Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals).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

< Older discussions | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27

Contents

[edit] Toolbar, second try

I would like to create a Wikipedia toolbar to aid in navigation within the site. There would simply be buttons to replicate the tabs and other links we see on pages. It may sound simple, but I'm constantly wishing I didn't need to scroll around pages looking for links. A toolbar would make these links always accessible.

I'd like to begin with Firefox. I know something about programming but I don't specifically know Firefox addons. If someone out there knows how to create Firefox addons, and could create an example toolbar for me which would only contain a button or two, say, to access the current Wikipedia page's Talk and History pages, I might be able to use the code to replicate other buttons.

If anyone can do that for me, or if anyone is interested in starting a full-on project for this, I really think it would be useful to a lot of people. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:17, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I used to have a Wikipedia toolbar in Firefox, until I upgraded to 2.0, I think. Perhaps you could use it as a base? You'd have to update it for FF2 (and now FF3), but there are instructions for FF2-ifying it on its page. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 04:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but I've seen that one. As far as I know, it doesn't do anything similar to what I'm suggesting. All it does is insert code during editing, similar to the toolbar in the mediawiki edit box. It wouldn't contain the code I need, which is to have buttons correspond to URLs that are based on the page currently open. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:33, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Thought I'd mention it. :) Anyway, you're looking to make a toolbar with buttons to replicate links from places like #p-cactions and the toolbox? Sounds like an excuse to add a chrome onload or something... Sorry I can't be more helpful; I haven't done any FF extension development. :-( Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 06:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I don't know what any of that means :) But I'll assume you're right. I want to replicate the tabs (project page, discussion, hist, edit, watch/unwatch, etc) and yes the toolbox links, as FF toolbar buttons. It seems so simple to me, and so useful. I hope someone out there has some idea how to do it. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:50, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)

← I've begun development of the Wikipedia Toolbar. Check it out and let me know what you think. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:29, 24 Jan 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Change titles for two articles: Mitochondrial Eve & Y-chromosomal Adam

A Google search for either of these titles reveals that many persons use these two articles -- or at least are obsessively interested in these two titles. In other words, these two titles are "attractive nuisances." And these Wikipedia articles of course head the list of webpages found for these two searches.

Proposal: Rename these two articles "Ur-mother" and "Ur-father" respectively, then rewrite the articles themselves accordingly, and of course Re-direct references to "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosomal Adam" to these two articles.

The rewritten articles might begin with the next sentence, for the first of the two articles:

The name Ur-mother, while not yet common in the literature of genealogical DNA (which is totally secular or non-religious), is used here in preference to the more usual name "mitochondrial Eve," in order to avoid any religious overtones or any Biblical connections.

Other Wikipedia users have been on this topic before, such as in the following {bracketed}-quote at the top of the talk page of the second article -- somewhat shortened by deletions of discussion of Aaron, indicated by an ellipsis (...) :

{... "Y-chromosomal Adam" is just a pet name. It has nothing to do with Genesis. "Y-chromosomal Aaron", otoh, is completely arbitrary, we might as well have "Y-chromosomal Smith" tracing the common ancestor of all people called Smith. this link says "The name Eve, in retrospect, is perhaps the worst possible name to give to the entity in question" for mitochondrial Eve. The same might be said for Y-Adam. It was chosen as a funny and suggestive name, without thinking that it may stir interest in religious or racist circles. ... dab 13:04, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dab, if you can come up with with a better name for this article then please do propose one. ... JFW | T@lk 13:12, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

fine. ... I don't suggest we rename "Adam" to something else. It's what it's called now. It may have been an unhappy choice, but we're stuck with it now. dab 13:16, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cool. JFW | T@lk 20:18, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)}

I hope to notify the above two users on their Talk pages, about this proposal. For7thGen (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a move would be in contravention to the naming conventions, given that they are widely accepted entities in genetic research. I also don't think we should action a move on the basis of a short discussion held 3.5 years ago. Surely we'd need to reestablish consensus. JFW | T@lk 06:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Many topics in our encyclopedia are given confusing, misleading, or offensive names. If it's the name they're best known by, I believe it's still the most appropriate name. We shouldn't invent titles except where a widely-accepted name does not exist. Dcoetzee 23:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
How did this end up on the Pump instead of RfC and the Wikipedia:Requested moves process? Per Jfdwolff, I just can't see making these renames. The very fact that these titles are so widespread suggests that selecting a more 'politically correct' name would not reflect current lay or scientific usage. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
What I'm trying to figure out is the three-and-a-half-year gap in the middle of the conversation. :-? --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 16:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Standardize Template:User*

