Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Village Pump - Archive

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. 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.

Post replies at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Note: Please add new material at the bottom of the page and remove any duplicate sections.

Contents 1 Today's picture 2 Cross-wiki redirects 3 Detailed user statistics 4 "Policy" in names of policies 5 Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of total stars 6 Myspace on Wikipedia 7 proposal: treatment database of case studies 8 Use WebCite for web references 9 WP:UW redirects reminder 10 Proposed "spring cleaning" day 11 New bot 12 Grammar editing 13 Proposal to add a bit to WP:NOT 14 AfD template change 15 A proposal 15.1 A comment 16 Proposal: add "Contents" to Wikipedia's main menu 16.1 Improving the sidebar immensely with just a single link 17 Sidebar redesign 17.1 Original 17.2 Redesign 17.3 Re-Redesign? 18 Wikipedia in the classroom 19 Wikipedia:Notability (science) 20 Category:Christian hymns 21 Proposal: explain abbreviations on "User Contributions" page 22 downlaod.wikiepdia.org other way of downloading 23 Proposal: Temporary fix for main menu on the sidebar 23.1 Alternative designs 23.2 design A 23.3 design B 23.4 design C 23.5 design D 23.6 Design E, for Eloquence 23.7 Was there something wrong with the original? 24 Wikipedia "State" Movie 25 Major problems with Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary 26 Modification to WP:3O 27 Redlinks replaced by redquestionmark? 28 Interwiki registration 29 Trashy articles 30 User:Naconkantari/cleanup - Wikipedia cleanup day 31 "Print this article" 32 User:Naconkantari/cleanup - Wikipedia cleanup day

[edit] Today's picture

I suggest we add the option to have today's picture emailed to people, so that we may send it to friends and stuff. Isn't that how featured articles work? If not, than that option should be made availale. I knwo you can do it by file, but thats so long.Tourskin 21:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't do mass mailings as far as I know, but if you want to e-mail pictures to your frields go right ahread (just be sure to include the license terms in case they want to modify or use them for whatever). If you want to keep tabs on the picture of the day just add {{POTD}} to your userpage. --Sherool (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected, we actualy do have a "daily picture" mailing list. You can sign up here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/daily-image-l --Sherool (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cross-wiki redirects

I was browsing along the Homestar Runner Wiki after a look at the the Battlestar Galactica Wiki and I thought... how about cross-wiki redirects? By this I means sending people who look up Commander Adama here directly to the BSG wiki and having a link on the diambig page for Deutschmann to the joke on the H*R wiki. I suggest this because:

It would free up space on wikipedia's servers.

It would give credit for wiki-interest in things like Star Trek and Star Wars to where it belongs.

The coverage on the specialized wikis is better.

It will avoid all sorts of unnecessary redundancy.

And it will mean fewer jokes about wikipedia's focus on fictional things (I think they call it "fancruft"). I'm new to Wikipedia, so please forgive if this isn't a new idea. Misaf-Keru 01:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

But then wikipedia is essentially endorsing the other wiki, and giving up on the task of writing an encyclopedic article about the topic. Wikipedia has seriously different standards for articles about fiction than fanwikis. A wikipedia article should focus on things like themes, critical analysis, and reviewer responses, generally real-world impact. Fanwikis focus on extreme levels of detail, and ones like memory alpha explicitly segregate out of universe information into secondary locations. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, but what about providing external links to fanwikis on their associated articles here? What that fit in with WP:EL or instead be a violation; or might it be something worth modifying the policy to provide for? --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 22:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK, how about a policy that further restricts WP's info on this sort of thing but explicitly encourages ELs to other wikis? After further thought, my main point should have been thisː

• That it would add to the credibility here while simultaneously allowing fans access to more detail if they want it. Win-win. So what do you think of this proposal? Misaf-Keru 06:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This proposal will need a change in the MediaWiki software, and will go nowhere here. File this as an enhancement request type "bug" at the Bugzilla mentioned in the header above. Jesse Viviano 22:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Detailed user statistics

Hi, on the Special:Statistics page, would it be possible to get more detailed statistics available? Perhaps stating as a percentage how many of the 4 million-odd users are actually active - i.e. have made edits in the last 6 months? And the number of distinctive IP addresses have been used to edit would be brilliant too. Thanks in advance for your responses — Jack · talk · 19:08, Friday, 16 March 2007

Number of active user accounts would be useful. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 08:15Z

These data are available at Wikipedia Statistics, gathered regularly by User:Erik Zachte. JoJan 08:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, forgot about that. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 09:31Z

Why not include it in Special:Statistics? — Jack · talk · 07:52, Sunday, 18 March 2007

The statistics on Wikipedia:Statistics are mostly generated from queries on the database dumps made roughly every month or so. If they were placed on the Special:Statistics page, I would anticipate a major strain on the servers, either by a) calculating percentages on every load of the statistics page, or b) requiring a major change in the software. Harryboyles 10:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Policy" in names of policies

(I previously posted this elsewhere, but it was too low-traffic.)

