Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Put a link to an official UTC time in the edit page of village pump, talk pages, etc.

It would be much convenient.

-boozerker 01:28, 01 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe even have a clickable button that puts in your username (or IP address if not logged in) with the necessary info (minus the UPC time if that's not possible). -boozerker 01:31, 01 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a button on the edit toolbar to put your signature (username) in. I don't know why you would not want the timestamp.

And, to add just a signature without the time, just use 3 (instead of four) tildes:

Also, you can add your username without the timestamp by using 5 tildes:

- Rjd0060 05:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, didn't see it. Thanks. And I didn't mean to do it without timestamp, just said if not possible in the code then to not include it. --Boozerker 19:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slide-down "new message" template

When I have a new message, my style is to drop everything and respond post-haste. But sometimes I can spend up to 30 minutes to finish up, so I'd prefer if the "New Message" template slid down from the top, so I'd be able to respond immediately. --Gp75motorsports 02:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "slide down"? Gracenotes^T § 23:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I mean that it would appear at the top of the page immediately, in a fashion such as the one when you open a WikiCard. --Gp75motorsports 23:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a WikiCard, but do you mean that you don't want the box to wait for when you next load a page, but you want the box to appear whilst you are in the middle of looking at a page? Tra (Talk) 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. --Gp75motorsports 00:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not easy to do in a browser – and how easy it is depends on how willing you are to compromise the script's functionality. That is, checking is easy, but how to coordinate when to check is not. However, it's possible to write an external application to connect to the live recent changes feed and do it. User:Henna/VF is one such application that currently exists. Gracenotes^T § 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I open the link in a new window and then minimize that window, going about my editing until I can respond. Easy as pie. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability guideline for schools

There isn't one, but there really should be. Schools must be one of the most common types of AfD'd articles, and their discussions often result in "no consensus". - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the real question is, how do you best achieve a consensus on a school guideline?--victor falk (talk) --victor falk (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The same way consensus has been achieved on the other specific notability guidelines (such as WEB, CORP, Books, etc...), which is....well....I don't really know, but somebody aught to. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm more than supportive for a notabilty guideline for schools, several tried and failed though, over an year ago, maybe I can do a draft on it. Thanks This is a Secret ^account 05:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Go for it! - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've created a project page: Wikipedia:WikiProject School consensus resolution--victor falk 05:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not the guidelines which are broken. It's the AfD evaluation process which is flawed. If a school fails the criteria at WP:N it is probably not notable. Why is that such a difficult concept for people? --Kevin Murray 21:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that any school automatically qualifies, as many school articles exist with minimal information. The same is true of places; many single-sentence "articles" exist for archane towns, counties, etc. worldwide. I once was slammed for recommending a one-sentence article about a radio station for speedy delete... I was told, in effect, that Wikipedia is allowed to have an article for every radio station and deleting them (speedy or otherwise) is not warranted. No other explanation given. VigilancePrime 08:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reCAPTCHA: adding titles to the Gutemberg Project

I don't know how to say it better, so I'll just read aloud from Cosmic Variance:

...read the rest

Wikipedia must generate a fair share of the internet's CAPTCHAs; I can't help but think, is there a more appropriate place than wikipedia for reCAPTCHA?--victor falk (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

They already have a plugin for MediaWiki, the software used by Wikipedia, so it should not be too hard to implement. There are 2 things I'm not sure about though. 1. It is being offered to use for free, but is the software copyrighted? The reason we use .ogg for video/sound instead of MP3 and MPEG is because those latter formats are copyrighted. 2. It seems like it relies mainly on their servers, do they have enough space/processing power to cope with a top 10 website using this? Mr.Z-man 04:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been brought up before. The lead developer, Brion Vibber, talked to them awhile ago and they said no to Wikimedia using their servers. See this. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

 :(Do you know why they refuse, is it because of server load? What if it was hosted on some wiki servers?--victor falk 05:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Brion isn't talking about a refusal to allow them to use the servers but a refusal to open-source the code involved; the devs don't use non-open-source code on any of the relevant parts of the servers. --ais523 16:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I see. Well, why doesn't somebody {{sofixit}} and write an open-source recpatcha wiki wiki:)? Seriously, I expect that such code will be written sooner or later (and perhaps wikipedians will contribute a lot to such an open source project), it being such a good idea. Shame that it will have to wait.--victor falk 05:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm Ben Maurer, one of the primary developers of reCAPTCHA. We'd be more than happy to have Wikipedia use reCAPTCHA. We've talked with folks from Wikipedia before about reCAPTCHA and it seems that not open sourcing our code is the primary stumbling point on this.

