, it would be interesting to track the last 10 non-bot/random reads to each article (by when and not who), as well as to maintain counters for the current and previous of each of day, week, month, year. (I don't know how much tracking data can be efficiently attached to an article. I am certain that doing so will make the database bigger, and that could be an issue. Perhaps a tracking database is what is needed.) --EMS | Talk 17:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is mirrored all over the place. This means it is impossible to know whether an article has been read or not; you can only find out if it has been read on a particular service (eg Wikimedia). A statistical survey might yeild interesting information (it would be especially interesting to know how well the read frequency correlates with the edit frequency), but I don't think editorial decisions like this should be made on such a crude basis. Chris Thornett 19:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

At least I am getting support for studying the usage patterns. I would not let the existance of mirrors bother you. The first question is how the mirrors are refreshed: If they only go to Wikipedia for content when it is requested (for example a mirror may seek the current article if it has been more than a day since it last retrieved it), then for the less-used articles the statistics will remain accurate and valuable. Even if mirror-related effects are not visible, Google tensd to send searchers straight to Wikipedia, so once again Wikipedia statistics should be usable and indicative of generally unread articles. As for whether this means is "crude": Until it has been studies, noone can say for sure how good or bad it is. We really should have the data instead of each of us "shooting fromt he hip". --EMS | Talk 20:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
a) Almost all mirrors are running from static dumps of varying age; very few are directly spidering Wikipedia or regularly updating. We have little to no knowledge of most of them, much less ability to get data.
b) We just don't have article-read statistics. We can't generate them, not with the setup as is. Logging pageviews, the fundamental requirement for good statistics, has been estimated at about 7 terabytes of storage space per month across Wikimedia sites - your ninety days threshold would mean having to store and regularly study 20TB of logs. Even stripping that down to nothing more than a timestamp and a page-visited note would still be unwieldily large. The best we can do is very very limited sampling, hopelessly muddied by caching and proxies and so on, looking at about one pageview in a thousand - and whilst that is decent for letting us know what the most useful pages are, it's hopeless for anything in the long tail, the articles that a proposal like this is interested in.
In short, the impracticality of collecting the data makes any proposal based on interpreting that data a non-starter. Shimgray | talk | 20:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
This does not impress me in the least. The issue is how to get it done, not why it cannot be done. Logging all pageviews for 90 days worth is indeed a non-starter, but that is not how you would do the needed tracking! This kind of study relies on aggregate startistics. Suggestion: Create a daily tracking table/database. During the day, each read results in the invokation of a read against the tracking table entry for that article. If the entry exists, then increment it's counter. If it does not exist, then create it with a value of 1. At the end of the day do a file rename to switch the tracking to a new, empty database. The previous day's table is then saved under a name which includes the date. Batch processes can now be used to create aggregate tables for weeks, months, etc. Given a million articles and names which average 25 characters long, the result is a database which is 30-50 Mb big. Ninety days worth is then < 5 Gb worth. That isn't small but it fits easily on most modern hard drives and is far from the 20 Tb that you claim is needed each month. So a properly designed process is very much within the realm of technical feasability. --EMS | Talk 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikimedia simply does not have the resources to do a database write at a rate that is anywhere near 1 per read request. It takes a large number of caches and database mirrors just to keep up with the read requests. In addition, many of the dedicated caches are intentionally very dumb, and would not be able to update a read counter without a major architechural change. I am afraid any kind of tracking that needs to respond to every read request is a technical non-starter. (FYI, the read rate for Wikipedia is in the ballpark of 5000 pages per second distributed across >200 servers.) Dragons flight 21:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I beg to differ. Let's first take the external mirrors off of the table, so that only direct request to Wikipedia iteself are considered (which is still a real boatload). It seems to me that you identify boxes that can handle this task, and those that handle reads. Any box that can do both maintains a local read counter along the lines noted. Otherwise, the requests get passed onto a box that can handle the counting task. Note that each box does its own counting in this case to spread the load around. At the end of the day, they all send their data to another box which collects and combines the individual databases from the various boxes to obtain the statistical "dailies" for Wikipedia. I believe that this will introduce a minor (not necessarily trivial) load on the system. It will also need some thoughtful design and implementation to create. So the issues are ones of whether Wikipedia is interested in putting enough of its volunteer resources together to prototype this, and if it does so what level of system impact would be acceptable if this is to go into production.
I strongly suspect that you all will learn a lot of interesting things about Wikipedia if this is implemented. Whether my initial suggestion will be implemented because of it is problematical though. --EMS | Talk 04:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
We should also remember that we are not just writing for the current crop of readers - we are writing about verifiable material for generations to come. We have litterally no idea what they will be interested in, just as past historians did not anticipate what we would be interested in. That is why verifiability, not whether it is interesting to current readers, must be the gold standard. Trollderella 23:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I just love the note at the top that says this was temporarily placed at perennial proposals. I'm a deletionist at heart but this is just a very very bad idea. And I won't even mention the useless technical complications that implementing this would entail. Quality articles are quality articles, regardless of whether or not they're read often. We already have plenty of resources allowing us to identify useless content: orphaned articles, linkless articles, short pages, neglected articles etc. Any attempt to make the deletion process automatic will undoubtedly lead to loss of valuable content. I have a hard time believeing this is a good faith proposal. Pascal.Tesson 06:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I was shown the random article function by my daughter (it's on the left hand side of the screen in the skin I'm using), and she was joking about the kinds of articles that it shows. Try it. It is mostly stubs on trivial places and people. If find it hard to believe that most of that stuff is viewed at all regularly. Often it does little more that documents the existance of the topic. You worry about losing "valuable content", but how is content valuable if it is never used!? I think the silliness of that knee-jerk reaction to this proposal is shown in people worrying that Halloween and Superman could vanish because of it. Most (if not all) of the articles removed under this proposal will be on topics that you cannot name!
Once again, I call for article usage to be studied and unread articles to be identified in order to determine if this idea or some variation on the theme can work. Noone can name for me an unread, quality article because noone knows what articles are unread! Special:ancientpages shows the oldest (longest since last edited) articles, but most of those have good reason for being stable, and most likely are regularly read.
It is silly that I keep hearing the theme of "this will remove valuable content". Once again: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information. I for one find it hard to believe that unaccessed articles will be found to be valuable. Remember the incident on the fake biography accusing someone of being involved in the John F. Kennedy assassination! That article went unnoticed for months! Why? Becuase noone read it, except accidentally! Unaccessed articles are not being checked for accuracy, nor do they have content being added to them as additional people with additional knowledge become involved with them. Those that may be worth keeping will be on highly esoteric subjects, and even then there may be an issue of whether they should be in this wiki!
At the least, it would be nice if the data was gathered so that I could be shown that this is a silly proposal, or alternatively that I could show you that it (or a manual version of it) will work a lot better than you may think. --EMS | Talk 15:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I do hope you are joking. Trollderella 21:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not a joke. Even if the idea is bad, I believe that the suggestion itself is good because of the questions it raises. After all, if there are unread articles, then why should that be the case? Are these quality articles that will reward the very occasional reader who should be looking for them? Or are they hidden pieces of BS that are waiting to "bite" an unwary user of the "random article" function? It seems to me that it would be very interesting to find out what is unread and determine why that is, and I do suspect that a lot of those articles would end up being removed upon further consideration. --EMS | Talk 22:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
For the second time, no one said Superman would be deleted. The person who commented about the Superman article was saying that Superman wouldn't be deleted but that far more scientifically valuable articles like those on elemental isotopes or rare species might be. --tjstrf talk 23:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the idea of deleting (manually or automatically) long-unread articles is absurd, being able to view a list of pages that have not been viewed in a long time would be very useful, as User:Doug_Bell suggested. Special:ancientpages orders pages based on creation date, so Special:unviewedpages (wantonpages?) would sort them based on their last access date. This tool could be used to make sure esoteric pages are of acceptable quality. It would also be a way of finding hidden gems! -Kslays 21:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for being open-minded about the possibilities here. --EMS | Talk 22:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if anyone already wrote it, but - if some page is listed in proposed Unviewedpages list and I someone will have to solve the quality of the page, he will have to visit the page - and if he does it, the page is immediatelly visited and removed from the list... So if the editor thinks for whatever reason it is a valueable page (or if the reader does not think about any reason, just browsing the Wikipedia not caring about editting or removing unread articles), it is safe for years again. So be careful about the list. Okino 23:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The Long Tail is relevant to this discussion (I see that Shimgray mentioned this concept above). I oppose deleting unread articles in the same way I oppose burning dusty books (as was mentioned earlier). The statistics gleaned from the analysis would be interesting and valuable - they would help to focusing certain clean-up efforts and in surveillance for certain types of vandalism. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear God, the deletionists are at it again! No, this is an appalling proposal. Just because information is obscure and rarely accessed does not make it useless. I was the first person to check a 1940s book out of the university library where I work. Does that make it useless? No, of course it doesn't. For a start, I was interested enough in it to take it out! Let's just bin this proposal now and move on. -- Necrothesp 17:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • My initial reaction is to be against this proposal, it just seems negligent. The only way I could see it working is if 1) The no-read deadline is extended to 6 months, if not a whole year. and 2) If the pages weren't actually deleted, but instead, archived somewhere with the possibility of recreation. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 18:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, bin the proposal of anything relating to deletion of old articles. Very bad idea for all the reasons listed above and it merits no further discussion. However, we should thank EMS for the entirely distinct discussion about having a way to see a list of articles that nobody has looked at in a long time that grew out of this failed proposal. As Ceyockey says, it would be a way of finding vandalism, encouraging clean-up, and additionally we could find useful neglected content that should be better linked and integrated into frequently viewed articles to make it more accessible. Who can create Special:unviewedpages? -Kslays 16:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ADOPT

