Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive AM

Letter to Stephen Colbert
I'm thinking about writing a letter by us to Stephen Colbert, because of two reasons: (1) all those vandals are not completely responsible because they were just following orders and that's why according to official policy we should warn the source (Stephen Colbert) and (2) to thank him for publicizing Wikipedia. Any thoughts? Jeffrey.Kleykamp 21:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to make it a letter from us, you'll have to allow everyone to edit it. I'd suggest keeping it a letter from you.  Λυδ α  cιτγ  23:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Click "letter", it's a link to the actual letter that anyone can edit. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 23:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think if anyone should do this, it should be the Wikimedia Foundation. Why not leave it to them?  I don't think it's really a problem as long as our vandal-fighters also watch the Colbert Report.  ;)  &mdash; Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 23:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I strongly disagree with the content of your letter. If we want to send a letter to a celebrity and actually get it read and listened to, we need it to be very well-thought-out, and it should probably come from the Foundation of Jimmy Wales himself.  A templated Uw-vandalism1 message or something is not going to accomplish anything. — M ETS 501 (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine a positive outcome to sending the letter in its current form, and I don't see how it can possibly be salvaged. Think about it for a second: The mighty admins are warning Stephen Colbert not to tell people to vandalize our website! And he'd better answer, or we'll... what? We'll block him? We'll send him more angry emails? Oh, I know, we'll put an item in his article that says "Stephen Colbert is a big meanie to Wikipedia!" C'mon, get real. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 23:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well people can edit and sign the letter, I'm sure that if 50+ Wikipedians (0.001% of registered users) sign, it would be enough to get him to listen. And also, it's really not that hard to write a letter to a celebrity, people think it's hard but celebrities aren't that busy, plus if one newspaper or an other form of news reported on it, he would eventually read it, and since it's written by us, Jimmy Wales (who got interviewed by Mr. Colbert) probably wouldn't mind giving it to Mr. Colbert or at least calling and telling him that he should look at it, plus when Stephen Colbert interviewed Jimmy Wales, he said that he liked Wikipedia and used it often. And finally, Stephen Colbert (the person) likes Wikipedia, Stephen Colbert (the character) likes to tell people to vandalise Wikipedia, this letter is written to Stephen Colbert (the character) and he only exists on the Colbert Report and that's where we can expect an answer, he might say vandalize more but is that really a problem, because more vandalism means more people in general to edit Wikipedia. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 23:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * With respect, I don't believe you have performed a realistic analysis of how this letter would be received. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 23:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That could be. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 23:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How about we find out his IP address and warn him directly for telling others to vandalise (that's not the same as vandalising personally). We know where he lives and we know that at the time of the interview with Jimmy Wales he was blocked because he said that in the interview. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 23:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You couldn't possibly correlate the date/time, seeing as Colbert Report episodes are not aired live. Furthermore, I can guarantee you that neither Wales nor the Wikimedia Foundation would have anything to do with your letter, as it stands, were you to send it.  &mdash; Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 00:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at it again, the letter is not only ungrammatical but it also contradicts itself. If you're going to send it, send it on your own behalf.  Keep the community out of it.  &mdash; Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 00:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I requested the deletion, it was a stupid idea, sorry to waste your time. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 13:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