We aren't open sourcing the reCAPTCHA code for a number of reasons. The primary reason is that we don't feel that reCAPTCHA is a system that is useful for multiple people to run on their own. One of the key points about reCAPTCHA is that it takes a critical mass of websites to make headway on OCR. In order to productively open source reCAPTCHA, we'd have to come up with a way for various small sites to host the reCAPTCHA system but still make effective OCR progress.

What we are doing to help open source is looking for relevant parts of our code base to open up. By taking the effort to find smaller, more general components of our code I think we will be contributing more to the community.

I hope we can work with the Wikimedia community to find a way to utilize the human computation power of Wikipedia users solving CAPTCHAs. I think it makes sense to look at reCAPTCHA as a service, not software. For example, I think that nobody would object to the use of the Google Maps API, despite the fact that the software behind Google Maps is not open source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.237.243.189 (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we don't accept Google Maps either. For good or ill, I think you'll find that the management is pretty anal about open source. Dragons flight (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait - This question is to the reCAPTCHA people: why not use a client-server model? Design a consistent "hosted CAPTCHA" API/protocol that a website can use to request an image and send back the entered response, set up reCAPTCHA itself as a server, and then Wikipedia/Mediawiki could simply have a (completely open-source) client for that. —Random832 19:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Or, let's be honest, just because you can't find a use for open-sourcing the codebase doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. The point is to let everyone see how it works, and maybe even let them start their own reCAPTCHA service on a different set of texts. Why do you want to not open-source it, aside from not seeing the point in it? —Random832 19:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

As an administrator, I typically rollback vandalism when I find it. However, I also rollback sometimes when I don't mean to, simply because I click the button accidentally. Any idea if we could have a feature, say in My Preferences to make it optional for people, whereby I have to do something other than just clicking the button? It looks rather awkward to have to undo myself and explain that I didn't mean to rollback. Nyttend 22:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

User scripts to the rescue! Try this:

//requires rollbacks to be confirmed
if (/[?&]diff=/.test(document.location.href)) {
        addOnloadHook(function() {
                var rb = document.getElementById("mw-diff-ntitle2").getElementsByTagName("span");
                if (rb.length > 0) {
                        var rbUrl = rb[0].getElementsByTagName("a")[0];
                        rbUrl.onclick = function() {
                                return confirm("Use rollback on " + decodeURIComponent(this.href.match(/[&?]from=([^&]*)/)[1]).replace(/_/g, " ") + "?")
                        };
                }
        });
}

Some code was stolen from my anti-vandalism application. When you click [rollback], a confirm dialog will pop up. If it breaks for some reason, please contact me. Gracenotes^T § 23:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

How about having a standard confirm pop-up? How about a box: "Are you sure you want to roll back this edit? YES NO", similar to the boxes you get in MS Word, for instance? Aecis^Brievenbus 23:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what the script does, by the way :P Gracenotes^T § 23:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

However, it's not entirely feasible to implement that for all admins, since many use rollback for vandalism reversion. Gracenotes^T § 23:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Does that script work for all rollback links? It looks like it only works on rollback-on-diffs, but rollback-on-contribs is also a potential source of misclicks. (Rolling back via the contribs screen is generally only done on vandals or out-of-control bots and therefore needs to be done quickly, though, but rolling back by accident might hit anyone, most likely an active user, so it's balance problems all round...) --ais523 19:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm, you're right: it only works on diff pages. I'll change that. Gracenotes^T § 20:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You could actually have it provide a prompt, too, for an edit summary (there's some parameter you can append to the rollback url to add an edit summary)—Random832 20:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The only problem with that is that IE 7, typical of its highly intelligent feature set, has disabled prompt() for security reasons. Adding a prompt makes the code not-so-cross-browser. Gracenotes^T § 20:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? Is it a problem with code injection? If they were doing that, they would surely disable input boxes entirely. And it isn't like you can spoof UI with a prompt box because there's no way to customize it. Firefox's technique of making it clear that it's the page that's asking for data and not the OS is clear enough to me. --ais523 11:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A problem with spoofing, apparently. Only read this explanation if you are prepared to lose a couple of brain cells: Microsoft is protecting its tech-savvy user base by preventing "websites from spoofing things such as the logon screens of other websites". See IE7 release notes, section "Generic Spoofing Risk Reduction in Internet Explorer 7", and this forum thread, for more information. (And of course I'm not bitter about it... >.>) Gracenotes^T § 16:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Worse, it seems to be self-contradictory: look at this. It seems that there's a (nonstandard) alternative that can be used in IE7; so if there's an alternative that does the same as a feature that was removed as a spoofing risk... I think my brain cells are still alright, but thanks for your concern. --ais523 16:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

if (/[?&]diff=/.test(document.location.href) || wgPageName == "Special:Contributions") {
        addOnloadHook(function() {
                var confirmFunc = function() {
                        return confirm("Use rollback on " + decodeURIComponent(this.href.match(/[&?]from=([^&]*)/)[1]).replace(/_/g, " ") + "?")
                };
                var rollbacks = getElementsByClassName(document.getElementById("bodyContent"), "span", "mw-rollback-link");
                for (var i = 0, length = rollbacks.length; i < length; i++)
                        rollbacks[i].getElementsByTagName("a")[0].onclick = confirmFunc;
        });
}

This code works for contrib pages, as ais523 suggested... Gracenotes^T § 21:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing long term problems.

