Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2 →

Old comment

This page is currently quite messed up: duplicated sections, with some conversations proceeding separately in two places. If someone feels like earning some serious karma points, they could sort this out. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:33, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

What a coincidence...

I was just about to suggest a log for showing page moves yesterday. Now today, with the new upgrade, we have a Move Log. --Ixfd64 2005 June 28 03:53 (UTC)

Response templates

These are for our use:

{{VPP-project}}:

Please see the notice at the top of the page - when you are proposing a new wiki-style project, go to m:Proposals for new projects and write about it there, not here. Note that this does not apply to WikiProjects.

{{VPP-bug}}:

Please see the notice at the top of the page - when a proposal involves a change to the software, go to the bug tracker (which also does feature requests) and file a new bug there.

Just write the template name and sign with ~~~~. r3m0t ^talk 12:10, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Does this mean that there is now a policy against announcing new WikiProjects here? That seems odd. The Village Pump is meant as a place for general discussion for the English-language Wikipedia. Most people involved in the English-language Wikipedia probably never look at Meta at all. And why would a project specific to the English-language Wikipedia belong discussed at Meta? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:46, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

That's not what is meant by "project" here. Project refers to "wouldn't it be great to have a wiki for X?" Like the perennial Wikimaps proposal. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The wording is *terrible* then - I'm rewording it a little bit to get the suggestive 'wiki project' phrase out of there. I thought the same thing as Jmabel when I came here. nae'blis _(talk) 22:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

help desk idea

heres an idea for wikipedia help:

1.a user lets say me asks a question

2.you follow my signiture

3.give me the answer on my talk page or what ever page i want you to give the answer on

4. you then go back to the question and write thats its been answered by you and add a link to the page with the answer

I think its a good idea becuse you don't need to check for a reply becuase it will say at the top that you've got a reply

do you like it?

--Madcowpoo 13:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, see some discussion oh what help-desk answerers think at Wikipedia:Help_desk#idea. pfctdayelise 13:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What do we make of this

Not sure where this should go (clearly not here); if someone moves it (as they should), please leave a note here about where it's been moved to. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

hello guys i m rookie do know how to do things here just wanna give an idea,i had read an article on defencetalk.com that (Which SAM systems pose the greatest threat? Pilots perspective)

http://defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4448

i just posted the following!!!

((http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-to-air_missile

anti-aircraft_weapons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rcraft_weapons

warfare#Mobility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ai...rfare#Mobility

hey guys check these links i think u will get ur answer there!!!!))

another member of the forum posted the following as an answer to me!!!

((Just a note of caution when citing Wikpedia as a reference link.

Wikpedia is not a validated site. Anyone can post anything and it will not be validated.

Anyone can edit anything - and thus all of it is subject to immediate bias.

As a test I submitted some military entries some 3 months ago that were completely spurious to see how long it would take for people to correct it. No one did and no one has.))

i just wanna say that wikipedia should ask researchers,scolars and professors check all its articles i m sure this will really improve the contents of the encyclopedia!!!

plz tell if i made any mistake i will try my level best never to do that mistake again!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by B@B!Oo (talk • contribs) 12 Jan 2006

I just want to make it clear: the poster above is apparently not the person who submitted the spurious military material.

To User:B@B!Oo: of course we welcome review by "researchers, scholars and professors". But, basically, we rely on a large community cross-checking one another. When people "test" in the way your colleague did, they are basically sabotaging the project. It's a bit like "testing" your neighbor's paint job by running a key along their siding.

If a topic is sufficiently obscure, there is a fair chance that no one has ever looked at the article except its author. If something was totally made up, probably nothing links to it, and no one would be looking for it, so it has a fair chance of passing under the radar, at least for a while. But that is relatively harmless, since there is probably also no one to read it and be misled.

As we say in Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia, an encyclopedia—any encyclopedia—should be a starting point for research, not an ending point. If an article has no verifiable citations, no discussion, and its history shows no contributions by established contributors, I'd be particularly skeptical of its content. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Shortcut

Anyone else think having a shortcut for this page would be helpful? If so please post some suggestions here: xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 04:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:VPPROP
WP:VPROP

~~We do have a shortcut; WP:VPP. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)~~ Err... wait. Never mind. Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's what shortcuts already exist: WP:VPR, WP:PRO, Wikipedia:Proposals (does that count?), WP:VP (proposals), and WP:VP (pro). Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info User:Flcelloguy, I've added the shortcut box to the top of the page. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 02:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Change the Community Portal back, but not THAT FAR back!

