Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Village pumps: Policy • Technical • Proposals (persistent) • Assistance • Miscellaneous
Skip to: Table of contents | First discussion | Bottom of page
Village pump proposals talk   post
This page is for discussion about the village pump only. You may want one of the village pump subpages above, or one of the links on the village pump main page. Irrelevant discussions will be moved or removed.
Shortcut:
WT:VPR
Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar). Please add new topics to the bottom of this page.

« Older discussions | Archives: 1

Contents


[edit] Applicability of the word "terrorist"

We can all agree this word is deragatory. If the word terrorist is to be used correctly why dont we see it by names such as Stalin and the government he ran. In the colonial period the colonists called the colonized who fought against them terrorists, who is the bigger terrorist here, the colonizers or those that defend themselves? This word is really opinionated since someones terrorist might be considered someone else a group that stands for justice, and this word should not be even used unless the borders of which the colonizers setup is removed, especially after they did soo much damage to world history and humanity in general. Just for the intire wikipedia, we are not to show any way favoritism to one side, so lets report facts of what has happened and confirmed rather then putting titles such as terrorists on one onther, since this supposed to show only facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logic of History (talk • contribs) 00:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have an odd definition of Terrorism. I don't see how Stalin or colonists (I assume you refer to the North American colonial period) could be considered terrorists under modern definitions. Define your terms, rather than classifying every bad guy in history as a terrorist. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 16:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This is already adequately covered at Wikipedia:Words to avoid. You may want to ask your question there, as people that monitor that page may be able to provide a more complete answer or engage in a more thorough discussion. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I think there's as well-established criterion for use of the word "terrorist" - attacking or threatening persons or object not directly involved in supporting the regime to which the alleged terrorist objects. So for example a guerilla attacking government / military buildings or personnel might not be acting as a terrorist, but one who deliberately attacked the general public or families of government / military personnel or the property of these persons would be acting as a terrorist. There are also grey areas in the definition of "terrorist", e.g.: attacks on infrastructure which has some military significance, such as power stations or transport facilities; attacks on targets in countries that provide adequate non-violent means of opposition (free press, free and fair elections; or freedom to emigrate) ). Attacks on government / military targets in countries that provide adequate non-violent means of opposition or emigration are also a grey area: attacks intended to change internal policies or balance of power might reasonably be regarded as terrorism; while attacks by people who might reasonably claim to be oppressed by such countries might not constitute terrorism. Note that these comments do not give a privileged position to "legitimate" governments. Although the preceding analysis is off the top of my head, there's plenty of support for similar reasoning: Ruby, C.L. (December 2002). "The Definition of Terrorism". Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. ; Bica, C.C. (2004). Terrorism and Response: A Moral Inquiry into the Killing of Noncombatants.; The Definition of Terrorism. Cambridge University Model United Nations Society (2007). Philcha (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor's own characterization of someone/something -- even when in accord with objective guidelines -- is still "original research." This is true for any characterization, ala "Babe Ruth was an awesome batsman" is OR even if the objective batting record says so.
Someone else would have to explicitly use the term in order for an editor to be able to use it. For an extreme characterization such as this, the word should be (in) a direct quotation of a "weighty" source. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DHMTL for cladograms / phylogenies?

Large cladograms / phylogenies in biological taxonomy can be hard to read because they can sprawl over several screenfuls. It struck me that this is a fairly common problem on the web, and that a common solution is to provide an expanding / collapsing tree hierarchy, like those use for folders in Windows Explorer and most email programs. Versions implemented on Web pages often have additional facilities, e.g.: "expand all" and "collapse all" buttons; the ability to restore the hierarchy to its last state if the visitor leaves and returns to the page. Doing this on a Web page requires: some special CSS to define the tree's appearance; Javascript to manipulate the tree's appearance and to save its state as a cookie (strictly per session, i.e. vanishes when the visitor quits the browser; no harm done if the visitor's browser is set to reject all cookies). If the visitors' browser is set to disallow Javascript, the tree apppears with all branches fully expanded, i.e. as at present. To cater for printing, the CSS should include an "@media print" section which sets all branches to expanded. Once the relevant files have been set up, an editor who wants to use this technique would: include the script (once per article) by linking to a file; insert 1-2 lines of Javascript code per tree, mainly to pass to the script the HTML id of the specific tree; code the tree as HTML nested unordered lists (UL and LI tags). I know how to produce the necessary Javascript and CSS in a standard Web page as my own site uses this technique. Would it be (a) permissible (b) desirable for Wikipedia pages with with large taxonomy diagrams? I've searched the Help pages and could only find Help:User_style#JavaScript, which refers to User pages. Philcha (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You may like to see and help fix the problems with Template:Clade to start with. Shyamal (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I know nothing at present about template construction, so I'm reluctant to modify Template:Clade as I'd probably fail to cater properly for some unusual situation. As far as I can see Template:Clade is based on nested HTML tables, an old-fashioned and inefficient method of Web page design. It also has disadvantages for the reader: a strong tendency to cause horizontal scrolling (one of the two deadly sins of Web page design) if the hierarchy is more than 3 or 4 levels deep; entries take at least as much space vertically as the "ASCII art" approach used on many pages, so there's at least as much vertical scrolling; the root of the tree appears in the middle, so the user has to scroll down to find the root and then up to see the first item in the next level. And it's not great from an editor's point of view if an intermediate level is added or removed (e.g. the insertion of Mammaliformes between Cynodonta and Mammalia), the editor has to change all the level numbers.
Even without DHTML an approach based on nested ULs would be better for the reader: less horizontal scrolling becuase the indentation is reduced; the root appears near the top. And I think it would be easier for editors because level numbers would not be needed, since the nesting of ULs would automatically generate the correct indentation. Philcha (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
This sounds like it might be a good idea as a software extension to MediaWiki, rather than something where the JavaScript is added by admins by hand sitewide. It might take a while to persuade someone to write it, though. --ais523 19:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Web-page tool for citation formats?