u guys ganged up on the suggestion of a letter like crazy! i think it was a good idea as long as its planed out. Why not make a page about John Colbert (the character) and feature it as article of the day. that way a lot of ppl will see it. how bout that? why kill an idea so fast. it didnt even have reasonble discussion except that its unrealistic. i with jeff. Vitalyshmelkin 14:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Stephen Colbert (character)
 * He hasn't done any harm, has he? All he's done in the long run is publicize the site.  What's the problem? — Omegatron 01:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk Header
talkheader seems like an excellent bit of code to be added to EVERY single talk page on wikipedia..why isint it standard? Why isint there a bot that automatically adds a talk header on to every wiki article (at least add one on every talk page which has already been created).. sorry if this has been discussed before as surely something as trivial as this shouldnt be occuring? I mean is the talk header only for problem articles?Cuz i think the info on it and its links are very adequate in a newbie finding out basics about wikipedia (no original research, if u got questions click here instead of posting on the talk page etc etc).. Later.petze 07:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please no, not another template put semi automaticly on talk pages. :) It's already full of wikiprojects templates. When you used to click on an discussion page and the link waa blue, you knew almost for sure there was actual discussion on the discussion page. Now when the link is blue it doesn't matter often, it usually is only full with templates. The template you mentioned should only be put on talk pages when there is a need to. In George W. Bush the template makes sense, but in Cecil Township, Pennsylvania (random article) for instance there is no need. Garion96 (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol so its been discussed before, sorry to bring it up again as i had no idea...Anyhow yeah as i said, it can be added to every talk page which already has content on it(so talk pages with nothing on them wont get a talk page automatically added)? But yeah i guess ur right ur response makes sense..Thanks for the quick reply.petze 08:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the primary use for this template is for talk pages where discussion tends to go off-topic. If I'm wrong about this, let me know, then edit "is" to "should be". — The Storm Surfer 09:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Petze, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a random chat forum. Please use proper English. Reywas92 Talk 14:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Using such a template such as that is entirely up to the discretion of the user - if an editor is constant contact with new users of Wikipedia, it is extremely beneficial for them then when posting to that editor's talk page to have a handy reference. Not all editors are as in touch with new users (not to say they are hermits! or that such a template exists solely for new users (it is sometimes a reminder even for seasoned editors)), but how a user's talk page is (to some extent) up to their choice for its layout. They may wish to create their own template similar as to such but with their own flair or finesse. Having that auto-tagged to their talk page would undermine that effort for them. --Ozgod 00:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We could perhaps add something like that to the MediaWiki talk page header (preferably with a css class so that people could turn it off). I've never found the talkheader template all that useful, it simply restates the obvious.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Drag and drop
Wouldn't it be nice if one could drag categories and subcategories to their correct positions instead of having to worry how to get rid of category mistakes? Paul venter 20:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be nice if we were older (then we wouldn't have to wait so long)? ...I'm no help  ~ thesublime514  • talk  • sign  02:23, July 3, 2007 (UTC)

Article adoption
I think we should set up an "article adoption" system. You could apply for adoption of a small article or stub in need of adoption, which would be assigned randomly. It would work much like user adoption; you could adopt multiple articles, and they'd "graduate" when they were expanded enough. It would be useful because there are many stubs and articles in need of expansion, and it would feel good seeing the article you started grow. Opinions? ~Crowstar~ 16:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just find a stub using Special:Random or something. Everyone knows to expand articles and a taskforce like this isn't really needed.  Sounds like too much work  for something we already know to do; an article doesn't need to be assigned to you, just pick one out.  Reywas92 Talk 16:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Could I set this up as a subpage on my userpage, like a just-for-fun project? ~Crowstar~ 17:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This "adoption" is treading a fine line and seems dangerously close to "ownership"....... Paul venter 20:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Paul; it would encourage many editors to feel as if they "owned" and article and were presonally responsible for it. It would not be a good step to take. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A 'sort'-engine.
I am a musician and I am currently searching for a record label.... Day by day, there are more and more of them and it's really hard to find the most suitable one for the artist, so in my opinion it would be a great help for us, musicians if there would be an e.g. "sort record labels by genre" solution.

Well, this is MY case, it'll also be a great help in any categories; films, books... sports (teams), politics, ....to search by something which filters the same information in all of the same catgories. Like this, also in my case: XY1 is a record label, only related to Trance music, but XY2 also releases House... So the same in both is the genre "Trance", which is in this case the "sort label by [genre]" main word.

Also, e.g. search countrys for native people, and it'll show only the ones that had aborigines.

Ok, I think it's understandable.
 * That's what categories are for. For instance, Def Jam Records is categorized under Category:Hip hop record labels. Bascially, we just need more editors to properly categorize the record label articles. -- Kesh 03:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, see this proposal. -- &#x2611; SamuelWantman 04:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipediannex
''Whilst this is a proposal for a new wiki-style project outside Wikipedia, the suggestion is closely tied with Wikipedia, so I have posted it here. Apologies if this offends the forum by doing so.''

The maintainers of Wikipedia, quite rightly, want to keep it free from too many unimportant articles or large quantities of information on trivial subjects. However, for some people, these unimportant articles may be important, and large quantities of information, useful. I suggest a sister site is set up (my suggestion for the title is Wikipediannex) where deleted articles are sent. Links in this site point to a Wikipediannex article if it exists, but, if not, default to pointing to Wikipedia. This way, all the information is captured, with links intact, but Wikipedia does not bear the burden of these lesser articles and any reputational risk that may be associated.


 * Many, if not most deleted articles are crud ("a tribute page to my best friend"). And what would happen, if it became known that Wikipedia (contrary to current policy regarding webhosting) never eliminated any article from viewing, just automatically moved it to a different project when the decision was made to delete it here?


 * There is also a project called Wikisource, where analytical articles (read: original research) is allowed. That other project should address most of the content that (arguably) has value but doesn't meet Wikipedia standards: Verifiability or Notability, for example.