I spent months working on the community portal, including creating/installing the Community Bulletin Board, and based on the heavy use the CBB gets, I was under the impression that most people liked the page. Unfortunately, the way the talk page system is set up, it seems like only people with complaints and gripes visit those, so all I seemed to get was negative feedback, on various points and then recently to the design effort itself. I did everything I could to accomodate the specific points (except for a select couple that I really liked). But then people started complaining about the page being changed at all - and it was supposedly an open page! Then somebody comes along and reverts the page to a version that existed months ago, including getting rid of the community bulletin board, soon followed by an admin who locks the page. Luckily another bold admin restored the CBB, but *sigh*, not the rest of the page. So... I called for a vote to get the page changed back! And finally, some encouragement shows up in the form of support votes. Is this what we have to do to avoid the Wikiblues around here? --Go for it! 20:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one, or has anyone else noticed the apparent process bias towards criticism promoted by the talk page system? --Go for it! 20:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, isn't that the point of the talk page? To go there if you have something to say? If a user likes it, they won't go on the talk page and say, "Hey great job, guys". Rather, users go there to object. Btw, please don't change the community portal. My eyes were so happy these past three days b/c it was spared the sight of aquamarine and yellow put together. -Osbus 20:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Overhaul for Village pump (proposals)

My proposal is to change the format of Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) as follows: There would be only three sections to this page:

Instructions on how to post a proposal and how the approval process works.
Links to active proposals, with each proposal posted on its own page. Each proposal would have its own talk page as well.
Links to inactive proposals and the decisions that were reached.

Here's a mock up.

Advantages

The page won't get so long.
It will be easy to see the results of discussions, and what steps are being taken.
Discussions will take place on separate pages. This will make it much easier to follow the discussions you participate in or choose to watch.
Easier to archive discussions.

Disadvantages

A little more difficult to start a proposal.

-- Samuel Wantman 29 June 2005 06:05 (UTC)

Who decides what's active and what's inactive? I'd say that 95% of ideas here never go anywhere. Nearly everything is inactive here except when someone posts to them. It's not like someone is out working on most of these proposals. This link is Broken 29 June 2005 14:51 (UTC)

Discussion

I prefer to be able to watch all the discussions, which becomes much more difficult with transclusion. Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 08:31 (UTC)

Yes, if you are following all the discussions, it would be more difficult. The big problem that I see is that people often just scan the bottom of the page, and older discussions peter out because people are unaware of newer comments that may have been made. There is often no resolution to proposals -- positive or negative -- and this can be a source of frustration. -- Samuel Wantman 29 June 2005 08:43 (UTC)

I think I'm going to come out against this. I guess because I think it's another step into compartmentalisation, which to me runs counter to the idea of a village pump. I don't think the size of the pages is too great if we keep pruning them every week. Yes, the watching of discussions is a pain, I suppose another option is subpaging, but then that may be complicated for newer users. I think it's fairly easy to archive discussions at the moment, if you want it, grab it. Maybe if people started moving conversations off to relevant talk pages once they start flying, with a redirect, that would be a better idea. That's just my initial thoughts, anyway. Hiding 29 June 2005 08:36 (UTC)

I think User:Hiding's suggestion above (or some variation on it) is likely the best way to go. Perhaps one of the archiving bots could be retooled to move a discussion to its own sub-page after the discussion gains a certain length, or has a certain number of responders, leaving a navigation comment/link under the header in the discussion's place. - jc37 15:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I always come in through the history page so that I can see what comments have been added since the last time I looked. Breaking out the proposals to their own pages would complicate things for me. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 22:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

as for me, I'd like the change. There are too many parallel discussions and I only want to follow a few of them. Take care in setting it up, so people who want to can see the whole thing. DGG 08:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like it too. What if each discussion were a sub-page of this one, yet still transcluded to the main page, the way AfDs work? That way people could see individual discussions or all discussions at once, whichever they prefer?

Equazcion • argue/improves • 02:52, 09/28/2007

Alternative

Instead of reorganizing, we could use a (very very) subtle visual highlight for "recent" addition blocks, similar visually to that being proposed for In the news pictures (see image).

Anything in the last 2 days gets an ever-so-slightly darker blue background than normal, and anything in the last 1 day get a slightly-darker-than-that blue background. Everything older than 2 days is displayed as normal. That would also solve some of the issues leading to the perennial proposal - bring modern interface (see image).