I cannot see this proposal anywhere; if I have missed it, please don't shout at me.

It seems quite clear to me that many serious new editors, who really want to help our project, do not come across the adopt-a-user setup, nor are they directed to it. I have adopted two users and, since doing so, I have been approached by three newbies with questions which, happily, I could answer. But they were unaware that they could have asked to be adopted. They had all received a {{welcome}} template. I propose that the welcome templates be enlarged to include a link to WP:ADOPT. They then have the option of going there or not, but they will at least know about it.--Anthony.bradbury 19:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like a good suggestion, and I would eventually support it, but WP:ADOPT is very new. It might be best to allow for a breaking-in-period for the program before linking to it from welcome templates. Doc Tropics 19:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Not sure about the breaking-in-period. Do we really need it? —Gennaro Prota•Talk 19:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Without naming names, some other well-intentioned programs have later encountered difficulties and met with a certain amount of criticism. I do think that a longer period for community evaluation and response to WP:ADOPT would be in order before creating an "offical" link. In part because the link would strongly imply an official endorsement, in part because it just seems prudent to make sure the program works the way it was intended. Doc Tropics 20:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you talking about Wiki-Bortion? I thought it started out well at first, but then things started to get complicated. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC) —the preceding comment is a joke.

In support of Anthony.bradbury I would like the Adopt-a-user program to be linked from {{welcome}}, but I do understand the concerns of Doc Tropics. I would like to ask what sort of time period / number we talking about, and where could we get such community evaluation done?

On the other hand the project has been running for a few months now - and we have currently over 65 adoptees - and so far (as far as I am aware) no complaints. Even if it was added to the welcome template, we could always removed it very quickly if there were problems encountered. Beyond a certain point I suppose it is an old circular argument - if we don't have any "official" support we can't advertise the service properly to increase our numbers, but we need to increase numbers before we are allowed "official" support. "Official" support is particularly important for this project because it would help us attract the newest of users (who are otherwise hard to reach).

On a similar and maybe less controversial note, it would be great if we could have a link inserted under Where to ask Questions at Help:Contents - please see Help talk:Contents to discuss. Thanks Lethaniol 15:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of clarification, I strongly support the program myself and I'd like to get involved; it seems a very worthwhile project. My only concern was about moving too quickly in adding it to the "welcome mat". I would support the link being added once we are sure that the program works as intended, and so far, it seems to. Doc Tropics 15:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I like this as well. For now, let's try to spread this by text-of-mouth.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As I mention elsewhere, I do not think that this program is so useful (while the idea is cute). The best way for a user to get involved would be contribute to articles, and the interaction which follows from there. Joining a wikiproject is also a good idea.

Besides, I believe that the {{welcome}} template already has a bit too many links. If this project is found really useful, I'd suggest replacing one of the existing links than adding to it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Could people also comment on maybe adding it to the Help:Contents as well/instead please - many thanks Lethaniol 16:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Per this thread Help talk:Contents#WP:Adopt. Comment here or there. --Quiddity 19:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Another suggestion: Maybe we could make another template (e.g. {{welcome-a}}) with the welcome message and the link for users who want to link to WP:ADOPT to use until the link gets added to {{welcome}}. That said, I'm in favor of adding it. If any problems come up, it can be removed later. I think this would have been helpful for me when I was new; I, like a lot of people with knowledge in kind of obscure areas, edited quietly and didn't have too many interactions for a long time. delldot | talk 21:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I strongly support this addition to the routine welcome template. Requiring a break-in period for the adoption program is superfluous. It is a very simple program and its basic concept has been proven for millennium. -- CyberAnth 08:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Until, which will be hopefully soon, Adopt-a-User is added to either or both of Help:Contents of the Welcome template, people that support its insertion can use an alternative template - Template:Adopt-a-User Welcome - which has only a minor modification to include Adopt-a-User. Cheers Lethaniol 19:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support this idea. I was unaware of it until I followed your link just now!!! - PocklingtonDan 10:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Just so people known, we have increased are number of users involved (combined adoptees and adopters) from 100 to 150 in under 10 days. As the project in continuing to gain support I would like to know at what sort of level of use people think it should get linked from Welcome and Help pages, or whether it should never be? Cheers Lethaniol 12:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. I know that numbers are not everything, but they are one of the measures that, I should think, will be needed to be used to assess the programs importance Lethaniol 13:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MOS for tutorials, primers etc

In some articles, particularly science articles, the material is so dense that it is a bit difficult for nonspecialists to approach the article. One article where this debate has resurfaced a few times is evolution. The article's introduction is becoming inaccessible. Of course, one could simplify it, but a lot of editors are afraid of losing the technical precision if they do that. It has been suggested to link to Simple Wikipedia might be useful as a primer or starting place. Some have suggested an evolution (basic) page, possibly with a link, or a blue box with basic information in it. However, it is not clear what style a link to a simpler version should be. It would be nice to have a uniform link to basic articles as part of an MOS. For example, at the top of the article, a note, possibly in another color just below the disambiguation links to a basic version of the article or a tutorial version of the article. Comments?--Filll 20:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what the best solution here would be, but creating evolution (basic) would probably be a violation of Wikipedia:Content forking. Koweja 21:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the MOS page you want is Wikipedia:Lead section. -- nae'blis 23:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Right now it's at Introduction to evolution. I think the introduction should be clear and simple and not too scientific, and explain in more jargon-detail later on in the article. Either way one article I think is preferable. Fagstein 05:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] offensive material

every now and then ther's a fuss about material that is regarded as offensive by some.Why not implement in the preferences for the viewer a filter/filters that filters out what he might regard as offensive.I presumed that the images would have an exstra template to categorize them.That whay if you live in saoudy arabia or in a naturist island,you can be confortable in reading wikipedia--Zigzag8 01:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

(Naturists are easily offended?!) Slippery slope - We can't distinguish zealotry from conservatism, and shouldn't be required to. See Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Also, stopping the close-minded folks from seeing other people's perspectives doesn't help the spread of knowledge... -Quiddity 01:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not like you'll find a random image of a dick in the middle of the Teletubbies article. (Oh wait, I guess that does happen...) The bottom line is: if you're offended by sexually explicit content, the best filter is yourself. Just stop typing penis, clitoris, history of erotic depictions, naturist or Cleveland steamer as search terms. That way, the easily-offended can stop being offended while the rest of us write a thorough encyclopedia with relevant images to support the content. Pascal.Tesson 05:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Avoiding and battling the use of potentially offensive images on irrelevant pages (aka vandalism) goes a long way. For everything else, people can get their own blocking software without getting us a whole lot of extra work. - Mgm|(talk) 13:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] equation writer

The way that wikipedia writes equations is absurd. Example:

Z_{vib}=\prod_j{\sum_i{e^{-\frac{E_{j,i}}{kT}}}}

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Invisible site (talk • contribs) 03:10, 7 December 2006.