These templates vary in terms of external link formatting, separators, and so on, I would like to standardize these but I want people's opinions on what direction to go:

Link formatting:

  1. Example (talk · contribs · block log)
  2. Example (talk · contribs · block log)
  3. Example (talk · contribs · block log)

The last version is tempting, but it results in much larger code for instances that require multiple "external" links, and will look wrong if user preferences specify a different color for internal links. Some templates do this: Example (talk · contribs · block log); I can't figure out why this would be wanted. I have a vague recollection that this could in the past be done without requiring separate color tags inside each link, this may be the reason.

Separators - or, rather, the _size_ in particular of the dots

  1. Example (talk • contribs • block log)
  2. Example (talk • contribs • block log)
  3. Example (talk · contribs · block log)
  4. Example (talk · contribs · block log)
  5. Example (talk · contribs · block log)

Believe it or not, all four of these choices are in use right now, along with no dot at all. Simple wikipedia goes to the other extreme, using ▪. Arguably, we could decide to use a different separator e.g. a vertical bar, instead: Example (talk | contribs | block log). It has been proposed to make the parentheses smaller as well: Example (talk · contribs · block log)

Another issue, which I've brought up in the past, is the overlap in scope between some of these templates; I'd like to ultimately find out what each one is actually used for. —Random832 15:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If there are no responses (my last thread about standardizing these stalled due to complete and total apathy, rather than any objection; and those templates which are protected are due to heavy use rather than any dispute), I will go forward with editing all of these templates to conform to this style: Example (talk · contribs · block log), except for those which exist for no other reason than a variance of style (e.g. {{user9}}) —Random832 16:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No need to change the link colour. The bold middot is most preferable for many, judging by their presence in navboxes. The small parentheses are awkward. Some of the longer templates like {{Usercheck}} were designed with horizontal space in mind, so they should remain unless there is consensus to change. –Pomte 02:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no objection to going with the bold middot. By "no need to change the link color" do you mean "should not change the color of 'external' links to match internal ones" or "should not change existing templates that do so, to use the normal 'external' link color"? —Random832 14:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: This is what the color choices look like in the new "Modern" skin:
Image:Random832 - 2008-01-24 - Link color examples.png.
—Random832 14:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Users to see their deleted edits

I already filed this as bugzilla:12667, but if the devs see some community support they might implement this a bit sooner. Any user should be able to see the list of his/here deleted edits (contribs to pages that got deleted):

  • users would be able to easily find their seemingly lost contributions
  • newbies would be a lot less confused after speedy deletions
  • also, deletionists would be able to evaluate their past work

Please note that this proposal is not about:

  • the ability to see the content of deleted revisions (like admins can): bugzilla:12524 was rejected (comment #7)
  • the ability for other users to see the list: it might contain offensive/libellous edit summaries or pagenames