This is for articles where {{OR}} tags and the like have been present for months. There's no indication it'll be stopped. So, I think that these articles should be reverted to pre-OR versions, or blanked and restarted. For example, the article Hungary (I don't know if it has the tags) could be restarted to "Hungary is a country in Central Europe." and stub it. I think it'd facilitate the growth of quality articles and writing better than tag slapping. Will ^(talk) 20:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, placing {{OR}} is cheap and untargeted. In a 100k article about Hungary, one statement or several having possibly original research could get a tag by someone passing through and a while later, we stub the article? Not a good thing. I, for one, think that we need fewer article specific tags and more statement-specific tags. So if something is {{fact}}ed for a while without a citation being provided then the statement can be removed. Inevitably, all but the best quality articles will have some unsourced statements, but stubbing them will just allow them to re-grow and add new unsourced statements that were once sourced. I would much prefer a bot that sniffed out links to myspace and youtube and delete all statements sourced to those and if those are the only sources, nominate for deletion. Carlossuarez46 03:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • In some rare cases, MySpace and YouTube are primary sources relevant to an article, so it would not be a good idea to have a mindless bot indiscriminately remove them. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said, "for months". As in, they were tagged at the back-end of this year. When it's in a section, stubbify the section. Will ^(talk) 08:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The bigger problem with Carlossuarez46's idea is: a bot cannot know the scope of a source or a citation-needed tag. It could mean the last two words, a sentence, or a whole paragraph. There is no mechanical way to tell what a statement is sourced to, or what statement a source is for. —Random832 19:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demarcation of redirect pages in watchlists

As of late I have been trying to keep my watchlist size reasonable, and made the observation that there is usually no reason to keep track of redirects in a watchlist. This would not be a problem, but when pages get moved, one ends up with the old page still in your watchlist, causing it to increase in size over time. My proposal is that a feature be added, so when you are in the page for editing your watchlist, the redirect pages be listed in much the same way they are in the "What links here" page to allow users who are so inclined to keep track of them more easily.--LWF (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

While it makes for a cluttered watchlist, it is good to keep a watch on the redirect pages. If someone vandalizes the redirect page, you are more likely to spot it sooner and revert it.—Twigboy (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I never said that they would have to be removed, just so it would be easier to remove them if one so wishes. And to tell the truth, I have yet to see a redirect page actually be vandalized.--LWF (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that displaying the redirected page becomes optional when watchlisting a certain article? - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what I am suggesting is that redirect pages in the "View and edit watchlist" page have "redirect page" written next to them in parenthesis, rather than having to guess based on name or the lack of a talk page.--LWF (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it seem practical, I have actually seen several silly edit wars between users that disagree with some redirects or merges. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For an accessible Wikipedia

My proposal is to change the size of the letters in the upper links of the Recent changes page (from This page to Challenges) from small fonts to normal fonts, according to the accessibility guidelines of Wikipedia for the visually impaired. My idea is not to adjust it for only myself by employing some more or less complicated technical trick, but to make Wikipedia pleasant for all, including the short sighted and the elderly with weaker sight. The former may adjust the css in their browsers but the letter usually do not know about such tricks and have a lot of problems because of the small letters on homepages. Could Wikipedia be friendlier towards them by avoiding too small letters? The article Wikipedia:Accessibility says: If necessary, use <small> or <big> (See: Style and markup section). My question is: are small letters really necessary here? If there is a support for my proposal, then I would ask the administrators to cancel the <small> tags in the appropriate template. It is perhaps connected to MediaWiki:Recentchangestext. --Hunadam (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to adjust the font size in the browser (by using menu commands or holding Ctrl and scrolling the scroll wheel up and down) if the text is too small to read. Tra (Talk) 19:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is true. But not everybody is experted in browser functions, especially when not using their own computers. And if I increase the size of the fonts, they become too large in the other parts of the page. So, my proposal is that font sizes should be accessible by default. Are you against it? --Hunadam (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Aaron Lawrence 06:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)If you use Mozilla Firefox or other good quality browser, you can set a MINIMUM font size so that text that is "too small" will be enlarged. I think this is a good solution...Aaron Lawrence 06:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
What about the not so perfect solutions many users with disabilities need to cobble together to even get online with? Remember in the westernized world, people with disabilities, especially developmental disabilities are going to have a lower socioeconomic status, or a greater chance of being in poverty. Some older people stick with a dial up connection because broadband is not in a rural area. Mozilla Firefox is a great product but it is not a standard for all web browsers. what about wikipedia usability on an OLPC? Wikipedia usability with speech programs in ubuntu? If adoption of wikipedia is going to be universal, it must maintain the ability to be accessable to all individuals, including people with disabilities.--Uppitycrip (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addition to Village pump (Proposals)