When we write new policies, can we avoid using the word "policy" in the name of the policy? Wikipedia:Attribution isn't any less of a policy even though it's not called "Wikipedia:Attribution Policy". For example, an alternative to "Wikipedia:Protection policy" might be "Wikipedia:Protection" or "Wikipedia:Article protection". —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 08:12Z

Possibly the difference is that "Wikipedia:Protection policy" is our policy regarding protection. "Wikipedia:Attribution" is the policy (ie that information must be, er, attributable) rather than our policy regarding attribution. --Cherry blossom tree 11:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, though I don't see significant difference between the two things you said. I think the reason currently some have "policy" in the name and some don't is simply because people named them arbitrarily. Anyway I'm more concerned about going forward. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 11:48Z

I'm scratching my head to see the difference as well. Consistency in titling is desirable, but I'm thinking it might be better to have "Policy" at the end of the name, when it is a policy, so that people recognise its importance (as opposed to an essay, for example). Tyrenius 02:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• In fact most of those pages with "policy" in the name predate the {{policy}} tag and indeed the entire classification. Hence the names were used for emphasis. >Radiant< 13:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that explains how we got where we are. Any objection to making titles consistent (one way or another)? —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-21 05:44Z

[edit] Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of total stars

I have just started a article with the title mentioned above. Perhaps it would be interesting contributing\starting with me to this list; it might be fun if their is some kind of a competition between several users, to be on top of that list! Maybe some people would go and work harder, do more, contribute more, and vandalise less! So, what do you say?

the Old and respectable Kashwialariski 15:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This would only work if there were some sort of qualifying standard for the award of stars; as it is, they are given at random by editors at random to people whom they feel deserve them. At random. I like the concept in principle, but to make it work would entail the total formalisation of star awards, which I suspect many people would be unhappy with.--Anthony.bradbury 16:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would prefer a list of wikipedians per promoted featured or good articles (which do exist hidden somewhere). -- ReyBrujo 17:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No, barnstars are not a competition, and we should not make them into a popularity contest. This is a bad idea and should not continue. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Night Gyr.↔NMajdan•talk 21:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Night Gyr — Omegatron 00:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Myspace on Wikipedia

I have seen a number of articles that list Myspace as either a reference or, more often, an external link. I can't help but think that that looks really unencyclopedic, linking to a site with more media-enhanced problems than Wikipedia and has basically zero credibility. Why is there nothing that says Don't link to Myspace? This would definitely increase our credibility (or at least our image of credibility.) Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS (Part of Wikipedia:Attribution now) does that job. It doesn't look well followed, seeing this(long load). I also noticed that you have to manually modify the URL in Special:Linksearch to change the number of links showed and search by namespace. Someone should fix that. Prodego ^talk 02:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Also WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided no. 10 specifically mentions myspace. Tyrenius 02:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

But as of the time I checked, there are 16,435 links to myspace form Wikipedia, so this obviously isn't enforced. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

But does that include userpages? Prodego ^talk 02:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It won't be enfored, it is a guideline, guidelines aren't enforced. Cbrown1023 talk 03:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "enforced" was too srong a word. It obviously isn't very implemented. As the template for the MoS pages states "Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines." I'm not seeing much heeding. And no, that count should only be article namespace, total, there are 22,610 links. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 03:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

ACtually, Iron Man (film)'s director has an official mySpace so that way fans will know what is really happening with the movie. So mySpace can by reliable. The Placebo Effect 02:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it's okay to link to the myspace page of the subject of an article, just as it's okay to link to a personal webpage. So a lot of the links are fine. What percentage, of course, is a different question. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a word for that - fancruft. Catering to the fan, and not to the general encyclopedia reader. Actually, the link to "Iron Man Movie Group on Myspace" in Iron Man (film) is rather inappropriate, because it doesn't really add anything to the encyclopedic value of the article. If someone else concurs with me, they should probably remove it, or we could talk about it. Gracenotes^T § 05:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the wording on WP:EL is a little unclear "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article" does this mean "a page about the subject" or only "the page is the subject." The more I read it, the more it seems like the latter. If it is, then links to myspace should really only be on articles where myspace is the "official website" or on Myspace. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 19:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Is only a guideline, and it should be followed as much as it can be. So if there's an official site that it updated relatively frequently, my rule of thumb is to remove any MySpace links (since it adds the social networking aspect, that an official site wouldn't have -- auxiliary forums don't count, since they are not irrevocably entangled with useful content. If the only official site is a MySpace, I either let it be, or carefully consider deletion according to guidelines. Gracenotes^T § 21:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, most articles that can only list myspace as a source or external link probably fail WP:ATT and WP:N anyway. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution is policy, which is why I mentioned it. However, there are legitimate uses (such as John Broughton's example). Using as a reference, and not just a link, is a problem if the page is not official. Prodego ^talk 03:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to reading your thoughts on this matter.