 * So I think the questions for you are (1) if this new project isn't going to keep the sort of articles that qualify (here) for speedy deletion as nonsense, attack pages, and similar, who (at the new project) is going to spend the time sifting through the articles (and making the case) for what should and shouldn't be at that project; and (2) how much content out there is really important enough to become articles within the new project but not important enough to be included in either Wikipedia or Wikisource? -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 13:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You may also want to pay a visit to Everything2. --YbborTalk 14:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Much of this information belongs on wikis dedicated to a particular area such as a Simpsons wiki, Penny Arcade wiki, or whatever. I have (jokingly) suggested the idea of a Triviapedia which would only accept trivial content of importance only to a severely limited group, which could be a fine place to migrate articles about people's pet dogs and things they made up in school one day. While this wiki would be rather useless as a serious research tool, it would be entertaining. There's nothing stopping you from creating such a wiki on your own server, as long as you set a compatible license (GFDL). Dcoetzee 09:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism is pointless
I saw an essay on Encyclopædia Dramatica, and although their content is generally inappropriate *cough* for Wikipedia, this one may just fit a nice purpose. I Wikipediafied and the result was User:Salaskan/Vandalism is pointless. Perhaps it would be a good idea to link to this page in vandalism warnings like uw-v1 and uw-v2? Better not link to it from welcome templates to avoid encouraging newbies to vandalise, but we may just convince a few potential vandals to go edit constructively with this page. Obviously, when this page is improved and gains some acceptance, I will move it to the Wikipedia: namespace. Any ideas?  Sala Skan  00:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We need acceptance for essays that don't affect our policies? Fun  Pika  01:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Take a look at User:Persian Poet Gal/Why Vandalism is Silly! BTW, "silly" rhymes with "Willy". Shalom Hello 09:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * FunPika, not really, but we do need acceptance if we're going to link to this essay in a vandal warning template, so I listed it here because it could do with improvement.  Sala Skan  10:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your essay completely fails to address the reason people vandalize and seems preoccupied with the idea that vandals are generally malicious, either because they're angry about the article or because they want to ruin Wikipedia. I had one vandal who changed Pan's Labyrinth to Flan's Labyrinth, with the edit summary of "yummy flan :)" and then reverted themself. Did they have a problem with Pan's Labyrinth? Did they want to see Wikipedia suffer? No. Also, the tone of the essay isn't as professional as I would expect for something we're masslinking to vandals, who are by nature outsider. Atropos 02:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why I listed it here; it is far from complete, and like I said I copied it from Encyclopedia Dramatica (and edited it), so obviously the content is not-so-kind (as you'd expect from ED).  Sala Skan  13:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Another fishy proposal...
Another idea from me: Maybe WikiProjects could have their own namespace??? This, that and the other [ talk ] 06:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And the advantages of this, other than being able to remove "WikiProject" from the title of the project, since that would be the namespace? (I ask, because if the advantages are minor, then it's really not worth all the work to move things, yes?)  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 20:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that advantage is enough. Additionally, it would standardize WikiProject page names, as apparently some now begin with "WikiProject:" and others with "WikiProject " and who knows what else.  And the work could be done rather quickly in a semi-automated fashion.  I would guess that >99% of Wikipedia namespace articles starting with "WikiProject" are (surprise!) WikiProjects.  And I would also guess that >99% of pages without "WikiProject" in the name aren't WikiProjects.  — The Storm Surfer 03:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Height
I'd like to propose a change to height - removing the linking of the units. The links are superfluous, and make transclusions of the template ugly in articles. I'm raising awareness here so that people can debate at the template's talk page - Template talk:Height. robwingfield «T•C» 22:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Emphasize to anons that they can be identified from their IPs
I've suggested a change to the default text shown to users who aren't logged in, to emphasize the fact that their IP and the time and date are logged publicly forever, which can be used to identify them (Seigenthaler controversy, Chris Benoit, etc.)

See MediaWiki_talk:Anoneditwarning for the proposed change.

I just wanted to get some input on the wording before going ahead with the change. — Omegatron 18:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for new wiki project "Definitive Debates"
I am unsure where to make this proposal, it might belong outside wikipedia, in a new place in the wikiverse and possibly require some programming

I have read through the FAQ and perennial proposals and I do not see any suggestion like this though it seems obvious to me.