I don't know if it's technically feasible though. Somehow integrate diffs with css? not my specialty. --Quiddity 00:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

TeX font sizes

This is an equation created with Wikipedia's font for math markup:

$Q\;=\;C\;A\;P\;\sqrt{\bigg(\frac{\;\,g_c\;k\;M}{Z\;R\;T}\bigg)\bigg(\frac{2}{k+1}\bigg)^{(k+1)/(k-1)}}$

This is the same equation created using WikiCities' font for the very same math markup:

A suggestion has been made at Bugzilla that Wikipedia make the smaller font TeX version, used at WikiCities, available as an alternative option to the current larger TeX font used in Wikipedia. It is quite obvious that the WikCities TeX font is smaller, neater and tidier. It is much closer to the size of the regular text so that the overall look of an article that uses TeX equations is more balanced. Also, the smaller TeX font allows for displaying longer equations, within the display screen width, than does the Wikipedia font.

The larger font would remain just as it is. Users would still use the <math> and </math> tags. If they wanted to use the smaller font, they would use <maths> and </maths> or some similar technique. In other words, when a user creates an equation, he or she would decide which font they wanted to use.

If you agree with this suggestion, visit Bugzilla Bug #4915 at here, scroll down and vote for the proposal. - mbeychok 19:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the goal. However I think this should be set in user preferences (with the default being the smaller TeX font). Sorry, I can't vote on bugzilla because it shows e-mail addresses without obfuscation. That's absolutely unacceptable. Since I've voted there I get 150/200 unsolicited mails per day on a virtually spam free account that I have been using for years on every kind of programming newsgroup and mailing list with public archives :-/ In fact, if someone knows where to ask for deletion of my account and of all my posts I'd be glad to hear. Thanks. —Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 11:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely use the current, larger one. The smaller one is so much harder to read. —M e ts501^talk 00:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of total stars

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

the Old and respectable Kashwialariski 15:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

See my comment on the article's talk page. At present, any editor can award a barnstar to any other editor (except, apparently, to me). If we are going to formalise stars as being a meaningful expression of the view of the community, it must surely be necessary to regulate and formalise the parameters under which they are awarded.--Anthony.bradbury 16:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

A question. I am fully aware that deleting any comment from any page is customarily, and rightly, regarded as amazingly naughty; in unusual situations, such as the intermittent outbursts on this page and on the project page by sockpuppets of User:Cplot, could an exception not be made? Obviously they are all immediately reverted, and why he does not learn to expect that I do not know, but would not erasure make the point more forcefully?--Anthony.bradbury 00:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, to delete a particular revision requires that the whole page is deleted, then only the revisions that you don't want to delete are restored. This shows that WP:VPP has about 23 000 revisions so this would place a lot of strain on the server and make the page temporarily unusable. The problem is increased when multiple discussion pages are dealt with, and when the whole process has to be repeated each time the page is vandalised. The edits could, alternatively, be oversighted, but they don't come under the oversight policy so a policy change would be required. Additionally, it would cause strain because there are very few users with oversight permissions that can do this. I don't think this would cause much benefit, anyway, because with so many edits to the pages, the page history would probably not be used that often, and unless the revisions are removed quickly, they would still show up on watchlists. Tra (Talk) 03:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I would not consider seeking a policy change on oversight, nor, I am sure, would it be agreed anyway. And Stewards have enough to do. It's just that I find User:Cplot's attitude amazingly irritating. Perhaps I'm getting paranoid about it!--Anthony.bradbury 16:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it should occasionally be history-archived to subpages. --Random832 20:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to discuss the guidelines for Sockpuppetry more in-depth, including better ways to deal with this phenom when it's clear there are many "users" who are simply the same person. I'm following a specific case study entry where sockpuppetry is abundant and obviously related to an individual who is seeking to make the Wikipedia entry a personal soap box -- or rather a puppet show. Although the person/user is repeatedly told to follow the guidelines, they simply create a new sockpuppet who post their POV edits and claim to not know any better. It is almost a "comedy of (intentional) errors" and I would be interested in following other examples of sockpuppetry and related policy discussions as this has wider implications for best practices around creating authentic shared knowledge repositories of record. Are there algorithms that could determine a fair "one-who-poses-as-many" user policy that flags an entry as being questionable or having a bad case of sockpuppets?