Recent article reviews mark down articles for using simple Web links in references rather than a citation template. The problem is that using citation template is pain: it's intrinsically fiddly; it's not easy enough to find the relevant Help pages (and don't say "so bookmark them", I have over 500 bookmarks already and I'm sure that's not a record for Wikipedia editors); the Help pages are fragmented (examples of different sub-types of citation template in different pages, none of which contains its own description of the relevant parameters). I suggest a "citation" button be added to the edit toolbar. It should display a form whose contents depend on the citation type; citation types should ideally be radio buttons rather than a drop-down (one less click, and makes it possible to provide tooltips on mouseover); tooltips when the user mouses over a parameter name; clear indication of which parameters are mandatory for a particular citation type; etc. I suspect DHTML would do the job (change the display property of form elements from "none" to "block" if relevant to the citation type). Philcha 19:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've recently noticed Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Put button for "ref" tags in edit window toolbar, which should be considered in conjunction with my proposal as it concerns another aspect of referencing. Philcha 00:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A very convenient tool is the Wikicite program made by User:Dmoss : User:Dmoss/Wikicite. I use it all the time to the cite web, a journal or a book. JoJan 09:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I haven't tried Wikicite, but it starts off with 2 disadvantages: it's hard to find, especially for relatively new editors who might know enough of their own fields to make useful contributions; it needs to be downloaded and installed on the user's PC, which will deter many PC users ("what's a Visual Studio .NET project?") and may even put off experienced PC users (need to back up / restore downloads, transfer to a new PC, etc.). Philcha 15:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I have one, that I wrote, running on my local network, that I use... But, there's a much better one on the toolserver: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/makeref.php HTH! :) SQLQuery me! 15:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Excellent! So now Wikipedia needs to link to it from the edit form - preferably in a new window, so that the edit textarea retains its current position. I'd suggest 1 improvement to http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/makeref.php - it should have a scratchpad area where the user can paste in the citation as given in e.g. the heading of a journal article's web page, so the user does not have to bounce between pages for each element of the citation. Philcha (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Magnus, could you perhaps make that conform to {{citation}} and not the {{cite|...}} noodlyness? Citations are just ... citations. For example, a journal/encyclopedia/whatever article on the web is not cited any differently than a journal/encyclopedia/whatever on paper. After all, transmission medium does not define content. And a newspaper is cited like any other periodical, including journals. And an encyclopedia is also a book, as is also conference proceedings etc.
-- Fullstop (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I think I prefer a form that knows which params are required with each type of cited object, e.g. url for Web, publisher for book, journal for journal, contribution to collection, etc. - it's for people who don't know {{citation}} by heart. But "citation" (general) should be available as a fallback position, although it should be at the end of the list of options. Philcha (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
With enough experience you can just type it all in yourself faster than going to a tool. What would be really cool is a browser-based tool that would figure out the cite and load it into your clipboard, based on the url or by scraping the page content of the active window. Wikidemo (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Interesting proposal, someone with some java script experience can do the job for you in less than an hour. Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 19:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
That would be something like this, but better?
And if anyone has found something that isn't listed in the "Tools for creating citations" subsection of the Index, please feel free to add it there. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) And why is this thread here (on the talk page) rather than on the proposals page? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've always used this template filling site for all my citing needs. It can use PubMed ID, ISBN, URL, Drugbank ID, HGCN ID, and PubChem ID to automatically fill out the correct citation template. It's an indispensable tool for citing. bibliomaniac15 21:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving is broken

We still have a post at the top of the front side of this page from Christmas. I suspect this is some technical problem related to the large 'hidden' discussion in the Muhammad image controversy. Please someone fix this. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem was that the posts at the top of the page had timestamps that the bot didn't recognise. The posts should now be archived when the bot next runs. Tra (Talk) 10:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)