You must be looking for Help:Displaying a formula. In any case, that example has more braces than it needs, some of which are an indication that it's being typeset incorrectly to begin with. It should be:
Z_{vib} = \prod_j \sum_i e^{-E_{j,i}/kT}
which produces:
Z_{vib} = \prod_j \sum_i e^{-E_{j,i}/kT}
See how much less absurd that is? Melchoir 05:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
For comparison, the originally posted math typesets like this:
Z_{vib}=\prod_j{\sum_i{e^{-\frac{E_{j,i}}{kT}}}}
Honestly, I understand neither Invisible site's question, nor Melchoirs reply. Of course, removing the extra braces improves the readability of the source, and changing "\frac" into "/" may (or may not) be a good idea here.--Niels Ø 10:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
It is based on TeX, which is used by scientists (in particular mathematicians) to write documents and books (often using LaTeX). S Sepp 16:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
My point is that the braces are a helpful feature: they alert you when you're attempting to nest too many styles. It isn't a good idea to have a variable with multiple subscripts within a fraction within an exponential, and that's independent of the language used to generate it. TeX forces the issue by requiring you to type out all the code. Melchoir 22:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I though Invisible was commenting on the apperance of formulae at the article page; I now realise (s)he referred to their appearance at the edit page (i.e. to the source). The relevant help page for Invisible is WP:FORMULA.--Niels Ø 19:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so sometimes people will use a bit too many braces. That's not a tragedy. But having equations written using TeX is a must: most editors of equations are familiar with TeX as S Sepp just pointed out. Sure it's a bit complicated but then again, typesetting equations properly requires some amount of sophistication. Pascal.Tesson 19:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

LaTeX can be ugly, but it's at least human writable -- count your lucky stars we don't use MathML... — Matt Crypto 11:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editable watchlist

Imagine your watchlist was an ordinary document called [[user:<user name>/watchlist]]. Whenever something is to be added to the watchlist, the system should append a line in this format:

[[<link to article or whatever>]], [[<link to associated talk page>]]

The "my whatchlist" button should simply show "Related changes" for your /watchlist page.

I think this would make it easier to manage your watchlist (especialy if it is long) - pruning, adding articles to watch that do not currently exist, etc. Also, you can organize the items under various headings, if you want to (remember to put a heading like "==Unsorted recent additions to my watchlist==" at the bottom!) - it will not affect the functionality, but may still be useful. Does it sound like a good idea?--Niels Ø 10:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea but I think there's already far too much data in the unstructured free wiki text format. Like this discussion for one. Once it's wikitext it can contain syntax errors, it can't be easily resorted based on time of most recent modification (a feature many people find helpful), and so on. Deco 11:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate idea

Instead of having a wikitext watchlist page, how about simply allowing users to filter their watchlist using either standard or custom tags. This could be accomplished by having an additional option on the "Added to watchlist" page that lets the user select a tag for the page in their watchlist. (This page would probably need to no longer redirect back to the watched article as it does now after a short timeout.) On the watchlist page, in addition to the "Namespace" filter there would be a second selectable criteria to select which tags to view. No interface for changing filter tags is needed—simply "unwatch" and then "watch" and set the new filter tag.

Now having proposed this (which I think is technically a much better proposal than an editable watchlist), I'm not sure I see the need for it. But if this type of functionality is desired, I think my proposal is a much better mechanism. —Doug Bell talk 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if you already know, so pardon me if you do, but your watchlist is easily editable at Special:Watchlist/edit. Prodego talk 22:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is simply how a user can edit what it on their watch list. The proposal here is for changes to how changes are viewed on the Special:Watchlist page. However, your point is good in that an addition to my above proposal would be to list the filter flags for each page in the watchlist on the Special:Watchlist/edit page. Perhaps even list them in the form of a selector widget so that the filter preferences can be changed directly from that page. —Doug Bell talk 22:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A potential use for this

A watchlist document would be handy. Wikiprojects could really make a great deal of use out of that. So that someone who was part of a project(and considered themselves knowledgable about the subject) could watch for vandalism in all of the related pages.(especially helpful with new pags being added to a project, users wouldn't have to manually add everything related to a subject to their watchlist.) Otherwise unwatched topics might become very well watched indeed with this sort of structure. It sounds like a great idea to me. i kan reed 00:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Make the page with a list of links to the pages that need watching, then to use it as a watchlist, people can come to the page and click Related changes. Tra (Talk) 00:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Privacy

People recently commented that this would make a decent guideline to remind people of the hazards of making personal details available on-line. Please copyedit and comment on its talk page. (Radiant) 12:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That looks like one question that might be up to the lawyers at wikimedia. i kan reed 00:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation for categories

Would it be good if categories could have suppporting citations? I'm imagining some that would look roughly like Category:foo[1]. JoshuaZ 21:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It may be a good idea for certain controversial categories, although I think the software allows something like that. —Mets501 (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Really? How would it do it? I was playing around with my sandbox earlier to try to get something like that and was unable to figure out a way to do it. JoshuaZ 03:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you can do it with a CSS hack. I'm not so sure if it'd help, though; the cat list is plenty long already in many articles, and I'd estimate superscripted numbers are unlikely to be noticed. (Radiant) 16:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Likely to be noticed wouldn't be as relevant as having a way to source cats which would make the controversial ones much less controversial. Also, controversial cats seem to be more common on articles with only a few categories. JoshuaZ 19:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest just commenting out the citation and putting it right after the category in the article's code. That should work... not optimal but I think it would look pretty ugly even if we could figure out how to put an inline citation after the categories in the displayed actual page. --W.marsh 19:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dealing with "edit creep"

I'm sure I'll get crushed by tons of comments about how this is a horrible idea, but why not add a feature to the watchlist which allows those watching a particular article to rate each edit with a + (this edit is the best yet) or - (this edit is not the best yet). Only one article could be selected as the "best yet" at a time. A total could be calculated and this number could be visible in the edit history to everyone, allowing for easier location a good edits after vandalism streaks.

An alternative (and probably more realistic) measure could be to notify the user after they click the Save page button on a revert of any significant gaps in content from previous versions. For example: Vandal A comes along and removes a paragraph from the page. The removal goes unnoticed and Vandal B comes along and blanks the whole page. This is noticed and the page is reverted to Vandal A's version. The user doing the revert could have his version automatically compared with the last couple older versions and warned if something is still missing (exactly like an edit conflict notice). Noclip 22:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "in the news section"

how come the content of the "in the news section" is always the same articles ... ?, Thanks, Rod Brown159.251.88.50 16:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It's not. It updates at a pretty slow rate, but it does change.But for that to happen, someone needs to update the relevant article and suggest a news item and an administrator must agree to put it up. - Mgm|(talk) 13:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The speed that it changes depends on the speed at which articles get updated. Some times an article can stay up there for three or four days, sometimes it is gone in 24 hours. Also try clearing your browser's cache to make sure it is getting the newest version of the page (most likely you hold the control key and press F5). Koweja 04:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Graphic Lab to improve Images

A Graphic Lab have Started on Wikipedia-en. You can help by reading its Main page, and helping to its improvement.
The Graphic Lab need some active users and graphists to start and improve it, raise graphic request,and make images improvement.
To request graphic improvement, please see the newly open Graphic Lab/Images to improve (copied from Deutsch and Français).
Please, talk about this to other users who can be interesting by graphism, requesting images improvement or creation, and people interesting by photographs. Yug (talk) 10:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • At first blush, this seems like a really good addition. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this is a very useful and needed project, but it should definitely be on Commons. It would be best to have people from all the Wikimedia sites working on the same pool of improvement requests, and since most images are language independent, it's possible. Commons as a multilingual image repository is made for this. --Para 18:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It is first need to make request. From now, when you see an improvable image : keep the name and submit it to the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve Yug (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] anti-lowercase blasting

Ok, something has really nagged me. First people fixed the lowercase problem, but now we can't change "Asdfexamplething" to "asdfexamplething". However, an easy way to do this would be to create an admin bot that would search for the {{lowercase}} tag, then turn "Asdfexamplething" to "thisisapageusedbyanadminbot" to "asdfexamplething". It should then delete "Asdfexamplething" and "thisisapageusedbyanadminbot". Anyone like my suggestion? -Slash- 04:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • You can make bot requests at WP:BOT. However, note that the community tends to disapprove of bots with admin rights. (Radiant) 17:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see the use of this. The template is working fine. And it doesn't matter what you type. Why bother? - Mgm|(talk) 13:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Besides, it won't work. It is used on Wiktionary, but we still need the template as Wikipedia still puts in capital letters. Also, there'd be no point in deleting the old entry after moving. We need redirects to remain so outside links don't die. - Mgm|(talk) 13:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Topical ArbCom?