∴ AlexSm 15:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This makes sense: I can't think of any reason that this would be a bad thing. How the interface would work would matter, of course, but the simple idea of the ability to see a log of one's own deleted edits doesn't seem like it could cause a problem. Nihiltres{t.l} 22:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I like this idea also. I'm not sure about how the interface would work exactly, but frequently users who didn't anticipate deletion or oversight want to legitimately take the material and reuse it in a useful way - currently they have to ask for an admin's assistance. Besides which, they are still the copyright holder. Dcoetzee 23:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The authors would still need an admin's assistance; this proposal doesn't give editors access to the content of the deleted edits. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This has my support. This could work from Special:DeletedContributions (since links to text of the revisions don't work for non-admins anyway). GracenotesT § 02:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Good and helpful idea. –Pomte 02:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Note that in some cases articles or article revisions are deleted because either the article title or the edit summaries contain inappropriate material (extremely offensive comments, privacy violations, defamatory content, threats, etc.). If we start letting non-admins have access to deleted revisions (even just titles and edit summaries) we're going to have to oversight a great deal more stuff—and I don't think our current infrastructure will handle the load. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe the proposal is to allow users only to see their own deleted edits, so that wouldn't be a problem. Prodego talk 02:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
There perhaps needs to be two classes of deletion; a "garden variety" deletion (for non-notable things, nonsense, vanity, etc.) that might be allowed to be retrievable somewhere out of mainspace for people who really want to see it, and a "harder" deletion for things of greater problematic nature like libel, privacy violations, copyright violations, etc. that's hidden from all but admins. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, that is (a) not relevant in this particular case per my comment, and (b) sounds like rev_deleted, which we should get maybe sometime eventually. Prodego talk 03:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
If you wrote it, why shouldn't you be allowed to see it? --Carnildo (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
A diff contains more than the text inserted by an editor; so showing an editor the diff for a deleted article isn't quite a slam-dunk in terms of violation of privacy, for example. I'd personally like to see "header-only" edits (for deleted articles) listed in user contributions page (with "article deleted" added so it's clear that no diff is viewable) because that would often make it easier to understand what newer editors have done (for example, create a new article and do a lot of edits to it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Broughton (talk • contribs) 15:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Paranormal fork of Wikipedia

Maybe Wikipedia could start a wiki-encyclopedia for the paranormal. Obviously there are HUGE number of people here interested in promoting the paranormal. There are armies of people interested in remote viewing, UFOs, homeopathy, Rosicrucians, scientology, conspiracy theories, complementary medicine, telepathy, psychic surgery, demonology, Nostradamus, pictures of the Madonna appearing on half eaten toasted cheese sandwiches etc.

Some of this material is informative. A lot of it is entertaining. Clearly many are enthusiastic about it and want to write about it or read about it. However, describing a lot of it comes into conflict with WP:NPOV and efforts to make Wikipedia a respectable scholarly work. And this leads to trouble, and is clearly evident if you look.

So why do we not have a special wiki for the paranormal? We could direct people interested in nonmainstream topics to that Wiki, and it could feature articles on this sort of material, which would get a lot of attention apparently. This would be like a "paranormal fork" of ALL of Wikipedia.

The reason I suggest this is that there was a big problem at Dinosaurs for a while. Then the article Creationist perspectives on dinosaurs was created that gave the creationists some place to edit. And they were happy, and eventually this creationist "fork" was folded into a regular creationist article. We did similar things at evolution by moving the material dealing with the creation-evolution controversy out of the main article, so there would be other places that those interested could see their views represented. So maybe something similar would work for this entire family of WP:FRINGE topics.

It would draw a lot of editors and a lot of pageviews. I think that it might help Wikipedia by providing an outlet for this sort of stuff, and might provide a valuable resource. A similar but related idea would be a Wiki for popular culture, to reduce the cruft that builds up over and over in regular articles on Wikipedia. Perhaps these two offbeat wikis could be combined? I am not sure what you would call it however. --Filll (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There's already a Paranormal Wiki. It's inactive for lack of interest. I'd encourage you to send more people there and find a new sponsor for it. :-) Dcoetzee 19:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I knew you were going to say that.Wjhonson (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


Excellent! Let's see if I can encourage some of these editors to try it.--Filll (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, what a wonderful idea ([1]). Here is a wiki you and quite a few others might like to transfer your energies to: [2]. Now, if properly done, your original idea might be something to consider. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please try to not violate WP:NPA as you have done repeatedly and been repeatedly part of assorted administrative actions and accused of vexatious litigation. Either cooperate with the community and abide by its rules, or suffer the consequences. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unauthorized!?

I have rollback permissions. Whenever I find vandalism, and click on the rollback button, and discover that someone else (or bot) had reverted it first, I see a page titled "Unauthorized" with a message saying "Cannot revert edit" and things like that. I don't think that it is a good title because it can be confusing, making some people think of the very word 'Unauthorized' as things like 'unauthorized from editing at all', for example. Does anyone know whether there is another title for the page that is currently titled "Unauthorized" (after clicking on the rollback button after someone else or bot makes an edit)? NHRHS2010 01:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