I applaud Wikipedia's endeavour to keep articles unbiased but there should be a place for perspectives that some people would consider biased. There are many huge, ongoing debates in the mainstream media, on Usenet, and various Internet discussion groups where arguments both valid and fallacious are endlessly repeated. I propose that the wiki foundation establish a reference site for summarizing and clarifying these debates with the ultimate hope of raising the level of debate and reducing the endless repetition of fallacious facts and arguments. I also hope that this will reduce inappropriately biased edits to Wikipedia, by provident and appropriate forum for them. It would be would be devoted to the following:

Primary Standards:

A 5 part debate system similar to the California state initiative voter information system, which consists of the following:

A Pro Argument

A Con Argument

A rebuttal to the Pro Argument

A rebuttal to the Con Argument

A reconciliatory view if applicable

Each of these arguments will be subdivided into topic and subtopics that will hierarchically arranged and appropriately cross referenced to other viewpoints and rebuttals.

Though length of subsection will not be restricted. High standards of conciseness and clarity should be maintained.

Lack of redundancy in argument should also be a paramount principle.

Failure to follow the principles of formal logic and rhetoric are also ground to edit or remove an argument. The author should be notified of the breech of protocol and repeated offenders should be banned even if their intent is not malicious.

Failure to provide citation for supporting fact, manufacture of false information, or conflation of opinion with fact are also grounds editing, remove or eventual censure (with prior warning).

Optional principles:

This project may require a higher degree of vandalism protection including any subset of the many perennial suggestions for reducing wikipedia's vandalism.

Users may be required to register on one side or another of an argument.

A message board for less formal discussion of the contents of the debate could be included.

A FAQ explaining why particular fallacious arguments have been removed.

In addition to a reconciliatory viewpoint, we might include space for a fourth viewpoint that disagrees with both sides. I am wary though about the excessive proliferation of viewpoints diluting the utility of this forum by undermining its conciseness.

--Michalchik 22:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you wish to create a WikiProject, you should propose it at WikiProject Council/Proposals. However, it seems to me that you may also be trying to propose a change to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy - if that is the case, you may want to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view.  --Tim4christ17 talk 00:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to replicate Debatepedia, here, my response would be Why?. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 21:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know about debatepedia

Wikipedia:Introduction

 * I've moved the relevant threads to Template talk:Intro, to keep things simple/consistent in the long-run. And so that we can watchlist the discussion without also watching the intro itself get test-edited continually. --Quiddity 23:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies if this has been brought up before, but I did not see it. Several editors have commented on the talk page for Introduction that it is strange and ill-advised to allow new editors to edit that page. New editors often remove the intro header (presumably usually by mistake) and thus sometimes we get an introduction page that looks like this. This seems highly undesirable to me (it gives an impression that Wikipedia is easily vandalized--I think the page sat like that for awhile), as the introduction could be one of the first places people new to Wikipedia will go (though I'm not sure how they typically end up there). We already have a sandbox, and the intro page should direct new editors to experiment there, rather than on the introduction page itself. The intro page should probably be semi or fully protected to avoid vandalism (I can't imagine we would ever need to edit it that often). I'm not the only user to bring this up, see Wikipedia talk:Introduction for other comments. I was shocked to see that new editors were encouraged to edit that page, but maybe I'm missing something. If not, let's redirect the new folks to the sandbox and protect Wikipedia:Introduction.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I like this idea: I'd suggest transcluding a sandbox into it (once protected) with an edit link so that users can still try out editing from that page, without damaging the page itself. Nihiltres ( t .l ) 15:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree about the need to separate sandbox edits from the introduction, certainly. Not quite so sure about s-protection: I don't mind it at all, but a lot of editors will feel that it might give a negative signal. We sometimes get comments from new editors along the lines of "hey, why can't I edit page X? Wikipedia sucks".  Adrian  M. H.  15:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's too much of a problem if we have a bot regularly checking the page to restore the "Please leave this line alone" template. If we already have one, crank up its check frequency, and if need be, separate its template-restoring and test-edit-section-clearing powers. Adding a separate sandbox page defeats the purpose of having sandbox space on the Introduction page and its misleading nature might give a bad first impression to new editors. Morgan Wick 17:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Except we already have a sandbox. Atropos 20:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, I don't see why we cannot simply direct new users to the already existing sandbox at Sandbox from the intro page--it seems the easiest solution.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The intro was previously protected by User:AntiVandalBot until April, when User:MartinBotIV had taken over the duties (See this thread), but Martinp23 appears to be inactive now too. (It's action was to reset the sandbox whenever the template/header text was changed, and every 30 minutes too. It stopped on June 26.)