Why not have a section where users can submit images to provide visuals for the proposals they're offering? That way, viewers can see how it would look. -boozerker 01:38, 01 December 2007 (UTC)

Because a separate section would separate visuals from the text they're related to. What makes you think that editors can't already embed images in a section? Look at what an editor did to the section just above this one. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I meant like an image that would take up to a page's worth of size. But it gives me another idea. What about a section where coders might introduce changes on functional test pages, that way it could be tested by community? -boozerker 19:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As, for example, using a test wiki?-- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How about Not a picture book?

Take a look at St. Martin's Island, Pakistan Air Force, Independent University, Bangladesh, Haor... there are more, many more. And, what do you see? Articles laden with images that add little or no extra information. As long as they are on the commons, no problem. But, why are we driving page sizes up, and reducing encyclopedic integrity of the project? There has been trmenedous outrage about trivia, and so little has been done about this picture book approach. Shouldn't something be done? Like, at least developing a template that says - "Unnecessary images and image galleries are not encouraged... please, put them to enhance information at appropriate places in the article, or reduce the number of images"... or something in that line. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There's {{cleanup-gallery}}, but I don't think it's exactly what you want. --ais523 19:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, I believe all of the parties who might weigh in on this matter are too busy arguing over Fair Use policies concerning images. ;-) More seriously, though, I concur with you about the image overkill: five images of F-16s in Pakistan Air Force has to be overkill by anyone's measure, especially when F-16 ought to have enough images to make even one in the first article redundant. This is clearly a case of "if one is good, then 10 is even better". However, I don't know how to solve this; proposing a policy & attempting to enforce will only make things messier -- as they have been getting over Fair Use images. -- llywrch 22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

One cool way to solve this problem is by creating a slide-show! If any of the programing gurus of wikipedia could develop a tool/template to convert a gallery of images into a simple slideshow - that would take up the space of only one image on the article page - it would help a lot to improve article lay-out and not make the articles look over-burdened with images. Does such a tool already exist? If not, where should I request one? Arman ^(Talk) 10:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a magic lantern show. -- SEWilco 17:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the Intersect (photo-flashing interface from Chuck (TV series)). -- SEWilco 17:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the French Wikipedia uses something like this. Mr.Z-man 01:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not understand the reason of the nagative reaction. Wikipedia has animations and audio / video files, then what's the problem with slide shows? Even established encyclopedias like britannica and encarta feature animations / slideshows in their digital version. Establsihed news agencies like BBC, CNN also feature slideshows to enrich their news coverage. Wikipedia is the most progrssive encyclopedia on the planet, technological conservatism should not be encouraged here. Thanks to Mr.Z-man for giving useful suggestion. Arman ^(Talk) 01:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Now thanks to Rupert Clayton for starting the work on Template:Slideshow. Looking forward to use it. Arman ^(Talk) 02:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have formally requested the necessary JavaScript functions at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Add a Slideshow template, based on existing functionality in French wikipedia. Anyone with suggestions or comments on this is welcome to join the discussion there. Thanks. Rupert Clayton (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do users agree with edits made?

I think a good feature to add on wikipedia would be to make it possible for users vote on whether they agree with edits that have been made. That way users won't waste their time going over edits which many users have already looked at. What do you think? 212.120.248.128 (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the new patrolling feature on Special:Newpages? You might compare to that. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah thats sort of what i was thinking but is it just for new pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.248.128 (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "patrolling" only applies to new pages. We're not big on voting here at Wikipedia, mainly because voting only measures how many people you can round up to agree with you. On many subjects, that can be dozens upon dozens. On some subjects, that can be none at all. In fact, when we do vote, we tend to have one or the other - and more heat than light is generated. So we go for consensus over headcount. But that means time is taken. And it requires 3 or more people to spend that time. And one more to evalute the arguments put forward and chose where the right path leads. So a vote on each edit (and there are literally millions of edits each day) would grind Wikipedia to an instant and permanent halt.