I just read the interesting essay by User:DV8 2XL, who left the project in August 2006.
Given that we seem to have a lot of eager ArbCom candidates, certainly more than the ones needed for the main ArbCom, and many with stellar records (none perfect but no human is), would it make sense to have lower level 'topical ArbComs' as User:DV8 2XL suggests?
Imagine having, say, 6 such topical ArbComs, one for each of the current topics in WP:Refdesk. They would focus on main article space disputes, and on cases where behavior is mostly civil (or maybe we could add a dedicated WP:CIVIL topical ArbCom) and the issues are more related to the core WP content policies, such as WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:N, etc. They would have the same power to decide on remedies as the main ArbCom. All their decisions would be appealable to the main ArbCom, who would be able to summarily dismiss the appeal (hopefully in most cases) or accept it.
Of course each topical ArbCom would also be able to select its cases, suggesting continued efforts in other mediation venues where applicable.
The motivation is to clear backlog and deal with disputes much earlier than we do today, per User:DV8 2XL's suggestions. Any thoughts? Has this been suggested/rejected before? Crum375 13:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

In other words, a group of subsidiary courts? Well, that does sound like the next logical step in expanding the dispute resolution process. We may not actually be large enough to require them quite yet, though.
Would these subsidiary courts be permitted to desysop? I'm assuming any such decision would probably be appealed, but making it explicitly allowed/forbidden from the start would be helpful. --tjstrf talk 19:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest the topical ArbCom should be able to issue admin remedies (including desysopping), but desysopping would always require approval by the top ArbCom. I would propose that for such approvals a quick process would be instituted, similar to today's 'case closing' vote. If the lower ArbCom recommendation is voted down, then it will enter a discussion phase by the top ArbCom, followed by a possibly modified remedy. Crum375 01:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Can't say I've given it much thought but I like the idea. We could have slightly smaller ArbCom committees which would probably also make them more efficient. Crum375 is right: a lot of very competent, respected election candidates will fail because there are so few spots on the ArbCom. Also, this could mean a somewhat smaller workload for individual ArbCom members, making it more likely that god candidates will apply. Pascal.Tesson 02:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure this would work well. It is one thing to say that with an expanded ArbCom (see comments on Jimbo's page and on the ArbCom voting talk page), not all cases need to be heard by the full committee; de facto, that's the practice now. But the community has been extremely hesitant about giving the Arbitration Committee, or any small number of users, authority over content issues. Newyorkbrad 02:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree that content issues in general should be settled by consensus, and failing that with the help of voluntary non-binding dispute resolution mechanisms before reaching binding arbitration. The problem that User:DV8 2XL alludes to (as I understand it) is that very often issues spend too much time in various non-binding mediation processes and by the time they escalate to ArbCom, way too much time and energy have been spent, with a lot of acrimony and frustration along the way, leading to loss of productivity and burnout. The concept here is to introduce binding resolutions at a lower level, while still encouraging the non-binding methods, in the hope of achieving better efficiency and reducing debilitating prolonged conflicts. The issue really is: assuming that as we grow we'll have more need for arbitrators, do we want a single tier or a dual tier arbitration system? Intuitively the dual tier sounds like it could do a better job, assuming the division of labor rules between the tiers are properly defined. Crum375 02:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone here suggest a way to get more input on this from the community? Crum375 02:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I think a single pool that draws random panels for individual disputes would make the most sense for dealing with the growth of Wikipedia, plus some procedure to allow escalation to an en banc decision for close or contentious issues. Since ArbComm doesn't rule on content, I don't think topical specialization would be that productive. TheronJ 14:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I can see some scalability problems with the single tier ArbCom, in the long run:
  1. It will be harder to keep track of situations with repeat offenders, as 'memory' will be diluted as we grow and spread out the load laterally
  2. Some cases are simple and some are hard (hard typically involve admin-level conflicts and wheel-wars). The single tier will need to deal with all problems randomly, whereas the dual tier can automatically escalate the hard problems to the top tier while easily dealing with the simpler ones at the lower tier
  3. Although content dispute per se should not be 'arbitrated', many conflicts arise in relation to content. Having the more specialized lower tier ArbCom would improve understanding of the underlying content issues and make the resolution quicker and more efficient
  4. Having the dual tiers will allow a more natural division of labor, as opposed to near-random case selection by a large ArbCom pool
Crum375 14:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
As long as the role of ArbCom is primarily related to user conduct rather than managing the content of the encyclopedia, a topical breakdown doesn't seem very natural. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe so, but ArbCom does need to expand to handle a bigger caseload, and a dual tier structure makes sense, as opposed to random subgroups in a single flat structure. Using generic topics as in the RefDesk as a dividing scheme for the lower tier would be an easy and natural division, and would allow the lower tier group quicker understanding of content related issues, hence more efficient handling. Crum375 00:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The one concern I have with topical arbcom divisions would be that it increases the likelihood that an arbitrator might have a conflict of interest (either through editing the pages in question or personal viewpoint). Also that certain subcoms (philosophy, religion, politics, and BLP) would get much higher numbers of cases than others. However, I can't think of a better division system. Perhaps if arbitrators were shifted between branches in rotation? --tjstrf talk 00:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree with your point about WP:COI, in principle. I can see requiring topical ArbCom candidates to disclose any special affiliation related to the topic. Your idea about rotation is good, except we would lose the advantage of greater efficiency due to topic specialization. Maybe some combination is needed? Maybe shorter term limits? (with possible resumption of role on a given topical ArbCom after say 1 yr hiatus.) Crum375 01:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions and Answers Page

I would like to propose the idea of a new top tab - A Q&A tab. This page would allow people to ask common questions about the subject that could be answered by people that know the subject. This is a place where common misconceptions about a subject could be brought up that would be appropriate for the content page. By creating a seperate section it allows the talk page to focus on issues regarding the presentation of the main content. The Q/A page would rather be a compliment to the main content page, dealing with things like Urban Myths, misconceptions, etc. -- Themepark

What about expanding Wikipedia:Reference desk Wikipedia:Help desk to accomodate this? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I think Themepark means that this tab would be present at every article, like how every article has a discussion page. I think a problem of this idea is that questions might often go unanswered for long. The reference desk works well for questions people have, and it seems to work well because question-answerers are concentrated there. S Sepp 18:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's the page where I got the idea of seperating the Q/A from the content and discussion pages: [Talk - Particle Accelerators] - see Q/A. Sure some questions go unanswered for a long time, but that's no different then an article taking time to be expanded - we see those all the time. This isn't about getting quick answers, but more about helping explain common questions about a subject. Clearly some of that can make it's way into the main article. -- Themepark
This could be accomplished by transclusion of a topical subpage located within the Reference Desk domain as a subpage. The subpage might be something like Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science/Particle accelerator or Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science/Physics/Particle accelerator. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slidey Uppey Downey Idea

I think it would be a brilliant idea to have the navigation, search and toolbox things sliding up and down, like the 'overview' on this page: [1]. That would be handy on really long articles like United States of America. If someone could do that? Please ?? Jake95(Is it a good idea? Tell me!) 16:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What would happen to all of the interwiki links. If it slides up and down as the page scrolls the bottom of the language links will not be visible unless you have a massive screen or there are only a few interwiki links. Why not just have a link at the bottom of each page (near to the Privacy Policy and About Wikipedia links) that links back the to top of the page. Chris_huhtalk 16:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree - the box is too big to scroll up and down (would lose toobox and interwiki) - unless we put a scroll bar inside the sidebar. The idea of putting a go to top link at the bottom of every page is good whatever. Cheers Lethaniol 17:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Whoa - what about having a (hide) option on each bit, like the Contents at the top. Or just automatically have each part hidden? I don't know. It's just an idea.