User:MartinBot is still active, but I don't know who is running/managing it currently? I'm trying to figure these things out now. --Quiddity 21:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: Martinp23's back, and will have it fixed soon :) --Quiddity 01:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal, and thank you for proposing it on my behalf :) ChrischTalk 16:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Change "History" tab to "Past Revisions"
I don't think it is clear to newbies what the history tab does. I'm pretty sure, say more than a few new users browsing the Poland page have thought that the history tab would bring them to history of Poland. I think this is a simple, uncontroversial change that will help ease the wikipedia learning curve a little (and easier access to the history tab will emphasize to new users that there is *some* accountability to Wikipedia edits, so the articles they are reading might not be completely untrustworthy)

The German wikipedia uses "Versionen/Authoren" (versions/authors) which is also good, especially because it highlights that this is the place where authorship is recorded. Borisblue 09:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose there might be some new users who will be confused by the tab name... but after they click on it for the first time they will quickly figure out what it means. It's called "learning by doing". Blueboar 15:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be true assuming they come back. Hopefully that "moment of discovery" will happen before the anon writes a blog post or news article proclaiming that WP is unreliable because there is no way to track changes. Anyway, given it will be almost completely painless to implement this change, I think there is a lot of benefit that can be gained from this. 16:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Painless, hah! Look up a the discussion of the + button, a button which actually IS potentially confusing unlike the history button. No, I think history is as short, sweet and useful as it can get. GDallimore (Talk) 16:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose: It would make the tab too long, and I don't really think it's confusing. ~ thesublime514 • talk  • sign  18:59, July 5, 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't want such a change HERE, but I think that this should be proposed on the Simple English Wikipedia. Fun  Pika  22:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have run across this problem, 'history' might obviously mean to us that it will show all the past versions, but to passers by I think it's generally confusing. Although a name change would be a somewhat dramatic change, sometimes change is good. --W.marsh 17:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe "Versions" (or "Revisions") would strike the best balance between clarity and succintness. The curious will eventually click on the "history" tab and find out what it is, but not everyone is going to explore, especially not right away. "Page history" or "article history" or "revision history" might also make the tab's function clearer, but not as briefly. -- Groggy Dice T | C 01:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly support any change suggested above. I have always held some reservations about the title of the tab, and I'm glad someone is bringing the suggestion forward.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A key consideration is that users with small screens and large fonts already run out on room on the tab bar. So the new text shouldn't be significantly longer than the current text. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If it ain't broke, don't fix it ~  Wi <font color="#3DD0F5">ki <font color="#6EDCF7">her <font color="#9EE8FA">mit  02:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Make "Upload file" more like on commons
There are a few things that I would like to propose for en: when uploading files. Most of these are not original ideas. I could provide a link to where they were first proposed but I don't think it's that important. I think they can be done with js of some kind. This same message went trough the Village Pump (Make "Upload file" more like on Commons) without anyone noticing and again at MediaWiki:Commons.js. I've been asked for a consensus from the comunity so I'm putting it up again for a vote to take place --Steinninn 20:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Remove the "Upload file" link in the "toolbox" and move the "File upload wizard" into the "toolbox". I believe this has been done on zh: and can probably be done here with js.
 * 2) Have the information preloaded into the editbox, again, much like at commons, and much of the info filled out. It has been suggested rather to have a link that will fill it in if needed, but personally I don't like the later idea. Having it automatically in the editbox will give people a better idea of what info is needed. I have located how it was done on commons, it is a simple js here.
 * 3) A small thing is to have the editbox 50% larger, or more.


 * Adding anything that would get people to upload at commons instead would be good too, like a page 'The file you are uploading appears to be free content - please consider uploading at Commons instead (upload at Commons/ignore). Richard001 05:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. I'd like to see more people commenting wether they like these ideas or not. No admin want's to do these changes unless people say it's good. --Steinninn 02:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Migration of images to commons
I have a suggestion. I think we should transclude Copy to Wikimedia Commons into every free image licensing template. Since "Wikipedia is not a collection of photographs or media files" - — <font face="Verdana">Jack · talk · 16:53, Tuesday, 10 July 2007