We have a plan, much talked about but so far not even considered for implementation, for stable versions of articles to be presented to readers (as opposed to editors) and some sort of red tape will attach itself to that process if/when it happens. But for now, we're a live site and we're not even quite in Beta - Wikipedia Alpha 0.3 or thereabouts is what we are. And there we're staying for the near future, for better or for worse. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 21:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New notability guideline proposal: Poker players

Wikipedia:Notability (poker players)

This is just to inform those who may have missed it that the members of WikiProject Poker have proposed a new notability guideline for poker players. Their proposal was incomplete, so I completed it by moving it to its current location and announcing it here. This is a procedural post only, and I make no comment here as to the acceptability of the proposed guideline. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New cleanup template

I propose a new cleanup template reading as follows:

It is requested that an example problem and its solution be added to this article to show how the rule it discusses is applied.

An example of an article needing a worked problem is Law of comparative judgment. NeonMerlin 18:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinating Portal:Contents pages

A group of editors is working on coordinating Portal:Contents and all of its subpages. Discussions about this activity have focused on two basic issues. One issue is how to coordinate their presentation, such as how many pages, page layouts and what gets linked to the Main Page. The more involved issue is how to coordinate their substance, such as what gets linked from the pages and their classifications. Please feel free to join in on these discussions at Portal talk:Contents or here. RichardF (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fixing "wrong photo" problem in "In the News"

The "In the News" section on the main page usually has a photo that does not match the first story listed; see the example pictured. Every day, then, it looks like we have made a mistake.

I've posted a proposal at Template talk:In the news#ITN photo proposal to eliminate the photo from the ITN section once it does not match the first story on the list. If anyone would like to support, denounce, or comment on this, please visit. Tempshill (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed new Admin noticeboard

This looks to me anyway to be very possibly an extremely contentious political season in at least the United States. I believe it is certainly possible that several sources will be introduced or highlighted in this season out of proportion to their relevance or accuracy, and that several articles, including those which do not necessarily relate to one or more active politicians, may well be altered for the purposes of benefitting a political agenda. I do note that we have a template for biographies of active politicans articles already, but I doubt that will be able to deal with the entire range of changes which may arise from the politically-motivated changes which might be made in these articles. There is a current Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, but I don't think its' scope is necessarily entirely relevant to the changes I think may happen here. I was wondering whether there might be any advantage to create a new noticeboard, maybe called Wikipedia:Politics and society/Noticeboard or something similar, which might serve as a central location to discuss these matters. John Carter (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to list a <shudder> mission statement for this new board? All I can see at the moment are downsides, nothing that would be useful.

1. Editing of political articles is already heated; would a "run and tell" board add or subtract from that?
2. When disputes break out, they need to go through discussion, dispute resolution, RfC and finally ArbCom in order to be sorted. What would be achieved by having a further, nebulous, step in this process?
3. Wikipedia's rules on NPOV and reliable sources are writ in stone. Would a new board intend to vote on their application in specific circumstances?
4. If not, what would be the purpose of a board that was about heated subject but didn't have a mandate to alter longstanding rules and guidelines and didn't have a place in dispute resolution?
5. Which backlog would the board solve?
6. If there is no backlog to be solved, which process is currently substandard and thus would require a specific board to compensate?
7. Boards that overlap each other cause forest fires, with multiple blazes breaking out on each board that even slightly seems related. How is this board unique?
8. Why would this board be exclusive/recommended for admins, who are ordinary editors like everyone else but happen to have 3 extra buttons?

Sorry to rain on your parade, but, as I say, I'm only seeing downsides at the moment. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 20:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Responses:

Mission statement: To ensure NPOV of articles relating to politics, specifically to ensure reliable sources are used for the inclusion of NPOV content which does not violate other wikipedia policies, including WP:Undue weight.

Q1: The presence of the noticeboard would be to bring new, fair, informed input on the article, probably regarding phrasing or the inclusion of certain content. Those parties who tend to watch the noticeboards tend to be more familiar with policy, and on that basis would probably help ensure that the article doesn't violate any policies.

Q2:This question assumes that the dispute is intractable, which is not necessarily true, even in most cases. Bringing in unbiased editors generally will resolve some of the questions which relate specifically to policy matters. On that basis, it might even make later steps redundant. Also, this is not necessarily a "step" in procedure, just a place to request comment in a less formal way. Clearly, it would not "bypass" any other steps.

Q3:Many of these disputes would relate to questions over whether a given source is reliable, and also, possibly, such things as WP:Undue weight. A noticeboard to informed parties would be more likely to help ensure that those policies are applied reasonably, not vote on applying them, as was stated above.

Q4:The same question could be applied to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. The fact that that board exists seems to indicate that this question is not one that many think likely to arise.

Q5:See answer to Q4 above.

Q6:Again, see Q4 above.