The Transhumanist   20:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you guys ever considered getting rid of stuff on that menu? Or spliting it up (ala n:MediaWiki:Sidebar). As it stands its way to long, and I find it annoying to read it all when i'm looking for a specific link, so I just don't. Bawolff 00:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. bibliomaniac15 00:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree, and request that this wait until:

1. The List of reference tables page needs to have its merge completed. (only 3 sections to go!)
2. As I suggested at Wikipedia talk:Contents#Merge Proposal, I'd also like to see those 2 list pages merged. (struck per Transhumanist's reply below) --Quiddity 08:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

3. The various wikiprojects/portals/groups need to be informed that there exists a "basic topic list" and "topic list" concerning their subject. Many of the lists, whilst of good quality, were written by a single editor (you), and I'm not comfortable promoting that on the sidebar as something representative of Wikipedia.

I understand that you're tired of waiting for the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign to find developer time, but I can't agree with promoting these pages any more, until they are of a higher total quality. --Quiddity 05:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contents is extremely useful regardless of the configuration of the little header line at the top of the page. As Wikipedia's table of contents, it should be as easy to find as possible.

Concerning the recruiting of assistance to develop and maintain the topic lists, notifying each WikiProject of the lists which correspond to them would be a logistics nightmare, and would have to be done by hand. A much more effective solution would be to simply have Contents on the main menu, because that would make the topic lists easily accessible for everyone to work on, as they are displayed at the very top of the Contents page.

On the side issue Quiddity mentioned, merging the two topic list pages would ruin the basic topic set, making it much harder to browse the basic topic lists. You'd be forcing beginners to scour a more extensive general list to find them. On the current Lists of basic topics, it's easy to find the basic lists, because they are all basic. The page Lists of topics is far more extensive, with vastly more entries, and if links to the basic lists were added to it, they'd be obscurred in a sea of non-basic list links.

The more people who use Wikipedia:Contents, the more people there will be to potentially work on the pages listed there. All the more reason to make it more accessible.

Keep in mind that every page on Wikipedia is already representative of Wikipedia, including the pages listed at Wikipedia:Contents, -- which has a link on the Main Page. So they're very "representative" already. They are very useful browsing pages, and they would be even more useful if the table of contents was given a link in Wikipedia's main menu. The Transhumanist   07:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Notifying the relevant wikiprojects would not be "a logistics nightmare". All it requires is a summarised 'form-letter' style of note, posted to each talk page. "Hello, I've created a "List of basic philosophy topics" linked to from Lists of basic topics, that could benefit from your project's input and oversight."

The pages written just by you are not representative of Wikipedia in the same way that the Community portal or Features articles are. That should be obvious; perhaps you are blinded by your pride in this work?

Overall the set of pages is at maybe a "B" quality level. I'd like to see them all at an "A" or even "Featured" quality level, before adding the Contents link to the sidebar. --Quiddity 19:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Quiddity, there is no reason to get personal by doubting my good intentions. You should assume good faith. I am approaching this matter with the utmost of objectivity...

The two users most critical of the topic lists, you and I, both agree that they need lots of work, and so did the Community portal, before someone stirred the community to action. My main desire here is that more people help develop these pages, and I frequently urge people to do so. But the element you may be missing is that the reason the Wikipedia:Community Portal has reached its current well-developed and well-maintained state is because of its visibility and centralized accessibility. I don't know about others, but for me, that was the key reason I got involved with it - it was on the main menu, yet it was in comparatively sad shape -- the same thing applied to the Main Page and Help:Contents, both of which have been on the main menu for a very long time and have been improved while so positioned.

I think the pages you are worried about could reach "A-level" or "Featured" quality a lot faster if they were linked-to based on their function. Yet, in their present incompleted form, they are still extremely useful -- they are the table of contents system, after all - so hiding these pages is counter-productive to their function and limits their usefulness.