--NewMediaResearcher (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

A Comment on the Object Design Applied Reasoning Encyclopedia

A semantic network appears to make the search. A good selection as the relation set allows a substantial network. You have a list.

I tried an AI program once and the problem appeared the relation. I was not adept totally and had to define. A set eliminates this open set semantic system.

A sentence writer as a short demonstration is the implication of complete third order testing function.

A subject appears represeted by the letter, A. And to make the sentence requires the A to be defined as a link or not. A desire to infer existence appears the applied semantic relation. A common usage is to invert the appearance of knowledge and discover relations between topics in Wiki. A link as you propose was to imply a relations semantic existence, good idea!

A face value examination was to make it appear simple, but as the set was chosen, abstract, a basic computer appeared! If your list of clauses of semantic relation is closed a search for new relation was impossible. A simple applied search return function allows all clause to be examined as a search. A word outside the link allows this. And the dog was to be inferred. The writer has a search example defining abstract subject as searchable!

The writer of the search engine for the wiki is third order complete in his example! It is an outstanding concept in modern applied reason. It is a real good stuff idea. --Eaglesondouglas 14:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A second engine as the basic method o. o as the word for the object under a d. A d as the abstracted inference. And the, "a" as an example of abstract a or A.

So I defined three sentences. And the code is as follows.

java psuedocode

class a(){ automatically insert link list here!

}

A letter a as example appears the runtime to cause a running "a" example.

Title this "a".

This is object design talk and a valid example of just an "a" class appears to control. A search engine text popup example appears a valid a test or inference. All abstract a as definition appears to be a link inserted in the class a. A relation as defined by abstract a allows a redefiniton as equation where class "a" is given symbol. Meaning the popup to search can have a hyperlist of valid a examples, so the relation, "a member of" will popup with all set memebr examples from the whole wiki! And this all revolves around the little little class example given.

SO be careful outthere.

--207.69.138.138 15:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)--Eaglesondouglas 15:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Commons media categorisation

Hello,

I've posted this question to several places more relevant to images, but I haven't really gotten much feedback. I've encountered a user who has created several categories for images as analogues to categories on the Commons based on the idea that then linking those categories to the Commons makes locating images easier, even though there is far less image content on WP and so the result is many categories for a few images; they have even begun categorising Commons media that are not even used on WP (1,2,3,4) so as to populate the hierarchy of categories created (1,2). My understanding was that we were actively in the process of moving all free images to the Commons, and so it followed that if not reducing image infrastructure on WP, we shouldn't be increasing it. After an inquiry to an admin working on image categorisation that recommended that I transwiki to the Commons any images that were on WP, and which led to deletion of one of the images, this user promptly created a page for the Commons image and again categorised it on WP. According to that sort of convention, what stops us from categorising every image from the Commons by their WP description pages, thus pretty much negating the utility of separate projects? Please advise, Tewfik^Talk 18:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Covert Corporate Advertising Desireable?

I am becoming a little concerned about the growing number of commercial organisations using Wikipedia as effectively free advertising space, by posting pages on themselves and products. Whilst corporate information is obviously useful, these pages are often rather positively biased as you may expect. My personal view is that these postings should be discouraged. Wikipedia... facts not marketing.--David.oconnor 16:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Are you proposing a change to WP:NOT#SOAP? dr.ef.tymac 18:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

do your bit right now and edit the ones that are notable to remove the advertising spam. (But remember that product names are considered important in some areas, such as computers and related technology.) As for the ones that are useless altogether, nominate them for deletion -- see WP:AFD, and join the discussions-- the people there need help.DGG 08:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What concerns me more than the addition of non-notable articles is the deletion of useful articles about notable companies and products. Some people seem to have an anti-commercial bias, whereby a minor fictional character or other unremarkable piece of pop culture is worth covering in Wikipedia, but a business service used by millions of people is incorrectly labeled "advertising" merely because the article describes its features and uses. They get deleted, or the material removed, despite clearly satisfying notability guidelines. There's a constant backdrop of spam here, on every conceivable topic. I'm not aware that business articles suffer from that any more than anyone else.Wikidemo 16:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Too Cluttered?