Q7:This seems based on what may well be a substantially faulty premise, that this board would overlap others. Except possibly for the fringe theory noticeboard, I'm not sure that the questions raised here would overlap any other boards. Clearly, it would be a place to place comments about matters which may involve policy, but not necessarily be blatant violations of policy, again, like the existing fringe theories noticeboard.

Q8:As far as I remember, none of the noticeboards are not necessarily recommended for admins, just informed, capable editors. Also, the question ignores the fact that one other thing which tends to be true of admins is a greater familiarity with policies, and, yes, the advantages in argument bearing that title implies. I have already been in situations where regular editors have been belittled by those who seek to add or change content, but treat admins with more respect. As a nonadmin, I note most of my colleagues also tend to speak a bit more carefully around those who will often know policy better than we do. Bringing in informed editors of any stripe easily and quickly can often help resolve issues which are often intractable without such informed outside input.

In short, while I acknowledge those "downsides" can be seen to exist, to me they seem to be "reaches" for objections. John Carter (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think creating a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, a noticeboard for all alleged violations of WP:NPOV, akin to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, would be more fruitful. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard would indeed be better than Wikipedia:Politics and society/Noticeboard. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} (Just so long as we don't wind up with Wikipedia:Assume good faith/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/Noticeboard) 09:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Aecis, I appreciate your editing of my "ïnterruption" (below) and I understand the talk about noticeboards, particularly one for all the violations which don't conform to a policy. So can you give me some idea of where a new person might go to get a feel for the culture of Wikipedia stuff? I mean, if a person makes a start, is there some way you have of introducing them to what is going on, how the tools are meant to be used and how one is meant to conform, apart from having their first article deleted or, through their focus on one question, being made to feel like fool?

I think John's idea of "a central location to discuss these matters" is really terrific, if one could do such a thing in this online environment. In the méantime would you put any comments on my page. In return, I'll do the same on yours (as seems usual around here). That way we can be certain no one else will learn a bloody thing.--Simonfj (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Question 6. I've just been running through the backlog page [[1]] Whoah! I've also been commiserating with an administrator who, while doing their job, has deleted an article signed by Mr. Wales which aims to further the Foundation's aims. [[2]]. So I've got nothing but respect for admins who must interpret contentious policies and articles, and take the flak.

Yu ask "which process is currently substandard". Just go to meta's front page [[3]] and click on the Communications Projects Group. This is where it starts, or doesn't. The problem here (as it appears to me) is that while a wiki is a fabulous tool in putting articles together and building interactive global libraries, it's not the right tool for helping people get orientated or explaing where they've gone wrong, or coming to an agreement on their understanding about an article. Or keeping track of the latest FAQ's thrown up by some remote group coming across an article for the first time.

In short, there are no classrooms to which a newbie might be directed or get orientated after they've found one article or visited one shelf (one directory) of a Wiki(project's) library. So we have (here) what appears to be an endless discussion about NPOV as opposed to a place where different interpretations of its meaning might find an understanding. The same can be said for any article.

All I see are opportunities here for the most influential groupings of interactve global librarians in the online world. But it will require our trustees to see that at some point Wikis cannot be the only tools used if global groups are to share their (specialist) knowledge with their common communities of interest. And it will require Wikipedians to make a thorough (and hopefully reasonably quick) examination of the (latest) communication tools available and then agree on the ones which they want to share.

If we can get this far, I'm sure we will find a sponsor of them --Simonfj (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion of a Wikipedia:Politics and society/Noticeboard seems sensible. The problems are occurring as we speak and will likely get worse in 2008. It would be good to have a central place to adjudicate and centralize real world political problems. Is there a cost to doing so? In other words, if no one uses it, who cares? Can it actually do harm? I doubt it. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the proposal as being in any way superior to the board already set up for firefights... WP:AN/I, which is watched and checked regularly by those with the time to fight fires on any given day and time. Moreover, as a page consistently checked by our Admins, suggestions by others frequently lead to a consensus way to handle whatever repetitive occurrences are inflicting the project in any particular period... such as the current USA election cycle. Pages which are "assaulted" as hypothesized will be best watched by notifications and renotifications therein, and appropriate consensus will then lead to protects of targeted pages... which can then use {{Editprotected}} mode submissions to further a page in non-controversial ways, or by talk page consensus. In short, I believe we really already have this circumstance covered, and the watchdogs therein know all the tricks to detect a systematic attempt to circumvent our consensus... and if necessary, a few admins on alert can quickly block an IP or range of IP's who are (Ahem) "Misbehaving" with edits, whether just an individual, or an orchestrated effort. // FrankB 18:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects to sections in articles