 * We are an English encyclopedia, they are a multi-lingual image repository. Our needs for image description, categorization and monitoring are not necessarily the same as theirs.  As a result, it will always make sense to keep local copies of some images even if the same image (but potentially a different description) appears on Commons.  Dragons flight 17:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The English Wikipedia hosts a large number of images adapted to our specific needs. For instance, I've previously saved an exquisitely detailed drawing of a burning girl (bear with me here) locally, even though it's only a part of an image that's available on the Commons in its entirety. The girl is from Der Struwwelpeter, a book of cautionary tales for children, and the full image is a scanned page with a lot of 19th-century German that's completely unnecessary for illustrating fire education. --Kizor 21:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Retaining a copy of "what links here" of AfD'd articles at moment of deletion
I'll be brief. Mostly because I'm at work. I need a sanity check done on this idea before I go bother developers with it: links to deleted articles are often purged afterwards. If the articles are then DRV'd, rewritten or otherwise returned to business, restoring the web of links to the level it was can be an arduous and often infeasible task, since there's no way to tell what *once* linked to an article. This causes some damage to usability and thus to WP:BTW, moreso as DRVs have become more common. Saving a list of inbound links would allow restorers to build the web with no more than a little fuss instead of the current method, which can slip into "needle-in-a-haystack". --10:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect this will be a database hit for little benefit. If it's really important you can always use the "save this page" button of your browser to store a local copy.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how it's such a major database hit - it can presumably be stored as a list in the deletion log along with everything else. Whether it's a great idea in terms of usefulness or not, I can't really say, as I've never been involved in the described situation. SamBC 13:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll support the idea from the other side ... when an article is deleted (in this case we will assume that it isn't likely to be DRVed or recreated), it would be helpful to have a "what used to link here" list, so that editors could easily clean up the redlinks. Blueboar 14:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But should you clean up red-links? If the deleted article topic actually provided useful context to some other article, then the red-links should remain as a reminder that an article should be created at some future time when there is sufficient notability or whatever other reason their was for deleting the article has been overcome. If the article topic was not useful to the context of the article, then the red-links should be removed anyway by regular editors without any one person having to do it. If someone spattered vandal-esque links to their new article around Wikipedia, they'll be removed like any other vandalism. Again, one person need not (and normally cannot) take responsibility for everything.
 * Biographies are probably a good example. An article on person X might be linked to from some other article that mentions person X. If X does not achieve notability or if their article is deleted for violating WP:BLP that doesn't mean that the red-links should be removed. That person may achieve notability later, or a more balanced article may be possible once more sources are avaiable.
 * No, I fail to see the point of saving a copy of the "what links here?" GDallimore (Talk) 15:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A sensible and useful idea. The "what links here" list is routinely available at the left, for every page, and given how often that function is probably used, a saving of that for each delete probably isn't a major burden. A "what used to link here at the point of deletion" would be good. I haven't needed it yet myself (not hit that circumstance yet), but this is the one thing that isn't recreated easily and whose previous state can't be looked up, when an article is deleted, so it's probably helpful when it does come up.


 * I'll add one more related idea. When one tries to access a link to a non-existant page, the software should check if it used to exist, and if so display the deletion information on it, rather than treat it completely as a new page:


 * "You tried to access (page). This page was deleted by (admin) on (date) with the comment (narrative). If you want to know more about the deleted page, please contact (info). For information on recreating or accessing deleted pages see (policypage). Otherwise, if you have come to this page in error, (usual messages etc)"


 * FT2 (Talk 21:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It does. When you go to such a page, it shows the deletion log for the page. <b style="color:darkblue;">Harryboyles</b> 07:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, this sounds like a good idea for both pages that will be undeleted and pages that won't. Sometimes it's good to leave the redlinks, sometimes it isn't, but this would be there when we need it. — The Storm Surfer 22:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Separate Login name and screen name
I got this idea from a forum that I visit. I am not 100% sure, but this could help make accounts more secure (as in prevent more compromises). In order for someone to log in, rather than typing in the name that appears in places such as recent changes and page histories (a screen name), they have to type in their login name which is different then their screen name. If a person wanted to compromise an account, they would have NO IDEA what the target's login name is, so even if they were able to get into someone's account, there is no guarantee that they got the right one (in fact it seems more likely that they would end up in an account with 0 edits or a blocked account). Login names could be changed via Special:Preferences without any bcrat assistance (but screen names (such as mine is "FunPika") would still need to be changed via WP:CHU). Fun Pika  23:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Confusing to new editors though, seems better suited for a game then an encyclopedia. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  05:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That wouldn't actually help; that's what passwords are for.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In effect, this sounds like having two passwords rather than one. Grace notes T <span title="Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)">§ 04:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To confusing for newbies. --<font face="Perpetua" size="3"><font color="Blue">Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (<font color="Black">ταlκ )  22:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Gracenotes has it right (it's like having two secret passwords). For the "confusing" concern, it doesn't have to be so! We can default screen-names to be identical to login-names. Users wanting extra security could follow instructions to change their login-name in the prefs. That would help increase the security in older more dangerous if hacked accounts (i.e. when the user has already gained the experience to change the default same login-name). Not that bad of an idea, but not sure if the security gained is worth the trouble of tweaking the code and/or certain problems I may not have spotted yet. Thoughts? NikoSilver 23:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The 'secret' login name would actually be less secure than a separate password because people are more likely to reveal it (since they are used to the idea of having public usernames and private passwords), the login name is more likely to be based on a screen name or something personal to the user that can be discovered by getting to know them, the HTML form field would not be a password field (allowing people to look over shoulders) and since it would not be possible to have two duplicate login names, when setting a login name people may discover that their choice of name has already been taken, therefore discovering one half of the secret information required to access an account. I think to make accounts as secure as what is being suggested, people should just double the length of their passwords. Tra (Talk) 23:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Web references
This isn't a proposal - more of a question seeking a proposal. Has anyone addressed the problem that in fifty years' time, when Wikipedia will of course be "complete", probably 95% of all of the (extremely numerous) references that link to web pages will be dead and hence unverifiable? Should we be doing something about this now? Matt 01:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC).
 * No need. We can always go to archive.org --Steinninn 01:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What about when archive.org becomes dead?! Ahhh! ~ <font color="#888888">thesublime514 • <font color="#888888">talk  • <font color="#888888">sign  02:24, July 3, 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe Wikipedia should start keeping copies of web pages we cite? I have no idea how archive.org gets around the obvious copyright problems.  — The Storm Surfer 03:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly there is something we do. Provide a full description for each source.  Title, author, publisher, etc.  See WP:CITE.  (SEWilco 02:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC))
 * That won't help if the web page was the only place that the original text was recorded, and the web page has now gone! Matt 20:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC).