Your "representative" concern is counter to the way consensus works on Wikipedia. The pages have consensus, being fairly well-used with almost no complaints. Quoting Wikipedias' concensus policy:

Over time, every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community (or at least everyone who has looked at the page). "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it.

The unwritten corollary to the above principle is that traffic drives change. The more people who visit a page, the more likely the page will be edited and improved.

The main contents pages are much better along than the Community portal, the Main Page, and the main Help page were before their respective overhauls. Yet those three examples were on the main menu the whole time! Here's what they looked like:

• the old Community portal which started out like this
• the previous version of the Main page, which started out like this, and before that looked like this
• the help page prior to its overhaul

Form follows function. The Community portal is placed where it is most useful, and so should the table of contents. Everything else on Wikipedia is positioned based on its function: articles, help pages, etc., and the vast majority of pages on Wikipedia are works-in-progress. The essense of Wikipedia is that it is a work-in-progress. So your position baffles me.

For a book, it makes no sense to have the table of contents buried somewhere in the middle of the book. The same principle applies here.

Contents is a well-polished and emminently useful page. We should place it on the main menu where it will do the most good.

Sincerely, The Transhumanist   21:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You asked for feedback, I gave it: 2 requests for things that need to be fixed/done first. --Quiddity 00:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that's not as bad 3.  :-) I've been picking away at the List of reference tables, so it's down to about 2 and a half sections (I knocked off half of Natural Science a few days ago). AWB should be able to handle a standard notice to Wikiprojects pretty easily. So don't worry about it. We'll get there. The Transhumanist   08:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improving the sidebar immensely with just a single link

This proposal is to add "Contents" to the main menu, directly under "Main page".

The only thing this proposal has to do with is the utility of the current sidebar and how we could greatly improve it by adding a single link. It's such an easy upgrade. And users would benefit immediately from having a link to the table of contents on Wikipedia's main menu. Meanwhile, adding it would not conflict in any way with the pending redesigned sidebar, because it's included in that design.

Contents is the perfect companion to the search box. By including Contents on the main menu, both major methods of finding things on Wikipedia would then be covered. It just seems like an obvious improvement to add a link to Wikipedia's table of contents to the main menu.

The Transhumanist   07:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think its perfect Rostik17 13:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I second that. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 23:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been a (very) active user for a year and didn't even know it existed. Add it! --Dweller 23:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea. Thank you for proposing it. Durova^Charge! 05:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Good evening all; I've always said Wikipedia should go a little bit further to meet that medium between HTML-sites (for example answers.com) and an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. The contents page would perfectly meet that medium - a link to the main subject areas, as well as more specific options - for example, the indexes. An excellent addition that meets our goal to ever strive to improve our encyclopedia.

Regards,
anthonycfc ^[talk] 20:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A 'normal' wiki usually doesn't have a core structure, and so people don't expect it, but Wikipedia has quite a lot of material, and various ways of organizing it. Having a link in the sidebar to the contents page will help people to discover what organization there is. (whether perfect or not a separate topic). And, actually, pointing people to the contents page and getting their resulting comments will improve the page. Don't wait for the improvements first... Shenme 04:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I support the proposal to add the Wikipedia:Contents link. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 07:42Z

There's a contents page? I didn't even know there was one till I spotted this article. I think it would be a good idea to make it a little more obvious for the idiots like me. --**CatoftheNight** 17:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Me neither! I think this would be a great addition! --Spixels 23:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

See also the proposal below, #Sidebar redesign. Could use feedback. --Quiddity 02:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I put this link in based on the discussion here. However, that hasn't been extensive enough to indicate a true community-wide consensus so we'll have to see how people react. Note that you may not see this change right away as it takes a while for the sidebar to update.
• Currently I added this as just a simple link (the same as 'Featured content'), but there are options for showing the link in the language set in the user's preferences which we can implement if this change is accepted. I also put in a 'tooltip' for the entry. Let me know if we should use some other text for that. --CBD 10:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sidebar redesign

What ever happened to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign? It was so active in Spetember 2006, and then just sort of fizzed out without any explanation. Below is the final draft, if anyone fancies restarting the discussion. — Jack · talk · 07:06, Sunday, 18 March 2007

[edit] Original navigation Main page Contents Community portal Featured content Current events Recent changes Random article About Wikipedia Contact us Make a donation Help search toolbox What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Printable version Permanent link Cite this article

[edit] Redesign navigate Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article search interact Help Community portal Questions About Wikipedia Contact us Make a donation toolbox Cite this article Permanent link Printable version Related changes What links here Recent changes Special pages Upload file