(I like the massive screen idea too. Mu-ha-ha-ha-ha. Bye, bye, any chance of paying off the mortagage ...) Jake95 17:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You can get the links to move up and down by putting the following text in your monobook.css:
#column-one {position: fixed}
#p-personal {position: fixed; right:0}
#f-copyrightico {display:none}
body {background-attachment:fixed}
But it does have the associated problms mentioned above and additionally, the WMF link messes it up so it removes that as well. Tra (Talk) 17:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Yuck, no offence to whoever wrote it. Also I have a very slow connection - and this makes it struggle. Not ideal solution Lethaniol 17:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Your internet connection should have no affect on how the CSS script works. falsedef 21:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Pictures to Featured Media

There is a discussion going on here on if Featured Pictures should be changed to Featured Media. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 05:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section for "Articles Linking To"

Has it already been proposed to automatically include in articles a section listing "Articles Linking To This Article"? It seems to me that it would automatically add a lot of information about a topic.

If this has already been discussed, I wasn't able to find it.

It already exists in the toolbox I think - the link: "What links here" Lethaniol 16:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed, that's what that button does. (Radiant) 17:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Wikipedia Branch

I, LightbringerX, herby decree that a new branch of Wikipedia is adue. A Lyric pool in the form of other Wikimedia productions should be considered. I'm thinking 'Wikilyric' sounds pretty good.

Shouldn't you also be thinking 'Wikiblatantcopyrightviolation'? Pascal.Tesson 07:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow this comes up a lot. Most copyrighted lyrics are forbidden by law to be distributed except by their owners, despite their wide dissemination by other sides. Wikisource is a good location for non-copyrighted lyrics. Deco 09:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactly: what's more the licensing for the lyrics has to be expressly public domain or GFDL. It cannot be "used by permission" or "everybody knows them." Now, if people want to write lyrics of their own, there is a WikiCities creative portal, I believe. Geogre 15:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long edit summaries

Ok. I realize that edit summaries are supposed to be just that, a summary of the changes you made. I realise that some editors get really annoyed by long edit summaries. I realise that long edit summaries make it harder to peruse the article's history. I know people think long edit summaries clutter up watchlists. I understand the importance of brevity in edit summaries. I know that if it's too long and detailed to fit in the summary box, it's probably best to take it to the talk page anyhow.

However, detailed edit summaries are useful, especially when a page or change is likely to be contentious. Sometimes, if there is a long discussion on the talk page about a change and I go ahead and make it, I feel the need to expound in great detail in my edit summary just in case someone hasn't been following the talk page discussion, or to avoid bringing material to the talk page that would distract from an ongoing discussion. People often ask me to proofread things they've written, and in those instances I feel the need to go into detail about every little spelling or punctuation fix, no matter how minor.

Most of the time if I run out of space in the edit summary window it's only by 2-10 characters. Sometimes I can trim it down or abreviate words, but when I abreviate I worry that people don't know what "ptl rv, dab, link & mv cntnt" means, so I try to avoid abbreviations if possible.

I did a test in the sandbox, and it seems to me that the edit summary allows you 190 characters or so (I may have miscounted). Therefore I would like to propose an increase to 200 characters. It's a nice, even number that's easy to remember. It's only 10 characters more then the current limit and shouldn't clutter up histories and watchlists too bad, but yet will eliminate (for me at least) most instances where I'm trying to trim my edit summary to the point where it is illegible, but have good reasons for not taking it to the talk page.

I'm sure that this is something that should be taken to the developers, but it's also something that needs community consensus. Hence I'm proposing it here rather than bugzilla (not to mention I have no idea how bugzilla works, only that anything involving changes to the software should be proposed there). What do others think of a 10 character increase in the maximum length of edit summaries? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 15:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. 190 or however many characters seems like a lot, and in many cases it is more than enough. However, if you are putting links into the summary, all of the link target counts towards that limit, though it isn't seen on the edit summary. Why not bump it up to 255 characters or so? Koweja 16:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I originally thought 300, given that if you are only editing a section the software automatically includes the section header and counts it toward your character limit. But then I thought people'd object too much to 300 rambling characters. But considering the limit for sig characters is 250, shouldn't edit summaries be at least that long? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 16:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
From the HTML source of the edit page of this section:
<input tabindex='2' type='text' value="/* Long edit summaries */ "
 name='wpSummary' id='wpSummary' maxlength='200' size='60' />
..the limit's 200 at the moment. --ais523 14:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Then how about 250? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 16:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Require anonymous users to confirm edits

Here is an idea for reducing vandalism: Require anonymous users to provide a valid e-mail address, which will be used to verify that the anon is serious about the edit and to permit identification of vandals. Here is the process:

  • Anon does an edit.
  • Once they hit "save page", they get a screen asking them to provide a valid e-mail address to which a confirmation message will be sent. It is noted that they will have only 30 minutes to respond (which I assume is more than enough time in most cases to reveive the e-mail and respond).
  • If an e-mail address is provided, a confirmation e-mail is sent out, with instructions to either reply to it or click on a coded, confirming URL link to confirm the edit.
    • If no e-mail is provided, the edit is discarded.
  • If there is an edit conflict after the confirmation is done, another e-emil will be sent out with a link to a conflict resolution screen. If this link is used, the final edit will be saved as it is associated with an existing confirmation.

Note that at the end of this process we will have a valid e-mail for the user, and some hope of identification if the edit is vandalism. I strongly doubt that any vandal will be eager to type in "me@myschool.edu", but if they do so and it is vandalism we can then contact "myschool" and advise them of the issue. We can also block e-mail addresses that are for vandals in that case.

Note that I am not calling for e-mail addresses to be placed in the edit history or in any place which is generally accessible. The e-mail addresses should be in a seperate place acessible only to sysops if not a much more restricted set of users. However, it should be a part of our policy that Wikipedia can use that information at its discression to track down and/or contact vandals, and that should be noted on the e-mail address query screen and in the confirmation e-mail itself. --EMS | Talk 17:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole point of a wiki is that it's quick and easy. Doesn't this proposal take away from that? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)
All this does is serve to annoy the anons. It won't stop the vandals since they obviously either a)have too much time on their hands and can spare the 30 seconds to confirm their email, and/or b)have an agenda to push and won't mind the inconvenience. Legit users who don't want to join wikipedia but are just trying to be helpful once are less likely to make the effort. And no, it won't inspire people to create accounts. You can't annoy someone into joining - most would choose to simply not bother. Koweja 19:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
As I see it, someone doing a quick and legit edit will have little issue with doing the confirmation. Type in your e-mail (which many current browsers will auto-complete for you), and after the e-mail arrives hit the Reply and Send buttons on your e-mail tool, and the edit is in. I don't see that as a huge bother. This will only get annoying once you start making mutliple edits a day, and if you are committed to doing regular editing here, then you should have an account (and most likely will get one).
The goal is to set up a "low bar" to anonymous edits, but one that will stop casual vandals cold. I admit that it won't stop POV pushing and won't stop vandal accounts or other people who care to be creative about hiding their identity. However, a school kid blanking a page as a joke will be looking at creating a trail that potentially can be followed. That is the target here. --EMS | Talk 18:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Right, so it won't do much to solve the problems, but cause an inconvenience for many potential members. Thanks to the massive number of people who watch recent changes, have pages on their watchlists, and the AntiVandalBot, page blankings and other drive-by idiocy generally gets reverted in seconds. Your proposal runs counter to established policies of assume good faith and don't bite the newbies. Not to mention the core principle of being an open encyclopedia. You have to realize that even though a lot of vandals are anonymous editors, the vast majority of anonymous edits are helpful. Fact of the matter is that "casual vandals" are the least of our problems. Koweja 18:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Not true. In my experience the vast majority of anonymous edits, particularly when done without an edit summary, are deliberate vandalism. Moreover, it does not get reverted in seconds; it can remain for hours, days or even weeks. I used to care, but I'm beginning not to. After all: if Jimmy Wales doesn't care that Wikipedia has become an idiot's playground, why should I? Personally I don't think anonymous editing should be allowed at all, so anything that causes it to be inconvenient sounds good to me. --Stephen Burnett 19:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
A lot of energy goes onto doing these reverts that could be devoted to improving the encyclopedia. In fact, I am one editor who has limited time and who has found the vandal reverts make it hard to track what is really going on it the page. Items that could be of interest often get buried by a vandalism-and-revert. Also, as one comes to be watching a larger number of articles, more and more of them are found to have an edit summary of "rvv" or "rv to prev ver ...". So this noise in the watchlists interferes with the ability to track real issues regard that portion of the encyclopedia that you have chosen to contribute to.
I honestly think that Wikipedia has shown that while wikis can be effective tools for creating a community-wide compendium of information, they also can be too wide open and free wheeling. The issue now is to figure out how to achieve the right balance of openness and restraint. Mine is just one suggestion of improvig that balance. --EMS | Talk 04:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think editing by non-registered users should be allowed at all - the negatives far outweigh the positives. So giving anon IPs a hoop to jump through should be the least requirement. CyberAnth 04:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] printer freindly/ spellcheck on serch

it really queit simple we need to have printer freindly versions and spell check on serch. many i've tryed to print out a artical and goten a usless page of ink. then i have trouble find articals i need because i have trouble spelling. Comeback2009 00:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