 * Archive.org, while containing billions of pages, is hardly complete; you can read more about it at Internet Archive; for its use, see Using the Wayback Machine. An alternative place for copies of pages - user-placed copies - is WebCite.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 14:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I sometimes update refs to AP and Reuters articles to poijnt to contracostatimes.org, or boston.com, or abcnews.com, or other sites which i find do not expire. Can anyone contact these and find out which of them plan to keep their sites up for the next 100 years, or at least until nano-robots are working and ready to rout archives to people's personal satellite uplinks via their wristwatch uplinks :-)? Seriously, can anyone find out which sites are deliberately hoping to keep links active for a long period of time?


 * regarding archive.org, if it has links to archives of at least significant sources, such as the AP and reuters as I mentioned, perhaps we should start letting editors to use this more frequently. --Sm8900 16:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Random page
I'm not sure if this exists, but if it does I have not found it. I am a fan of the "random article" link and use it when I have no inspiration of what else to read about. I do however find that there topics (e.g. sport) that keep coming up and are of no interest to me. I suggest that a random article within each portal would be good as it would direct me to, say, a random science article. Answers on a wikipostcard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * There is a method that Portals can use – see Portal:Motorsport for example – that allows the reader to refresh the page and see a new set of featured content.  Adrian  M. H.  16:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Portal:Middle-earth has a random article link on the side of the page. Sebi  <sub style="color: darkgreen;">&#91; talk &#93; 23:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Logs link in toolbox
I am always frustrated by the lack of 'logs for this page' link. A logs button in the user (talk) space underneath the user contributions link, or under the 'what links here' link in all spaces could be very useful for quickly identifying blocked vandals or seeing whether a page has previously been deleted. ck lostsword•T•C 23:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be useful. In the meanwhile, a workaround in Firefox is to add a quick search "log" for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=%s.  Λυδ α  cιτγ  20:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats what user scripts are for. Checkout WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Logs link. &mdash; Shinhan  &lt;&thinsp; talk &thinsp;&gt; 09:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that link :). However, I feel that this isn't a low-interest link - perhaps its something that could be useful system wide for all users, rather than only those who wish to install a user script? ck lostsword•T•C 17:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Area codes in the United States
This page gets the most traffic, so I'm posting this here. The above category is ridiculous. Look at some of the articles in it and then Category:Area codes in the United States by state and List of North American area codes. Very few of those articles have any useful/unique information at all. I suggest that they be merged into state articles, such as Area codes in Ohio. Oh, upon further looking, there is List of Texas area codes and two others. These are actually very short lists and I'm sure the information in the area code articles can easily be merged there with room to spare. Every North American area code surely doesn't need its own article; lists must be made.