[edit] Re-Redesign? navigate Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article interact Help Community portal Questions About Wikipedia Contact us Recent changes Make a donation search toolbox What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Printable version Permanent link Cite this article

It was implemented in early December 2006, but was later reverted to do something or another. Gracenotes^T § 14:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

More correctly, someone tried to implement the parts of this that didn't require developer involvement, but doing so pushed down the search box to the point of causing display problems on small screens, and so was reverted. As I pointed out during the course of the Sidebar redesign discussion, changing the toolbox or creating a second box below the search box require developer effort. Since the developers aren't interested in this, nothing has changed. (And frankly the toolbox changes create so many cross-platform issues, that they might never be implemented even is a developer was interested.) Dragons flight 14:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Or you could say that the developers are interested in it if the community is... [Gracenotes mourns over the contrapositive] Gracenotes^T § 15:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. IMO, the proposed version is superior to the current version in many ways. Should we contact the developers again? Exactly what cross-platform issues will the implementation create? — Jack · talk · 22:28, Sunday, 18 March 2007

• Support. Oh hell, I'm ready to throw up my arms and let the simple draft be discussed/implemented.
  Since 3 of the links were merged into the single Wikipedia:Contents link, it's not as bad size-wise anyway. I've added a Re-Redesign draft above, which would be very easy to implement.
  The only thing that would require moving/discussion is where to put "Recent changes" link; I somewhat randomly selected above "Make a donation". Does that look good?
  (And thank, Jack, for updating the proposal page, and bringing this up again :) --Quiddity 06:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to say, I think I'd rather stick with the original redesign. The rationale behind the three boxes is "viewing encyclopedia" -> "running encyclopedia" -> "editing encyclopedia". Search should probably stay with viewing(navigation), and recent changes should stay with editing(toolbox), in amongst the none-contextual links(below the line). How can I inspire this idea in people? Should I make an announcement somewhere? — Jack · talk · 14:01, Wednesday, 21 March 2007

Eep! Just realised the current sidebar has grown by one link...look how bloated the navigation box is! It seriously needed to be cut into bitesize amounts; especially since there are the two key "featured" and "donate" buttons in there. We need people to push those ones! — Jack · talk · 14:18, Wednesday, 21 March 2007

I'd rather have the original redesign too, but the devs don't appear to have the time/workforce to implement it, so I was suggesting we go with the half-implementation for now. Many other Wikipedias have 2 nav boxes above the search, e.g. all 6 of the 250,000+ {{Wikipedialang}}uages do.

As for the new 'Contents' link, yeah, The Transhumanist pushed through his proposal above and then asked an admin to implement it this morning. I still stand by my disagreements listed at the proposal, and am annoyed by his tactics such as making a subheader purely to detour past my criticisms. I'd suggest pushing "Featured content" to the 2nd link placement, ahead of 'Contents'. --Quiddity 19:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What if the search box was moved under the interact box? That way it is more visible, and it can be used to search the encyclopedia, whereas the interact box is not directly encyclopedia-oriented .--HereToHelp 03:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you mean "above the interact box", that was the original/optimal redesign (listed above as "redesign". see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign), but it requires a developer to do extra wiki-backend work in order to implement it, which isn't a high priority for dev time, hence hasn't been implemented yet (since we achieved consensus on the final draft back in September). --Quiddity 03:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is it more visible under or above the interact box? It's there either way, and if it stays ajacent to the navigate box it seems more obvious what it's for, IMO — Jack · talk · 05:55, Thursday, 22 March 2007

The Transhumanist started a new discussion on this topic.

See #Proposal: Temporary fix for main menu on the sidebar below for continuation... --Quiddity 04:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Mine is a lot different with custom modifications. It stays in place as you scroll and generates its own scrollbars for the translations and the entire bar if the browser is too small to display it. See m:Help:User style/floating quickbar. Maybe we should incorporate some of these changes site-wide? — Omegatron 19:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. And would make for a good proposal on its own, started from scratch. We've wrapped up this design session via its continuation below, which has concluded with the implementation of a consensus-derived design (look at the sidebar itself), so I've closed this discussion to minimize confusion. The Transhumanist   03:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Wikipedia in the classroom