When I try and fail to perform a rollback (subsequent edit or user is only editor), I see a page titled "Rollback failed". The text for that page's title comes from MediaWiki:Rollbackfailed, which has no history, so it can't have been changed briefly. I'm clueless as to why you're seeing that message. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 04:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
TO diagnose this, we'll need the exact text of the title and the exact text of the error page. I don't see any message that includes the term 'unauthorized' on a quick scan. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is a screenshot-- penubag  04:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Au contraire, CBM, MediaWiki:Permissionserrors now has the text "Unauthorized". It was changed on December 29 by Xaosflux. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 05:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I just tried to rollback one of my user subpages, which has only been edited by me. I see the same page title, but it used to say "Rollback failed", I swear. This could be a trivial bug in MediaWiki. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 05:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The default message is "Permissions errors", which is what I find when I scan the source code. We can edit that right now, but a more complete fix will require a change to the mediawiki code. I filed a bug as bugzilla:12771. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Just as a side note, NHRHS2010, you only need one importScript('User:AzaToth/morebits.js'); in your monobook.js file. I doubt it's causing this problem, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 05:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed MediaWiki:Permissionserrors to say "Error: unable to proceed", which should be generic enough to cover permissions errors as well as the rollback error. There should always be more specific text in the actual error message. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Testing (to see if the rollback issue is resolved). NHRHS2010 11:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it worked. It said "Error: unable to proceed". That is MUCH better. Thanks, everyone. NHRHS2010 11:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
That fix was no problem at all to implement. The software is always being developed and improved, and sometimes it inadvertently has counterintuitive messages. For future requests like this, the technical village pump is frequented by more people familiar with the software. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Atlanta Georgians please Read

I am new to Wikipedia. My name is Mark

I really want to do a Wiki on an atlanta Restaurant called Willys California style burritos. They are like moes but the quality is way better, the ambiance is nicer, and the people are friendlier. I have not yet mastered the wiki enough to start a brand new one. Please help!

- email address removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamtonycipriani (talk • contribs) 18:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Have given user welcome and creation templates, which include some helpful links. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 04:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cursor automatically in search box in main page

I propose when loading the main page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) the cursor to be set automatically inside the search box - this is a standard feature in all search engines google, yahoo etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.99.101 (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

forgot to sign before 82.6.99.101 (talk) 11:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This request comes up frequently, the last time less than two weeks ago, at Talk:Main Page/Archive 116#autofocus the search box, please, and is also explained (better) in the Main Page FAQ at Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why doesn't the cursor appear in the search box, like with Google?. Basically, it isn't going to get done, but there are alternatives. As explained at the FAQ you can register for an account and use a small piece of javascript script to autofocus it like you said. Another alternative is to set up your browser so that you can search within it directly. Firefox has this built in as a "Quick Search"; just type wp into the address bar from any page (not just Wikipedia pages) followed by a space, and what you want to search for. You could also look at some of the Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives, such as the "Simple search box" variant (the search box still isn't autofocused, but it's more prominent). Hope this helps in some way. • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 14:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Firefox has no such thing. You can, however, get this functionality with a simple bookmark. Algebraist 14:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I think there must have been a change in the provision of this "quick search" by default at some point. I seem to recall that my (older) installation of Firefox came with it, but I have seen several people make the point you do above about having to make a tagged bookmark in order to get that functionality. On the other hand, I might have created mine myself and forgotten I did so. :-) --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 14:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Well I dunno but I have Firefox "Quick Searches" for everything. I dunno if that's the best word for them, but that's what the bookmark folder they're in is called and that's why %s redirects to the Main Page. • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 14:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, I see this is standard in some firefoxes (like the one I'm using now). You can also add wikipedia search to the search bar (in top right). Algebraist 10:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Mobile

Wikimedia, while providing an excellent resource, with its offer of totally free and unrestricted information, is rather difficult to use on many mobile devices. I reccomend that Wikimedia offer both a regular mobile version of its sites and an iPhone/iPod Touch version, which would make both casual use and editing from mobile devices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noz92 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WAP access and Wapedia. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Colour