For a printable version of an article, click 'Printable version' in the toolbox on the left hand side. Spell check in search is disabled for performance reasons, use Google Sitesearch instead. Tra (Talk) 00:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology and disambiguation

I wish to propose Etymology at the top of the page of disambiguation of each word, or such so you can know the very first version and root of the word. As it is now, it is sometimes very difficult to find the root and first meaning of the word. /Minoya 08:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • That's properly addressed at our dictionary, Wiktionary. Encyclopedias generally do not address lexicographical matters or etymology -- both of which are core concerns of dictionaries. Geogre 11:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Depends on the topic doesn't it? I've recently become interested in the origins of the term 'Ripper', which seems to have become the UK vernacular for a serial killer of prostitutes, presumably from Jack the Ripper. However it would be interesting to know where Jack the Ripper got the name from - does it refer to his mutilation of the women (ripping their faces), or because its similar to the term rape, or what?
    • Anyway, my point is that the term Ripper is unlikley to have (or deserve?) a page on wiktionary, so having the etymology of the term on the Jack the Ripper, or Ripper disambiguation page would be approprite in this case. Similaly for the etymology of names of animals, etc. --Neo 11:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you'll find that Ripper does have a page on Wiktionary. At any rate, it comes from the fact that he ripped the women's bodies open. He did not merely slash faces. The current use is, in fact, just an analogy for "man who kills prostitutes." "Rip" has an origin in Old English for our purposes, but, if you want to go back farther, you'd go to Old West Germanic, then to a Sanskrit, then to the fabled proto-Indo-European, but it, like "reap/rape" comes from a root meaning "to seize," unless it comes from /ras/ roots, when it would mean "rough/abrasive/abrade." It's still a lexical matter, though. Geogre 12:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Automatic proposal and suggestion of words

I wish to propose Automatic proposal and suggestion of words. That is when you search for say Etymology but misspell it(perhaps you write Etimology), a proposal is made of one or several similar words that actually exists and also a suggestion at the bottom asking if the user wants to start a new article under the searched name. As it is now, you have to go to google to find out, because google often gives you good suggestions. /Minoya 05:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I looked into Google's API and unfortuantly suggest is not available. An open source spell checked could be used in an extension. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 05:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The subject is already covered. We attempt to create "common misspelling" redirects. If you misspell a word and you believe that the misspelling is common, then, when you get the option to "Create this article," do so. In the new article, do the following: #REDIRECT [[properpagename]], where "properpagename" is the name of where the article really is. In your edit summary, put "spelling redirect." Many spelling redirects exist, but be thoughtful about this, as well as bold, and think about whether your misspelling is common or just a one time only goof. If it's the former, go ahead and make a redirect. Geogre 11:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the enlightenment. Now, why not #REDIRECT the one time only goofs too, as a user id rather have an article pop up than nothing at all. Better to be abundant. /Minoya 13:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Better to be concise, of course. Although we're not dying for server space now the way we once were, it's still good to conserve storage space however and whenever we can. The common saying is "redirects are cheap," but also "they're not free." Google uses a parser to try to figure out what word you could have meant. Since they already do it, we don't need to ("search using Google"); instead, we should cover the most used, most common mistakes. You can create a redirect for the one-time misspelling, and it may or may not get deleted. I doubt anyone will threaten or throttle you for doing it, and there are certainly easily misspelled terms we need redirects for still. Geogre 13:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, I can say no more.
Remember to use the often-forgotten template {{template:r from misspelling}} on your misspelled redirect. –Outriggr § 04:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logo Variations