Here's an idea I've had on the back burner for a while: given that an increasing number of university professors are assigning their students to edit Wikipedia article, are we ready to have a WikiProject where they can share strategies?[1] So far all that Wikipedia has done is document those examples. It looks like it could be very beneficial to this site (and to the educators) if there we created a place where they could get together and see what works best for their classrooms and for the encyclopedia. Durova^Charge! 17:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I though of such a project, however I was thinking that a separate dedicated wiki would be a better place for such a thing as it may wish to have a broader scope than Wikipedia. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a fantastic idea. Wikipedia:Students' notice board, anyone? Keeping it on Wikipedia will make coordination easier than on an outside wiki.--Pharos 17:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I think WikiProject format is more suitable than noticeboard format, unless you're thinking of something different. My primary idea was to make this a forum where professors and teachers can share strategies for incorporating Wikipedia assignments into their classrooms. Within that project the students might have their own section to coordinate their end of the work. Durova^Charge! 17:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I only suggested a noticeboard as noticeboards tend to be defined by their members (such as the noticeboards for citizens of different countries), while wikiprojects are defined by their subject areas. But either way, I totally agree with the concept.--Pharos 18:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good point. The difference I see is that country noticeboards are useful for active Wikipedians but many of these people would be new users or infrequent contributors: educators who are intrigued by the project and need just enough information to structure a classroom assignment. So instead of ongoing developments this would address the same issues multiple times. WikiProject format fills that need although I'm receptive to any better idea that comes along. Durova^Charge! 13:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The project idea is good. It is a subject based idea, not a group based idea because regular Wikipedians will be able to give inputs on the ideas the teachers have, which lets face it are not always compatible with our goals. It will give us a forum to guide their lessons into something that is compatible and beneficial to Wikipedia. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It would be very good to have a place where seasoned Wikipedians can help the professors and teachers understand the site better so their assignments are compatible with our policies. A couple of months ago we had a ruckus when one instructor issued a classroom assignment to vandalize Wikipedia. That led to Jimbo's direct involvement and one of our administrators quit. Proactive community involvement should head off that kind of problem and facilitate more productive contributions. I'd be very happy if more students were improving Wikipedia from their university libraries, and if my recollections from my own student days haven't grown too hazy, I think my class assignments would have felt more meaningful if they'd actually been published. Durova^Charge! 18:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#WikiProject_classroom_coordination Sign up if you're interested and we'll get this off the ground. Durova^Charge! 18:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent idea. I seem to recall a similar page being set up over a year ago, but the issue was less pressing then and it kind of fizzled out. I'll see if I can locate it. >Radiant< 10:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do. I anticipate part of what this project would do is organize information about classroom Wikipedia assignments, sorting things by assignment type and educational level which would be more useful than the chronological arrangement for an instructor who's planning a syllabus. Anything relevant that's already onsite would help. Durova^Charge! 16:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Notability (science)

A poll is underway at Wikipedia talk:Notability (science) concerning whether or not this guideline currently enjoys general support from the community. Please feel free to join the discussion. Mangojuice^talk 20:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I will second this. I support this proposed guideline but am happy to see it genuinely ruled on by the community as a whole and not just by those of us who have worked on it. --EMS | Talk 02:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, no, that's not at all how it works. Guidelines aren't "ruled on" by anyone, nor are they created through polling. Rather, there is discussion ongoing on the page. At the moment there do not seem to be any real arguments against the page, but one or two editors object on grounds that process wasn't followed (regardless of the fact that the process they refer to doesn't actually exist). Comments are of course welcome. >Radiant< 09:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Actually, I do think the "discussion" that should have been happening was being treated as a poll, but naturally what we want is a discussion: does WP:SCIENCE have community support or not, and should it be a guideline? Mangojuice^talk 12:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Christian hymns

I note that many articles in this category contain the full lyrics to the hymn, which is source text and really should belong in wikisource. Should we do something about this? Comments please. >Radiant< 08:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that we should transwiki some of them. The few I briefly looked at, however, do not indicate the specific source (i.e. hymnal, music dictionary, etc.); the text should be redacted from those as it may be a copyright violation - especially the translations. Many are also rather small. Perhaps a merge might be in order? That, however, is a ways off. --Iamunknown 20:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Or a merge and move to Wikisource - Wikiprojects need to do a much better job of crosslinking and crossreferencing on matters such as these. bd2412 T 00:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: explain abbreviations on "User Contributions" page

OK, I'm a fairly new contributor, and I look at my "User Contributions" page, and I see various abbreviations apparently indicating something about my contributions. But I can't find where they are explained.

So I propose that they be explained right at the bottom of that page, every time it is displayed. I think that could be done in just a single line.

The specific abbreviations I'm referring to are:

• top -- this one is fairly obvious. And I did eventually find an explanation.
• m -- still don't know what this means.
• hist -- history of changes. Guessable, but should be explained.
• diff -- difference between revisions. Also guessable, but should be explained.