Recently, I've been working on a template, User:The Placebo Effect/Sandbox3. The point of this templat is to list what redirects point to a section in an article and what section they point to. The idea is, the bot will run every 2/3/4 weeks to update the template on every talk page. Suggestions? Comments? Concerns? --The Placebo Effect (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A list of pages linking to a section of the page would be useful too. (Or alternatively, Template:ml (backlinks, edit) is used for these links, so that Special:Linksearch can be used to find the pages linking to a particular section. A bot could change links to sections to this form. This method can also be used for redirects.)--Patrick (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. The standard is to put an invisible comment on the same line as heading, indicating what links to that heading (articles, redirects, whatever). Don't put a template on a talk page; when someone edits an article, they don't check the article talk page, and there isn't a snowball's chance that we can train editors to do so - and we shouldn't try. A bot to add invisible comments to section headings would be great. (I don't like the example at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Invisible comments about not changing a section heading; it should read something like "If you change this section heading, you should also change the link to it at pagename.")

(In fact, User:Anchor Link Bot was supposed to be doing this, but hasn't run since July.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I changed that example.--Patrick (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

As I understand this, Patrick is suggesting that the bot put a template into (say) article A, which has the link to ArticleB#Section C. I'm suggesting that the bot not place a template on the talk page of article B, but rather put an invisible comment on the heading line. So there isn't an disagreement there (we're looking at the two halves of the situation), and both of us agree that a bot would be invaluable for this. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm confused - how does it help to say there is a section link from a particular article? I can just look at the source and see the link. On the other hand, the destination page has no evidence that there is an incoming section link unless a note is made. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A bot that puts an invisible comment on the heading line would be good. The Template:Ml I mentioned as alternative would not be for providing info itself, but for enabling Special:Linksearch to provide link sources for a given target.--Patrick (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that the template in the sandbox seems ... like something that will be ignored. As a bookkeeping method for a BOT, it may have promise, but if used at all, please locate after interwikis! Page tops are already too busy.

OTOH, I may have given you a 'Stealthed Start?' - Template:Redirectstohere (edit talk links history) was generated with just this problem in mind between me and CBDunkerson, though has no "BOT thought" in it's philosophy. The template poses a direct warning to editors that changing the titleline requires fixing other section type links (one hopes they check the usage, anyway, if they aren't familiar with it! <G>)
     When the template is given "|hide=something" disrupts sections minimally, causing a single newline which is all but unnoticable in most cases... really only evident with a {{main}} or other {{dablink}} template also present in the section head, and those instances can usually cure the hide mode's newline by reversing the order and nesting the }}{{ respective "End templates" on the same line. The key difference is that an editor has the choice of overtly annoucing the destination of the redirect, or hiding it like the commented technique. Being a template, editors editing a section pay attention to it, or so one hopes!
     I've been hesitant to use it with links, save when checking for likely redirected names in the initial previews of a page, which I later "delinkify" UNLESS the section titleline is a really important titleline (so, maybe a half-dozen of those? About that, iirc).
     OTHO, adding the appropriate [[ ...and... ]] will provide a backlink to the redirect in the whatlinkshere of the page... sounds like some script comparison of the templates whatlinkshere, the articles, and checking of the templates, would pretty much allow a validate check of any applied use in this manner, assuming a BOT capable of checking all three links pages; OTOH, the main use is at article page tops just above the intro, as it's much simpler to apply than the various RedirectsNN templates, since the only thing it takes as inputs are redirect pages there's not all the headscratching about which one does what phraseology... and those really handle other (mainly disambig linking) needs in the main.
     Given that, Steal the code by redirect, AWB the current uses and substitute a redirect title, "redirectedto_this_section", which the "hypothetical" BOT can use to test links...

If a BOT is used, suggest also that it make sure the redirect pages have proper {{R to section}}} tagging and preferentially, add a
   {{cat also|} {{PAGENAME}}|catlist... (of non-maintenance cats of the targeted page)}} in another or the same pass, as is convenient and possible. // FrankB 18:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improving Search

Hey folks,

I am not a programmer nor a frequent contributor to detailed Wikipedia discussions. As a medical student, I frequently use Wikipedia to refresh my memory on the multitudinous terms we have to become acquainted with. It would make my life easier, and I'm sure many other folks, if the search option returned a "suggested spelling" correction for items not found during search, similar to Google's "did you mean ___?". This would help not only with typos, but also because much technical jargon, like in medicine, can have varied spellings... or incorrect spellings for students who are learning and have only heard the verbal expression of a term. I hope y'all will consider this, I think it would greatly improve Wikipedia's function.

Thanks!