I would like to propose for Wikipedia to use logo variations created by members of the community to mark national and international awareness days, Remembrance Days, notable anniversaries, and observance days. Besides for the featured article, it is important to commemorate special days to show Wikipedia's support for bringing out more awareness of these issues and events. The logos would be chosen from contestants in a consensus of graphic artist users on a project page of its own. This project would be similar to google's [[[2]|sketch contest]]. I would like us perhaps to be ready for our first wikilogo by Hanuka, Christmas and Eid ul-Adha! FrummerThanThou 05:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • comment the Wikipedia logo is copyrighted so you would probably have to get permission from the foundation to do this. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Question What would be the criteria for dates to be recognized in this way? -- Visviva 06:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
This is an issue that needs to be discussed, I think each religion's two or three main holiday's should be considered as well as important awareness days such as world cancer day, world aids day, breast cancer day and any others that we come to a consensus on. FrummerThanThou 07:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think a better idea would be to make it possible to change the logo via some CSS code, so people could install it in their own monobook.css/js file if they want it. I've tried it before, but unfortunately the URL for the logo is stored in the <a> linking to the main page, rather than monobook.css itself, which means it would require some tricky JS to make it work. |This would allow users to have their own criteria for dates. --172.205.196.44 (Michael Billington logged out) 06:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • That seems like an excellent idea, if it can be made to work... can it? -- Visviva 07:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    #p-logo a { background-image: url(http://mylogo.com/logo.png) !important; } GeorgeMoney (talk) 07:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    Exactly, I agree with 172.205.196.44 - for that matter, my .js has actually disabled showing the wikilogo, so I wouldn't see it anyways. But, not being selfish, I like the idea :) Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 07:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I am for the idea in principle (I am envisaging something like the google logo changes). However, I would not want to see anything national-specific (especially US-specific) or politically-motivated, religiously-motivated etc. What I would not want to see is for example a "4th of july" logo or a "jesus crusified today" logo, these are politically- and religiously- charged. Perhaps "Figure X born today" or "Chemical Y discovered today" etc. I think if we do this it should be a variation that represents the kind of things wikipedia does and stands for, rather than a slavish mimicry of eg the google logo. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 10:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Some great points from a great user. I think there can be "some" politicly and religiously charged versions though, like Christmas. FrummerThanThou 10:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: To keep our headings clear, it's probably good if we switch to numbers from asterisk indents. Geogre 10:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. Comment: That Google does it is kind of the "Diddy did it" thing: more or less irrelevant. I'm in favor of the proposal, although there would need to be a few clear understandings. The globe of letters is the copyright, just as the lettering of "Google" is, and so the graphic alterations would need to be backgrounds, colors, and things around the logo. Also, please make it two words, "Wiki logo," rather than one, as one sounds like "Wiki Λογος." As for the substance and the problems, please forgive the extra indents:
    The project would be properly located at Commons, not .en. This would make the variations available to all projects, so that the .se pedia can put up a 4th of July logo, if they wish.
    National holidays (ones where all government offices close) are non-controversial, but seccession day, failed rebellions, etc. can get tense. Nationally recognized religious holidays (Christmas, Easter, Good Friday), and especially those that are core, would be non-controversial, but regionally or sectarian or denominational ones would be tough.
    If there were to be an include/exclude argument, the best one would be, "Is this nationally recognized in an Anglophone nation for .en, a Francophone nation for .fr, etc." A non-English speaker going to .en may be interested in the funny customs of the Anglophone world, just as native English speakers tend to be interested in the "strange" holidays celebrated by the Swedes, for example. The dominant nature of English shouldn't enter into it, really.
    The proposal carries with it a rather non-wiki element, in that it requires an approval community. The best suggestion I could offer would be that this be done via a Project. There should be a Holiday Logo Project, and it should need to vote and gain consensus on these acceptable variations (and it should be plural).
    Picking which, if any, to actually put on the main page requires a top level admin who enjoys wide, wide trust. The only candidate I can think of right now would be Raul, who is already the FA director, but I'm not sure he'd want to do it.
    Anyway, that's what occurs to me. I really hope it helps. Geogre 10:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I love logos ^^, BUT! First off; what kind of awareness days? And some Rememberance days might be offencive to others, off the top of my head say the Armenian holocaust, the Turks deny it happened and refuse to adit comitting it, but I betcya the Armenians have a day to REMEMBER it. Also, some people don't like The dream factory (to get this joke click the wiki link fore Rememberance days you wrote on me talk page =P). Note: I am very buisy these days for the next two months I've got covers, collections, some more covers magazine and newspaper comics blah blah blah... so I probably won't do it, but here is some advice if it helps. In my opinion, why not, as not a lot of wikiusers go to the front page and read it all if there's an awareness thing on it, but I don't think we should go too much in to it, maybe just slap a small awareness ribbon on the logo and make a more noticible article on the front, or maybe even send an automated awareness message to ALL USERS. The wikilogos are very estetic so we must be carefull in editing them if we are permitted tom we don't want them to loock cheep now do we ^_^? I'd keep it modest. Also problems: Some awareness symbols, ribbons, or collors may stand for more things, so the observer may not get it. And: What if it gets out of hand? Before you know it we'll be having a santa cap on the logos hah. In conclusion: Only if these days are important and regard everyone, not just say Christians or something. Like AIDS day, Memorial day, Give out free candy day, Global warming awareness day, ect. Exactly how, I do not know but don't make it too flashy or just too much. If you're gonna go for it, think simple and clever, it always works ;) --Mudel 11:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. I support this proposal. It is a qay to remind us "Never Again" Booksworm Talk to me! 14:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It sounds like a fun idea on the surface, but doesn't really gain Wikipedia anything other than administrative trouble. It might have some value if, like the cartoonish altered Google logo, it brought people to the front page to see what cute logo-mod Wikipedians had come up with for the day, or if Wikipedia had an unfriendly image problem that desperately needed to be rectified. (And "image problem" brings up other difficult issues regarding tone and style of any illustration, btw.)
I absolutely do not support a religious logo-mod of any sort, and that most definitely includes Christmas ornaments, Channukkah dreidels, Valentine's hearts, Easter eggs, etc. ad nauseum.
I agree with PocklingtonDan that only "a variation that represents the kind of things Wikipedia does and stands for" might be more reasonable than religious or political commemorative days. However, I think the "On this day..." section does that and more.
Perhaps, alternatively, we could choose one event from "On this day..." to call out with a stand-alone logoish graphic (i.e., not a Wikipedia logo-mod). This logo-like graphic might be used something like a dot-whack, and might be valuable for calling attention to the "On this day..." section, as well as adding some graphic variability to the front page... but I'm not sure it's really a problem in search of a solution.
Renice 17:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't like the idea. With Google, they can detect what country you are in and provide you with an appropriate version of Google [3], where they can do cute and culturally appropriate things with the logo. I don't ever see there being a "U.S." version of Wikipedia, a British version, Canadian version, etc... There are very few holidays that are not specific to religions or certain countries. --Aude (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment whilst it is true that that Sweden's Christmas is snowier then Britain's, certain observance days are the same. Obviously D day is no good since some German's wont like it, but that desicion would be reached in the consensus. What are you saying? frummer 03:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - Wikipedia has a strict NPOV policy. Local holidays and events would not be global. As such, we can't do something like this. I understand that this is a bland, boring decision, but Wikipedia's ideals shouldn't be violated for periodic variations of the logo. Nihiltres 19:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Support - This sounds like a great idea. :) ViperBite 20:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - I agree with Nihiltres, the whole idea violates NPOV policy. It's important to note that someone's holiday celebration is also a reminder to someone else's failure in history. Or recognizing someone religious event offends those opposed to that faith. It's sad to say this, and I wish any holiday could be recognized and respected but Wikipedia needs to keep the whole "political correct" neutrality. Cyberia23 22:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support- It could just be on internationally accepted holidays, i.e. Christmas, maybe Rememberance Day. Sooner or later you're going to upset someone about something - its absurd to not do something because someone somewhere may be offended by it. RHB 23:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment - two things:
  1. Christmas and Rememberance day are both biased. Christmas is Christian, and Rememberance Day favors the victors of the World Wars. The article on Rememberance Day reflects that.
  2. It is absurd, on Wikipedia, to do anything that may offend someone in a political, religious, or social way, even if Wikipedia is not censored, because of the necessity for a neutral point of view. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias.
I don't mean any offense whatsoever, but what you've said doesn't seem to hold up. Nihiltres 03:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I apprecaite you don't mean any offense, but where do you get it that people will be "offended" if some laurels where to apear on the logo for christmas and link to the article. Finding out about each other's religion's cultures and values would be a great thing for many of us, instead of being "offended" so badly? Please read the thread, I dont beleive for a minute you've read anything above. The focal points have been discussed, except for this "offended" thingmajig. frummer 03:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I've read the thread, and the main topic of discussion is whether such a project is feasible. On the "cool variation" level, I strongly support this idea. As with Google, it would attract some people to see the latest Wikipedia "doodle". On the other hand, I find holidays to be inherently POV, and on that level such a project is entirely unacceptable. Users can have user scripts to change the image for themselves, but the main page and layout need their blandness and NPOV - NPOV is one of the five pillars! Nihiltres 04:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC) (signed after, oops)
  • Strong Support- Even if it does include something only celebrated by only one religion, ethnic group, etc., that shouldn't matter so long as we include the "equivalent" (if possible) holiday for any other religions, ethnic groups, etc. As well, if someone feels that their religion, ethnic group, etc. does not have a holiday recognized that they think should be, they can always suggest it. Ninetywazup? 23:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose Religion#Demographics list 21for balance, if we consider three Christian dates of Christmas, Easter, Good Friday that means that 63 religious day logo's. Then we add these UN listed special days(note some are weeks) from here http://www.un.org/events/observances.htm , theres another 60, thats 1 in 3 days. Then what happens when day A and day B occurs on the same day how would it be decided which would get the recognition. I think we leave day recognitions to the "On this Day" section that way every event gets equal and fair recognition. Gnangarra 06:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a good idea but there could be the problems with copyright and determining which events pass the notability test. We don't want to be following Google day for day though, though I do like the Google sketches. :) Wikiwoohoo 22:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radical Linking Proposal, making wiki more efficient

Im not sure if it is possible but it would be nice if all words that have an article or page would automatically be links to those pages, but appearing like normal words unless you have the cursor upon them (or click them). So the Articles would appear as today but all archived words would be "hidden" links. This would maybe take more bandwidth but it would surely make the pedia more effective and integrated. /Minoya 08:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

too many links would mean a big trawl. imagine reading an article, you'de never finish it out of curosity of what every word means. at the moment you can link anything to anything, once. An interesting idea. FrummerThanThou 09:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Mouse-over is normally done with Java Script. That would be a developer issue, but I'm rather unenthusiastic about the idea. First, the manual of style (WP:MOS) already discourages overlinking. Second, new readers may get lost in the link maze, but learning when to click and when to click later is part of the experience of Wikipedia. Anyway, I certainly understand the principle, and it's one reason the Manual of Style changed to discourage "overlinking." Geogre 11:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • And I'm not even mentioning the problems words with more than one meaning would cause... - Mgm|(talk) 13:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • WEll well, eventually it will happen, and when every word, every syllable is completely mapped and understood, we will move on, to new frontiers and new levels of understanding. /Minoya 14:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Cool, thats the way i like it! Just, I'd like one color for all text, hyperlinked or not. /Minoya 23:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPA Quickhelp templates

I have an idea for making IPA symbols more comprehensible, using tooltips. I have made a template {{Ʒ}} that contains [[ʒ as in beige=beɪʒ|ʒ]], and then a redirect at [[ʒ as in beige=beɪʒ]] to the appropriate phonetic page. (Here it is without nowiki: ʒ, and here's a link to edit the template page: {{Ʒ}}. The discussion of this concept is here: template talk:Ʒ. Without popups, this works wonderfully: someone who doesn't know IPA sees blue text, moves their mouse over the link, then sees the quickie pronunciation help in the tooltip, and if they want to know more, they click and get the appropriate article. The dev version of popups has now been fixed to work with this, but the production version of popups still is not compatible. Again, please do NOT comment here, instead comment at template talk:Ʒ. If and when this starts to get a clearer consensus on whether and how to move forward, I'll be posting this at (policy) and (technical). --Homunq 16:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging fair use templates

Anyone interested in fair use templates should probably see the proposed merge at Template_talk:Game-cover#Merge. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 19:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Limiting the number of edits for new users