The admin of Wikipedia is doing a great job, but I'm worried that it is becoming cluttered. There are coloured boxes on every second page saying the the article doesn't meet the quality standards or needs clean up. They are useful but becoming an eyesore. What about a less obnoxious standard box, in a standardized place at the bottom of the page. --MarcBrackett 9:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's best to think of Wikipedia as a gigantic infant being raised by millions of "guardians" — it's only six years old, we can't yet expect it to be 100% clean and referenced. While these standards should certainly be met for each individual article as best as can be done, we wouldn't want to prioritize aesthetics over quality by making the templates you're talking about less obvious. Their obviousness is actually the point — so people can be warned that a given article is not necessarily trustworthy, and/or so that they can offer their help to clean it up. And by the way, there is actually no one "admin of Wikipedia", unless you're speaking generically of Wikipedia:Administration. $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 19:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism protection

I know that some sites, such as this one, have trouble with vandals. I'm curious to know if these vandals can be permanently banned from the sites they vandalize. Brian Pearson 00:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

By "sites", you actually mean articles, yes? See WP:PROT, WP:BAN, and WP:BP. Adrian M. H. 01:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, articles -- sorry. I'm especially interested in this particular article due to recent vandalism. I'd just a soon not have to worry about future attacks from the same individuals for this specific article. Brian Pearson 04:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not theoretically possible. Individual accounts can be banned but new ones can be created. There are things that are available, such as blocking account creation, autoblocks and range blocks, as well as semi-protection and full protection, but this does not stop the most determined of users (see WP:LTA for examples). The only way to block vandalism would be to stop "anyone can edit". x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I decided to try light protection -- the person in question is not an established wiki person -- but a robot immediately removed it. I guess there is a way around that? Brian Pearson 23:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything listed at RPP, which is where you need to go to request protection, per WP:PROT. This edit added a protection notification template to an unprotected page, which won't actually do anything. Adrian M. H. 23:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This important issue needs to be clarified. If we spot an obvious act of vandalism, such as happened to the article on aging,the best thing to do is to go to the article's history, use the "Copy" and "Paste" facilities and insert the earlier version before the article got vandalised. This is what I did to the article on aging on December, 20, 2007. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If that's tedious, you can simply use the undo function or edit an earlier revision. –Pomte 23:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any one-size-fits-all solution -- expecially in the case of older vandalizing edits which have gone unrecognized and unfixed for some time. Examples: [1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sukyo_Mahikari&diff=159942487&oldid=159930774. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Why are the village pump pages not archived in the same way as other policy pages? After 1 week they move to a single archive each, then after another week that archive is purged and not saved? I think it would be useful to preserve the history of village pump discussions so that people can refer to them. Is there a reason why we do it this way? If not, any objections to my setting up a more standard archiving system like most policy discussion pages have (archive001, archive002, etc)? Wikidemo 02:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason for the current system is that the discussions are only supposed to be related to the present and that future references to the discussions would not be useful. I would agree that keeping archives would be a better way to handle the discussions. I would also support creating archives of discussions that are not currently archived by going through the history, since their content is already publically available and it would be nice to make it easier to access. I've linked to this discussion at [[[Wikipedia talk:Village pump]] since it affects all of the pump pages. Tra (Talk) 16:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there could be an index of permlinks that between them covered all the threads ever, with the names of the threads that the permlinks covered? This would be a much more lightweight way to retrofit an archive. --ais523 18:29, 25 October 2007 (U T C)

It would be possible to get almost all of the discussions with few duplicates by taking diffs 7 days apart from the /Archive pages for each pump. These could then be linked in a list. One reason that having the archives on normal pages rather than diffs would be better is that it allows Google to index them, making them easier to search. Tra (Talk) 21:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've put those links onto Wikipedia:Village pump archive. Tra (Talk) 19:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As for the new archiving system, perhaps the bot code could look something like this:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Wikipedia:Village pump (example)/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 1
|maxarchivesize = 60K
}}

This would give us page names like Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 1 etc and the size of the page would be slighly smaller than this archive, for example. As for the content at the top of each archive, the default is to use {{talkarchive}} but another option would be to put |archiveheader={{Archive list|root=Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}} or something similar to allow the other archive pages to be linked. Tra (Talk) 01:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've put in the code for the proposals page. Let's see if it works and if so, it can be rolled out to the other pages. Tra (Talk) 16:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears to work, so I've converted the other pages. Tra (Talk) 19:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

LOTD proposal

You may have seen either the original list of the day proposal or the revised version. A more modest experimental proposal is now at issue at WP:LOTDP. Feel free to voice your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Wikipedia talk archives