<name+location of user pulled to sustain user's privacy> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.200.238 (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your message. For alternative spellings, we normally use redirects from all usual spelling to the main article. If you wish, you can help by creating an account, typing an alternative spelling, and creating the redirect yourself! As a side note, I often use Google to search Wikipedia, just add "site:en.wikipedia.org" in your search query and google will only return results from Wikipedia. I hope that helps! -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll try that out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.200.238 (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is already available and turned off for performance reasons. See Wikipedia:Perennial proposals. Dcoetzee 08:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] News content change

Recently, almost all the "In the News" topics are about recent deaths, hurricanes that caused death, death by shooting, crimes, etc. Is there any way that other news could be included? There are a lot of positive things going on in the world, and I think that we should balance the reporting of the negative with the positive. How about science news, or art news? Surely this world has other newsworthy current events that don't include death and dying. The sad stories are of course inevitable and newsworthy too, but let's aim for some balance please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.129.228 (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, however this would be kind of difficult. To be an item in the news it must have an article to link to, because things such as break throughs in medicine are usually not given their own article while articles on wars are usually created overnight you have to expect some bias. -Icewedge (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Put button for "ref" tags in edit window toolbar

The <ref> tag has got to be a thousand times more important to the encyclopedia than something like the <nowiki> tag, and is a feature that should be easily accessible to every new user, if we want to improve referencing in articles. There should be a button for the <ref> tag in the edit window toolbar, alongside the signature button, the image button, etc.--Pharos (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support. Some of the existing buttons are fairly obscure; one that puts ref tags around text would be way more useful. (I'm not proposing to remove a button, though if that were necessary for some reason, I'd certainly support replacing one of the lesser-used ones with a new "ref" button. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support I completely agree that the ref tag is very important to have, and should be there for new users to easily get. If we have to ditch an existing button, I'd suggest it be the "----" one; I can't think of a real need for that in the regular article namespace... EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support I use that tag more than most others. (SEWilco (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC))
• Comment: any thoughts about the default text for this one? Testing with the toolbar is very common, so the easier accidental inclusions of the default text can be found, the better. Also, someone needs to design an image (not too difficult). Gracenotes^T § 05:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • What about "Insert footnote text here"? That's similar to the text between nowiki tags - "Insert non-formatted text here". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, great idea :) This way, one could periodically search for the phrase. Gracenotes^T § 16:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I've dropped a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Illustration, to see if anyone there is interested in helping on the button/icon design. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
        • I did a little looking. Buttons can be added to the toolbar with an addition to Common.js. There are already a bunch of button images on commons, including one for ref tags. Since discussion here was so positive, I've gone ahead and added it. There are also buttons designed for {{cite news}}, {{cite web}}, and {{cite book}}. We might consider adding those (and removing some less-used buttons to compensate) to encourage use of cite templates and so people don't have to keep using WP:CITET when referencing articles. Mr.Z-man 18:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Thanks (though you've just made out-of-date several hundred screenshots that I did for my book). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
            • And, to no one's shock, the above Google search is now returning results :P Gracenotes^T § 16:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support Before I noticed this proposal I posted a similar one in Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)#Web-page tool for citation formats? on 30 Nov 2007. But we have to be careful about how we scope the change(s). The commonest use of the ref tag is <ref>citation<ref/>. But we also have to cater for: <ref name="xxxxxxxxx" />, re-using a reference which is defined in full elsewhere; and for the use of <ref> to generate footnotes which contain text and one or more citations. So we may need 2 buttons on the toolbar: (a) to generate ref tags, with options to enter a name and to make the tag unpaired (e.g. <ref name="xxxxxxxxx" />); (b) to generate citations. In fact we need to list all the possible "dialogue routes" including all the situations I've just described plus editing an existing citation. Philcha 21:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Philcha 00:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There is only so much that can be done with toolbar; it's not likely there is much support for trying to make it into a citation engine. Yes, the paired ref tags are only appropriate for the first instance of using a citation, and they're not citation templates (which still need to be surrounded with ref tags). But fancy stuff ought to be done with JavaScript or other tools. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I was proposing that the citation formatting should be done by DHTML / Javascript. I assumed the toolbar is is implemeted via Javascript - is this assumption correct? Philcha (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support Really... this has to be done.. atm, referencing is pretty hard to do.. or its hard to find out how to.. so if we pull this off.. we will get more referenced articles. Just one thing... if ud check the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Illustration, you will see that nothing has been done there in a long time.. i guess ure better off at WP:GL Yzmo ^talk 21:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support I had the same idea long ago but was too stupid to think of actually suggesting it. And I see that it is already done! Just curious - how was it implemented? Did it require developer support or was it a simple edit to perhaps a system message? Sbowers3 (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)#Web-page tool for citation formats? someone pointed out that there's a PHP-driven tool at [4]. The edit form should link to this, preferably in a new window / tab so that the edit box keeps its position (insertion point). Philcha (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added a request for further ideas on icon design to Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve#"Ref" button on edit toolbar. Please voice you opinions there. Thank you.--Pharos (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)