I propose that wikipedea is made a more brightwebsite. therefore making the experience more fun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.126.106 (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean, adding more colours and stuff? If you register, you can customise your monobook.css. I don't know how familiar you're with CSS but it can do wonders.
I'm not sure if something like this should be the default, though. I mean, I'm all for adding a better way to thread comments on talk pages (look at Wikipedias in these languages: eo:Diskuto:Ĉefpaĝo, fr:Discuter:Accueil) and make the tabs oval instead of rectangular (eo:Ĉefpaĝo) but I think it's important not to go overboard, we're an encyclopaedia, not a games site. An interesting design would be good, but we shouldn't cross the line, we're targeting people of all ages, and our primary intention is to educate, not entertain (while it is good if our readers don't fall asleep of boredom while reading). Puchiko (Talk-email) 09:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] page presentation

hi

i like wikipedia and congratulate all those who contribute

a couple of questions

1. next to each edit hyperlink could there be a "top" hyperlink too?

2. i go to a page, and spot a "gap" (ie table of contents for a similar entry (eg cars versus trains) has a history section in one and not the other) and i want to contact the "owner" of the page to suggest something is missing that should be added => can the tabs on the top of any page be added to to include a general comments section? where the "owner" (the most frequent contributor?) can review and judge whether changes need to be made

thanks

74.92.140.6 (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC).

Regarding #2. Every article has an associated discussion page where changes to the article are discussed. To access it, click the "discussion" tab at the top. To leave a new comment, click on the "+" tab on the talk page. The most frequent contributors (no-one owns a specific article) will most likely have the page watchlisted to monitor for changes. Harryboyles 00:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding #1, I think that's quite a good idea. The back button works best, but some people prefer to use "top" links. I wonder who we'd have to talk to to get that implemented. MediaWiki doesn't have that feature as far as I know. But it could be added on easily as a user interface gadget in JavaScript. That might limit it to logged-in users only, not sure. • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 14:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I've now just written such a script, in my userspace at User:Anakin101/toplinks.js. It's working in Firefox 2. I tried testing it in Internet Explorer 6, but under IE every single Wikipedia page (whether my script is enabled or not), is bottling out with a script error (???!). But would anybody care to test my script? Test it for robustness / bugs etc? • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 14:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Works fine for me., both in Mozilla and in Mozilla Firefox. Puchiko (Talk-email) 09:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:OpenID_Proposal

I'm proposing that we enable OpenID logins. If there's significant support for this, I'll file a bug asking the developers to install the necessary extension. Triona (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you'll get this until after SUL goes live (citation). MER-C 02:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, maybe not, but OpenID is a far less ambitious proposal technically, being that the extension already exists and no merging of accounts is required, while being far more useful to end-users - and regardless of what timeframe the developers put on it, the purpose of posting here is to develop and demonstrate support for it. Triona (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I support this, as I have found OpenID to be extremely useful on other sites. Even better would be the ability to add an OpenID URL to one's account, so that could be used as an alternative to logging in with the Wikipedia username and password. This functionality would be even more useful for public computers, as most OpenID providers seem to provide (no pun intended) SSL-secured login pages, while Wikipedia does not (unless one uses the secure server, which seems like so much work to remember). Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 09:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the village pump

hi

is it possible to have a link to the Wikipedia:PUMP in the interaction box on the left hand side of the screen?

thanks - 74.92.140.6 (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC).

Sure, it's possible - any administrator can modify that box to add another link (I believe). As to whether it's desirable, there are a large number of links that could be added to the quickbar on the left side of the screen; adding another makes it more difficult to distinguish what is really important (presumably what is already there) with what is less important. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Besides, the Village Pump is just one click in the toolbar plus one click more: its link from the top of the Community Portal is rather prominent. Waltham, The Duke of 17:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
If you so desire, you could create an account and add Navigation shortcuts to your monobook.js. Best regards! --omtay38 18:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] why not...

just realized what i proposed is being said for 100,000,000 times 5secs after i submitted it, so it's deleted by me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nekomini (talk • contribs) 10:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:IPtalk proposal

I propose to add a template on anonymous user talk pages directing them to view the bottom of the page. Please read and comment: Wikipedia:IPtalk proposal. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that this would be an exercise in futility and a waste of server resources. If it is done only on IP talk pages which previously exist, my guess is that it would almost never be done. If an IP talk page is created in order to contain this, it would probably never be viewed by anyone. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like you're looking for something like MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext, only at the top of the page. Bovlb (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion: readability test(s) for Wikipedia articles

Is it possible to add a program to Wikipedia to perform one or more readability tests for each Wikipedia article, and to place

the current score(s) for each article somewhere on the article page;
the current score(s) and projected score(s) on the edit preview page;
and the score(s) for each version in the article history?