Having an explanation of these right on the page would be helpful for new contributors.

I think something like the following would be sufficient:

top=most recent edit.     m= something???.     hist= revision history.     diff=Difference between revisions.

T-bonham 13:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

m means that the change is a minor change (you clicked on the "minor edit" box or a process was performed which is by default considered a minor change (such as using the admin rollback capability). Corvus cornix 20:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a key at the top of the page history that describes these (and some other things), so I think people become familiar with them there. Plus I think it's quite easy to remember what they mean when you've seen them once and when you click them (the links) you can see what they do. I don't think there is a MediaWiki message at the top of the contributions page, so it would need developer attention for implementation (if desired by the community). mattbr 21:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] downlaod.wikiepdia.org other way of downloading

it has come to my attention that download.wikipedia.org isn't frequently updated nor gives it very specific downloads. SO what I would love to do is in fact make special downloads for every 'portal' on the site. I'm modest opinion, I think that it will save some GB's on the traffic counter.

And the structure isn't quit user-friendly when unpacked in a directory. So I would propose the make a directory structure that is very clear:

/root
index.html

sub-portal directory example

/portal1
-/a-z directory
--/images
---/images display html files
---/images

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Webscriptz (talk • contribs) 18:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Wikipedia "State" Movie

Many businesses and states and other organizations have logos, themes and other favorite things which represent what they do or stand for. In this regard I think the Wikipedia should adopt "Thanksgiving" which was Amazing Stories' second season, ninth episode to first air on November 24, 1986 as the Wikipedia theme movie since it portrays interaction with the Wikipedia by all users very well. Nebraska bob 01:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If this 1986 tv episode portrayed interaction with Wikipedia by its users, that truly would be Amazing. --Xyzzyplugh 02:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major problems with Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary

At the moment, WP:WINAD forbids articles on words, but in reality we have probably thousands of articles on words. Either we need to delete these thousands of articles, from Truthiness to Thou, or we need to make some major changes in this policy. Please come to Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Major_problem_concerning_this_policy and discuss this issue. --Xyzzyplugh 02:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Um... nearly all of our articles are "on words". Some of those words are people's names. Some of them are things like 'aardvark', which you could also certainly find in a dictionary. The difference is not in what we have articles about, but in what the articles say. One glance at our article on Truthiness will tell you that it is nothing like a dictionary entry... it talks about the cultural significance of the word rather than just it's meaning, etymology, et cetera. Ditto Thou. Our entry for Yes, on the other hand, doesn't contain anything you couldn't find in a dictionary... such as wikt:Yes. --CBD 10:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, almost none of our articles are about words, they are about the subjects the words describe. War is not about the word "war", it is about war as a subject, it's about violent armed combat. If it were about the word, it would instead be about the etymology, how the word is used, examples of use, and so on. George Washington is not about the word "George" or about the word "Washington", but instead about the famous person who happened to have that name. There are several pages of discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which would be the place to respond if you want to say more about this. --Xyzzyplugh 14:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Just AfD anything you think is in violation, and explain why. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modification to WP:3O

I propose that Wikipedia:Third opinion be revised to reflect its use. I believe 3O would be best served as a general request for an outside opinion. Most of the articles that get listed there have more than two parties disputing various issues. It is very useful for soliciting a neutral opinion. I believe that WP:3O should reflect this broader usefulness and the actual usage of the page. I raised this on the 3O talk page on March 16 and no objections have been made. I wanted to seek some outside input to make sure this change was acceptable to the community at large. Vassyana 04:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• I object. Let's all discuss this a bit more on the 3O talk page, instead of here, to have one unified place of discussion. Smee 04:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Redlinks replaced by redquestionmark?

I don't know if there was an unannounced design change but I noticed over the past hour that I cannot seem to find redlinks but rather where there is a non-existent link it is now comprised of blacktext followed by a red question mark, all of which act as a hyperlink to the non-existent edit page. I for one do not like this design because it makes it more difficult to find the tags and the redlinks as well as the question marks are incredibly distrating to the flow. --Valley2city^Shalom‽ 06:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

for an example, nonexistantlink. That wasn't a question, but it sure looks like one.--Valley2city^Shalom‽ 06:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) FAQ:

... it's probably because your browser failed to load one of the stylesheets (or the server sent you a wrong one). Do a forced reload or bypass your cache.