Is there a way to limit the number of user edit by implemeting an edit quota, this would for example limit the usefulness of sockpuppets and revert/edit wars that go on. The edit limits can be placed on let's say:

  • new users by limiting the number of edits they can perform overall - after the users have been around for some time, this edit quota can be lifted for example this is lifted after let's say a week or a month
  • special edit limits on selected articles where edit/revert wars are constant


Regards,

Vodomar 20:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Rejected, goes contrary to the purpose of encouraging new users to edit. We aren't GameFAQs where they arbitrarily define privilege levels. There is no purpose to doing this, and would serve only to discourage new editors from being active. Socks are cheap and easily creatable, so they wouldn't be stopped by this at all. Just make another 3 or 4 or 10 or 50 if you hit your revert limit. If a specific page requires it, we have semi-protection. --tjstrf talk 20:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I can tell you right now that it is not going to happen. This site will not treat all new users and/or anons as potential vandals and sockpuppets just because a small percentage are. See WP:AGF for more. If a revert war is going on you can have it semi-protected, but this is not the way to do it. Koweja 20:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Plus, those users who do commit wrongs can be blocked. Ninetywazup? 23:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course we have problem new users, but we have problem old users, too (no, not administrators). New users who insert massive numbers of links, who write in their company everywhere, and then do the scribbling stuff are problems, but they're not a new problem, and the scope of the problem isn't growing faster than our vandal hunting tools, so there is no need to curtail our general philosophy. For every two vandals and spammers affected by this, a legitimate and good contributor, and the bad guys will simply use two accounts to accomplish the edits they're now doing with one, so the effect will be strictly to increase suspicion and unfriendliness to good users. Geogre 02:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Branching support

Hi all. I would like to revive the old feature request for Wikipedia:Branching support. What do you all think of the idea? Cheers, --unforgettableid | how's my driving? 00:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need a formalized system for creating POV forks? Don't we want to avoid those as much as possible? --tjstrf talk 02:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Talk-templates Proposal

Almost every Wikiproject has their own template to post in article talk pages. While this does allow users to find other articles in their favorite topics, some articles have several Wikiproject affiliations making some article talk pages very long and hard to convert to the new small template format. My plan is to create a template that can list all of the Wikiprojects an article is involved with, allow users to edit the Wikiprojects it lists, and display ratings and importance classes. Since I have almost no knowledge of template coding, I will need major help. I originally wanted to use the wikitable format using three columns: Wikiproject Name, Rating, and Importance:

Wikiproject Rating Importance
Albums A Significant
China B Core
Microsoft Windows A Core

...but that would mean restructuring the small template setup. I have concluded that I will probably need to use the messagebox format. How should I do this? Any thoughts? Improvements? Know anyone who would be interested in this project? Again, here's my to-do list again:

  • Create a multiple Wikiproject template
  • Give the Wikiproject name, rating, and improtance
  • Allow for the small template configuration
  • Any other ideas...

Thanks. -Blackjack48 04:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a good idea. It would certainly cut down on talk page header clutter. To do this, we will or would need two things: a list of all article-talk-header-inserting WikiProjects, and a format for listing the WikiProjects. I like your mockup, but I think an icon for each, not to mention the usual rating colors, would be a good idea. Nihiltres 04:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I would support the new format for project tags and history tags (good article, former good article, etc.) However, important notices such as reminders about signing comments, that the article might containt trolling, etc. should remain as wide bars on top. We also have {{skiptotoctalk}} which can help aliviate the problem. Koweja 14:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
This has been discussed to death (in many different places); there are a number of problems with a unified template:
  • Different project have somewhat different rating systems. The template would need to code each project's options separately (with the whole mess of categories).
  • The template would be used on nearly 400,000 pages; editing it (which would need to be done fairly regularly) would be a not-insignificant technical concern. (Not to mention that any careless change would suddenly break every project's assessments.)
  • Most importantly, project banners typically contain a variety of options other than article assessment; even if the assessments all used a common template, the banners would still need to be present for all their other features to work.
I'm of the opinion that, given the new small-format layout available, talk page clutter is basically a non-issue. It's quite trivial to enable the small format on any banners that lack it; certainly easier than trying to work with a template common to every WikiProject. Kirill Lokshin 17:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article length templates

Before I'm overcome with boldness, let's try this here first (ok, I'll be bold with colons). Bottomline: {{long}}, {{Verylong}}, and {{intro length}} should be deleted. Let me explain: these temporary templates are placed in articles that someone believes are overly long and requests that someone (ie. not me) transfers to a sub-article or summarizes the content. The flaw is that this is metadata: a comment and request (directed at editors who are familiar with the subject) concerning the structure of the article. This metadata belongs on the talk page: their raison d'être. Theoretically (as some templates say and most people ignore) the template-slapper should also leave an explanation on the talk page. Templates in the article should be addressed to the readers (ie. warnings of NPOV, unverified, current event, etc.). So this clever observation that the article is long should go on the talk page: not somewhere in the actual article. On the talk page the templates would be redundant with a section explaining how it is too verbose: so delete the templates. Right? :maclean 05:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The templates are important, as some articles are ridiculously long and can easily be broken into separate articles. However, as mentioned, they do belong on the talk page since they are a notice for editors, not readers. Perhaps someone running a bot or using some other kind of script can move them over. A notice should also be added to the template pages with instructions to add only to the talk page as many other templates already have. Koweja 13:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree that this is talk page material, not article. Rmhermen 18:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Me, I'd send the templates to hell without apology, as I do not want anyone templating "long." If an article is too long, then go to the talk page and argue the position. Templates are far too slap-and-run for my taste, and I don't want anyone telling me that a full article on The Cantos is "too long" because it gets to X kb or Y kb. If they pass TfD, then they're talk page matters and absolutely positively under no circumstances for the article page itself. Geogre 22:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Announcements about Wikibooks

Is it possible to make major announcements about Wikibooks on the main Wikipedia page? Robinhw 11:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What about one of your nice boxes with:

Wikibooks! From books for university such as Special Relativity to books for infants such as Big Cats Wikibooks has a book for everyone.

Robinhw 12:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with major announcements for sister projects since it isn't really advertising. You're example, however, is just an ad for Wikibooks. What kind of announcements did you have in mind? Koweja 13:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Initially an advert but later on announcements of completed books. Wikibooks is at the stage that Wikipedia achieved about 3 years ago, it ranks about 3000th on the internet (Alexa rank) and is just about to take off. It now has some good content and an exponential growth phase may be just round the corner. I was hoping for a bit of a push from Wikipedia. Robinhw 16:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Announcing completed books seems like a pretty good idea. However, do Wikibooks have to go through a review process before they are declared completed, similar to how wikipedia articles are review before being declared a featured article? See WP:FAC for what I mean. Koweja 16:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Now that the project has quite a number of completed books I would expect a scheme of this type to occur. Until now most of the effort has been devoted to actually getting some books completed. My guess is that Wikibooks will go through the same development cycle as Wikipedia but over a period of 3-5 times as long because books are time consuming. This is why some publicity to draw in Wikipedia contributors would be useful. Robinhw 10:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cell / Mobile phone Project Gutenberg ebooks links

The last 12 months I have been working on project www.mobilebooks.org to have Project Gutenberg ebooks available on cheap cell / mobile phones. And that is not using WAP where the big fat telephone operators make big money to download. These ebooks are in java and work on most java enabled phones. Users can download them straight for the website without needing to pay big bucks for WAP. All this is of course for free, users can download the 5000+ ebooks for FREE.

Now the big question!!! I want to invest time to put the proper links so wiki users can download the cell phone ebooks straight from Wiki.

What do you guys say????

Thanks John Mizzi

Sounds like an excellent idea. Good on you. DurovaCharge! 22:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
John and I have been discussing this via email. He is talking about adding thousands of links to his website (which has Google Ads) to articles. I have suggested that he follow WP:EL and add the link to the article talk page to avoid a conflict of interest. He has already been blocked once under the belief he was spamming and I think that is likely to happen again if he restarts in the same manner. Sarah Ewart 05:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There are an ever increasing number of fact books at Wikibooks, a Wikipedia sister-project, if you are interested in this aspect Wikibooks staff lounge is the contact point. Robinhw 10:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/i/l/Wikipedia%7EVillage_pump_%28proposals%29_6eab.html"