At this time, the article "readability test" lists the following tests.

If it is desirable to include consideration of each word in the article as to its frequency in the English language, can that be a part of the program? (Maybe the Wikipedia community can originate a new kind of readability test.) In regard to readability tests of Wikipedia articles generally, do the benefits outweigh the costs? Also, please consider applying this suggestion to Simple English Wikipedia.-- Wavelength (talk) 05:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what the test results are for each of the above articles. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
At least they don't suffer from verbal diarrhea. -- Fullstop (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Presumably that means the same as logorrhoea. -- Wavelength (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse - i think it might help us to become a more scholarly encyclopedia --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 17:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Here are some related links:
  • Endorse -- excellent idea. --A. B. (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse I've always wanted to see how a FA compares with other articles in ease of use. And it would only be an option for those interested. MBisanz talk 04:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse - That's brilliant. Why didn't we think of this before? Keilana|Parlez ici 04:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] excessive use of inappropriate links

An important feature of Wikipedia is the cross-referencing, whereby links to related articles are provided simply by clicking on a key word in the text. But sometimes this cross-referencing is so excessive as to be ludicrous. Just as an example: consider the "Alien Abduction" page. Surely, links to 'United States', 'university', 'automobile', 'asparagus' (!!), etc, etc - to select a few at random from dozens of highlighted words - are TOTALLY out of place in an encyclopedia article on "Alien Abduction". Wikipedia urgently needs a way of including only relevant links. (Ericlord (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

We have one: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) Cheers! --omtay38 17:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
What if I'm a alien, bent on abducting you, and my manual states "Fly to the United States, collect some asparagus because the natives love it, find a university, hover over an automobile and wave your asparagus!" I'll have no idea what all that means without Wiki-links! Wjhonson (talk) 06:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Then you'd have to explain to other editors why you thought you were complying with the guideline Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signature reminder

Having just made the same mistake twice in the last ten minutes, i.e. of putting in a standard vandal message on an editor's talk page, press save page and realised as I pressed it that I hadn't signed the message, I feel it's high time for me to make this proposal:

In user preferences, theres a useful option that reminds users to leave an edit summary. I have this checked, and as a result I haven't skipped a summary since March last year. Is it possible to have something similar to check for ~~~~ within the edit box of talk pages? A reminder could come up, saying You have not signed this edit. If you click Save again, your edit will be saved without a signature. It wouldn't be perfect - fopr example, it wouldn't check sigs for this page, as it isn't a talk page, but it would be helpful for most situations. Now to remember to sign this page! Tivedshambo (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:SineBot will sign your Talk page entries if you forget to sign them. Corvus cornixtalk 00:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I realise that, but it would be better to stop users forgetting in the first place. Besides, I find Sinebot too abrupt, and causes edit conflicts when I try to correct my own ommisions. Tivedshambo (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I wonder why isn't Alex Smotrov's proposal implemented already. It doesn't require any kind of additional software changes, but it's quite effective to place the reminder just before the edit summary field, as it's shown in Russian Wikipedia talkpages (we have such a feature for approximately 1.5 months). — Kalan ? 14:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New radio button option for bottom of editing window emphasizing references and citations

At the bottom of the editing window, there are a couple of clickable radio buttons.

" x This is a minor edit (what's this?) and x Watch this page "

What I would like to propose is a third button taking the first place;

  • The purpose of this button would be to flag up that the edit was to add a references or citation, or that the edit included a references or citation.

See rough;

Image:Wikidevproposal.jpg

  • Why?
a) to promote the idea and encourage individuals to use and add references and citations. This will remind them EVERY time they click the Save page button. (Good placement is key to good advertising/social programming).
b) to quickly and easily register that the edits were considerable edits (OK, a small proportion of idiots could fake it and lazy folk ignore it but that is true of any system).
c) allow for tracking of the number and type of edits being made
d) assist admins etc in profiling contributors prior to making decisions, e.g. an individual with a high citation account is proportionately more likely to knows what they are doing and why, and be doing something useful.