Wikipedia:Bypass your cache explains how to do that. It is also an option in Special:Preferences under 'Misc' which you might want to check if that doesn't solve it. Hope that helps, mattbr 10:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki registration

Maybe a shot in the dark but some of us multi-lingual folk, as well as those of us who also work on Metawiki and the Commons, would probably benefit from the ability to cross-register; that we don't need separate accounts for the various Wikimedia wikis and can easily transfer things over. Just checking if anyone likes the idea and if developers think it's feasible. --Valley2city^Shalom‽ 06:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a shot in the dark at all: meta:Help:Unified login. I'm not sure how far this really is--I thought it was successfully tested sometime last year, but it looks like it's currently stalled again. --Dapeteばか 09:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There are pieces of it that show up in some login messages and such... my browsers autolog me in so this is a faint memory, but the implication is that the background pieces of support code are being put in place. // FrankB 15:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trashy articles

Looking at the large number of new articles that are total rubbish Ebony spears, Gilbert snatch I realise what an ongoing battle is needed to keep the situation under control. The Request for Deletion process is far too elaborate and should take the form of a tab at the top of the page which might speed up the process of bringing such articles to the attention of whoever does the final deletion. Paul venter 16:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts for information on how you can make speedy-delete requests into a tab. (By the way, are you aware of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, which is a lot simpler than AfD for deleting obvious rubbish?) --ais523 16:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As a "veteran" of the Newpages patrol, I understand your frustrations. Thankfully, we have an infrastructure designed for this, so 90% of the "inappropriate" articles can be deleted through Speedy Deletion. GhostPirate 18:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

About 4000 articles are added every day here, and about 2000 are deleted every day. The solution to rubbish, if the present system is to be improved, probably is a more radical approach to vetting articles before the get to mainspace. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Naconkantari/cleanup - Wikipedia cleanup day

For those that may not have heard, there is a proposal at User:Naconkantari/cleanup concerning holding a "cleanup day" where editing will be restricted to autoconfirmed editors only. There is also a non-binding poll to determine the specifics and community reaction to the proposal. Before commenting, please read through the entire proposal as it should answer most questions that may arise. This message has been crossposted to several noticeboards, please direct comments to User talk:Naconkantari/cleanup. Cheers, Naconkantari 05:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Print this article"

Last year I was studying to get into college (which I did) and I printed about 200 articles from Wikipedia. I understood the importance of the sources in the articles, but I never checked them. I thought it was a waste of paper and ink to print so many pages of sources that I was just not going to read. So I had this idea: that there should be an option to choose which sections of the article you want to print, including the possibility of not printing the references and sources. Can it be done? A.Z. 08:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's possible to print a single section at the moment, but only in a hacky way, by editing the section, previewing it, and printing the preview. Most browsers will have an option to 'print selected text' if you go through the menus to print rather than using their toolbar, so you could try selecting the sections you want by dragging over them and using that. --ais523 09:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Most people will never think of doing those things. And a lot of people would prefer to waste paper and ink rather than figuring out how to print only the sections they want. Don´t you think that trying to figure a way to allow sections to be chosen is worth it? A.Z. 09:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A software solution is often possible (and you're right to put the proposal in), but listing the possible workarounds can't do any harm when a proposal's made. The MediaWiki developers are usually somewhat busy, and it can take a long time for an enhancement request to be implemented (if ever). One thing you could do is to request a user script for this, but user-scripts have to be installed individually by the users who use them and can't be used by people without usernames (presumably who would benefit from the feature), so the software solution is probably better overall here (but less likely to happen). --ais523 09:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

User-scripts really don´t seem to be the best choice here. I was thinking that it could work like that: when you clicked on "Print this article", there should be a list with the names of all the sections and you would choose whether you want to print the whole thing or just some sections, and then choose which sections you want. This would befefit not only those who don´t read the sources, but also those who for any other reason want to print only a section of an article. I know nothing of software development, but this doesn´t sound too hard to do. It´s good to know I posted the proposal in the right place, though. Is there any other thing I can do to make it more likely for the proposal to be implemented? A.Z. 09:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You can make an enhancement request for the MediaWiki software here. --ais523 09:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Naconkantari/cleanup - Wikipedia cleanup day

For those that may not have heard, there is a proposal at User:Naconkantari/cleanup concerning holding a "cleanup day" where editing will be restricted to autoconfirmed editors only. There is also a non-binding poll to determine the specifics and community reaction to the proposal. Before commenting, please read through the entire proposal as it should answer most questions that may arise. This message has been crossposted to several noticeboards, please direct comments to User talk:Naconkantari/cleanup. Cheers, Naconkantari 05:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to say this idea is a goodie. Please notify me of further progressins in this project. But... will it work? Zesty Prospect 19:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)