(Equally, I could suggest another for copyedit or formatting) it would just seem a useful took to have onboard. It would encourage many users to go ahead and add more to build a good editing record. Fine, it wont fix the world but, ditto, it would not take that much coding to do or cause issues. In balance, beneficial.) --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd support that if you simplify to "Added reference". Among other reasons for simplification: this is only going to be valuable if this shows up for edits the same way that minor edits to (say, as "r", similar to the "m" for minor edits), and can be used as a filter (so, for example, exclude edits that have the "Added reference" checkbox checked).
My personal preference would be even more dramatic: disallow the addition of information to Wikipedia unless a source (reference) - existing or added - is provided for that information. But I realize that such is not the tradition of Wikipedia, and that quality of information still isn't as important as quantity of information. So perhaps a checkbox will at least nudge editors in the right direction. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] robots.txt / browsershots

Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). SharkD (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, would it be okay if I politely asked one of the techs/developers if we could whitelist browsershots.org? I've frequently wanted to run tests from there on various templates and interfaces to make sure they'll be accessible across all platforms but since we disallow several different pages on our robots.txt it doesn't necessarily work correctly. I'd propose adding the following to explicitly allow their crawls:

User-agent: Browsershots
Disallow:

They, themselves, have a robots.txt to prevent search engine caching of results. Cheers. =) --slakr\ talk / 20:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A proposed bot (SquelchBot) to automatically revert the addition of certain external links

Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SquelchBot if you have comments. Thank you, Iamunknown 01:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This bot is a replacement of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Shadowbot which was approved and running since November 2006. Was later renamed User:AntiSpamBot.--Hu12 (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization

I propose categorize wikipedia entries with the Universal Decimal Classification or other kind of classification system. --WonderingAngel-aesc78 (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What would this improve over the current category system? -- Kesh (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
We did have this once using the Dewey system, but it wasn't widely used and eventually was deleted. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Dewey Decimal Classification. There are still the less ambitious listings Wikipedia:Outline of Roget's Thesaurus, List of Dewey Decimal classes and Library of Congress Classification.-gadfium 19:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thanks for the links, i was just wondering if there was a categorization system. --WonderingAngel-aesc78 (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrators may impose article probation without taking a case?

I have proposed a means by which arbitrators may impose article probation without necessarily taking a case, at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy#Arbitrators may impose article probation without taking a case?. I invite discussion there. MilesAgain (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: A more pro-active watchlist type notification system

This idea stems from the current issues we've had with episode merging and the like, in the fact that people don't feel they're getting sufficient notification for various issues. While watchlists are great, when you get more than a few hundred pages it can be very hard to follow or discover certain changes, particularly if you ignore WP even over 24hrs. The idea is not to replace the watchlist system but to provide a more pro-active notification system for people that want to track changes on key articles.

Here's my idea, in terms of how it works:

  1. A special template on an article's talk page is created. In this template is a list of users that are interested in this page. (possibly, the template includes support for a "notification level").
  2. When a "significant change" to a page is made (specifically, I thinking : any of the major cleanup templates, AfD, merge, GA/FA, reassessment, and so forth, not other "minor changes" - ideally anything easily tracked by looking for the presence or absense of a template message), a bot will catch this. (I doubt in real time, but lets say it checks for these diffs every 6-12 hrs - slow enough to not spam the system)
  3. When such a change is made, the bot notifies each uses in that template on their talk page, explaining the change.

In this fashion, those pages most important to uses can be tracked closer without having to chase through long watchlist details. The bot should also create pages, by user, so they know what they are tracking so they can maintain that list (simply by removing their name from said template and also to avoid someone enlisting them inappropriately on pages they don't want to watch). Now, I do note that unlike the watchlist which is private to a user, this does make it public that you are watching the article, but very likely, if you are, you are a major contributor to the article and thus it is no surprse that you are watching it in this fashion, and I think the value of letting people know I'm watching an article is a small price to pay for having better notification on articles I'm most interested in.

I did mention the possibility of notification levels (like with some debugging). Maybe you only want to know if the article's about to be deleted, or maybe you want any change to be notified (which may be very spammy). We could classify the types of changes into a series of levels to let uses pick which ones they want when they enter their name on the template.

The only issue I see is not so much in bot programming but how much of a load would this be; again, the delta time between checking for differences can be changed appropriately to alter this. --MASEM 18:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If in fact there are only a relatively few "high priority" pages that an editor wants to watch, one existing solution is to create an additional ("public") watchlist on a subpage. Then just click on the "Related changes" link in the toolbox on the left to view recent changes to those high-priority articles. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess I'm done for the day, since I learned something new! That's a great idea for personal high-priority pages. --MASEM 16:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The avalibility to watch Special Pages

It would be nice if we could watchlist specialpages, such as:

  • User contributions
Good for tracking the edits of problematic users
  • whatlinkshere
Tracking pages created regarding a template

and etc. The benefits would be huge-- penubag  01:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Propose this on WP:VPT since it's a software feature request. MilesAgain (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
sure-- penubag  02:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Special pages aren't watchable because they aren't hard "pages" that get "changed". They're dynamically-created lists that are compiled anew when a user accesses them, and are never saved. Scripts can perform similar functions though -- User:Tra has a couple that do what you need: "user watch list" script lets you "watch" user contribs: add importScript('User:Tra/userwatchlist.js'); to your monobook.js. Instructions are at User:Tra#User_watchlist. There's also "whatlinkshere watchlist", importScript(User:Tra/whatlinksherewatchlist.js');. Instructions at User:Tra#What links here watchlist. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:54, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being of such help, once again!, I'm on a Mac using safari (doesn't seem to work), so I'll try it on my PC (with FireFox) at home. Thanks-- penubag  17:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
That's fantastic, I didn't realise something like that existed. J Milburn (talk) 09:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Scouting"

Say a Wikipedian knows someone who would be a great addition to Wikipedia and convinces them to join. Maybe, there could be a barnstar or a special userbox for that person. They would apply for it, and the IP address of the new user would be checked to prevent sock puppetry. What do you think? I call it "scouting". Shapiros10 (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems way to bureaucratic to me. Apply to whom? And why would we want checkusers to spend their valuable time on this - when all that is at stake is an award? Plus getting someone to register doesn't turn them into a productive contributor - we have something like 7,000 new registered accounts every day here, and the vast majority never do another edit. But if we impose a requirement (e.g., recruited editor must do at least 100 edits, for example), then should someone (who?) confirming the award look at the type of edits (welcoming 100 new editors is hardly a significant contribution to the project).
Perhaps we should just rely on a sense of self-satisfaction to motivate Wikipedians to recruit other editors. Or, at the very most, some sort of self-award. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the "100 good edits" idea. Maybe a bot could do the sorting...Shapiros10 (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A bot that tells which edits are good and which are not... That must be every Wikipedian's dream. (Yes, that's a hyperbole; it certainly isn't my dream.)
Sorry for being harsh, but I have been here for a year, and have yet to earn any award (apart from a self-bestowed one); I should say that it takes much harder work that "100 good edits" for one to be recognised by the community. Seriously, one must put things into perspective here. We are an encyclopaedia first, and a community next. And, if you care for my opinion, I do derive self-satisfaction from editing. Even though I do hope for the eventual recognition that will aid me in, finally, taking over the world (check my user page for details), I intend to continue contributing even without it. And I think that many editors think like that, if not the most. Waltham, The Duke of 01:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
To concur with the Duke (or, it would appear, his appear private secretary), I don't think so. We're looking at a proposed system where (a) editor A needs to record that she recruited editor B, early in B's editing career (which needs to be checked); then (b) we need a bot to count and evaluate the quality of B's edits (as in, user page edits don't count, welcoming doesn't count much, RfA "support" opinions count for what?; XfD opinions count for what; fixing spelling errors counts for what?); then we need (c) checkuser to verify that A and B aren't the same person, and probably (d) some sort of panel of editors to oversee the process to make sure that the system isn't being gamed. And probably (e) something else I've missed.
I can pretty much guarantee that (c) isn't going to happen. I suggest we drop the discussion at this point, and concentrate our time and energies on actually improving articles. Or making it easier for other editors to do so. Or recruiting new editors who aren't that motivated by awards. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Concur. Sorry, although it may sound like a nice idea, it's more trouble than it's worth. Just mention on your userpage that you encouraged someone to join- that's what I'd do. J Milburn (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)