The sprawl of somewhat notable, though very small, unlikely to grow articles is becoming a huge problem. There are also articles on seemingly every train station and subway stop. See here for a recent thread, which was agreed on and an anti-sprawl guideline is being drafted. I'm here looking for even more input. <font style="background:#7FFF00">Reywas92 <font style="background:#00ff7f">Talk 22:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * While you might consider those articles unneeded, I've recently been using them very regularly at work. What is useless trivia for one person, is in many cases valuable information for someone else. - SimonP 13:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They will probably be deleted. — The Storm Surfer 00:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Care to elaborate? --Golbez 02:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is what happened to our lists of ZIP codes at Articles for deletion/Lists of ZIP Codes in the United States by state. — The Storm Surfer 03:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If you think the pages are unnecessary/should be deleted, I'd recommend taking it to AfD. --Tim4christ17 talk 14:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "becoming a huge problem"? Do tell. How? Wikipedia is not paper, there aren't any size constraints, so we don't need to worry. Besides, in some cases there are interesting bits of information about the history of the area code, or about its upcoming overlays, etc. --Ybbor<sup style="color:green;">Talk 14:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Studio wrestling pages
I was informed to place my suggestions here, so here goes...

I feel that Wikipedia has way too many pages relating to studio wrestling, and heard that Star Wars has it's own "Wookiepedia", so maybe all of the studio wrestling stuff should be moved into it's own "WWEpedia" or something of that nature. Valid cultural icons, such as Hulk Hogan, or Jesse "The Body" Ventura should be acceptable, however, detailed listings of all of studio wrestling's minor "feuds" and Pay-Per-View events is just so overboard and has no valid historical purpose.
 * Try http://prowrestling.wikia.com. Morgan Wick 02:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Introduction

 * I've moved the relevant threads to Template talk:Intro, to keep things simple/consistent in the long-run. And so that we can watchlist the discussion without also watching the intro itself get test-edited continually. --Quiddity 23:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies if this has been brought up before, but I did not see it. Several editors have commented on the talk page for Introduction that it is strange and ill-advised to allow new editors to edit that page. New editors often remove the intro header (presumably usually by mistake) and thus sometimes we get an introduction page that looks like this. This seems highly undesirable to me (it gives an impression that Wikipedia is easily vandalized--I think the page sat like that for awhile), as the introduction could be one of the first places people new to Wikipedia will go (though I'm not sure how they typically end up there). We already have a sandbox, and the intro page should direct new editors to experiment there, rather than on the introduction page itself. The intro page should probably be semi or fully protected to avoid vandalism (I can't imagine we would ever need to edit it that often). I'm not the only user to bring this up, see Wikipedia talk:Introduction for other comments. I was shocked to see that new editors were encouraged to edit that page, but maybe I'm missing something. If not, let's redirect the new folks to the sandbox and protect Wikipedia:Introduction.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I like this idea: I'd suggest transcluding a sandbox into it (once protected) with an edit link so that users can still try out editing from that page, without damaging the page itself. <font color="#275CA9">Nihiltres ( <font color="#000">t .l ) 15:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree about the need to separate sandbox edits from the introduction, certainly. Not quite so sure about s-protection: I don't mind it at all, but a lot of editors will feel that it might give a negative signal. We sometimes get comments from new editors along the lines of "hey, why can't I edit page X? Wikipedia sucks".  Adrian  M. H.  15:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's too much of a problem if we have a bot regularly checking the page to restore the "Please leave this line alone" template. If we already have one, crank up its check frequency, and if need be, separate its template-restoring and test-edit-section-clearing powers. Adding a separate sandbox page defeats the purpose of having sandbox space on the Introduction page and its misleading nature might give a bad first impression to new editors. Morgan Wick 17:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Except we already have a sandbox. Atropos 20:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, I don't see why we cannot simply direct new users to the already existing sandbox at Sandbox from the intro page--it seems the easiest solution.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The intro was previously protected by User:AntiVandalBot until April, when User:MartinBotIV had taken over the duties (See this thread), but Martinp23 appears to be inactive now too. (It's action was to reset the sandbox whenever the template/header text was changed, and every 30 minutes too. It stopped on June 26.)

User:MartinBot is still active, but I don't know who is running/managing it currently? I'm trying to figure these things out now. --Quiddity 21:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: Martinp23's back, and will have it fixed soon :) --Quiddity 01:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal, and thank you for proposing it on my behalf :) ChrischTalk 16:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Simple idea for improving article content in general
I propose the installment of a retractable text function into the Wikipedia page architecture to accompany the internal links in providing additional information to the reader.

Most articles in Wikipedia rely on internal links to other articles in order to facilitate the reader in accessing potentially relevant information. My proposal would provide another method by which editors might expand upon the information presented in an article without distracting the reader from the main focus of the article. The idea would be to create hidden areas of text which would be expandable to be read (or collapsed to be re-hidden) only when a link such as "click here to reveal more", or "click to expand article" has been activated. These "asides" would not replace, but rather accompany the internal links that are already used for the benefit of the reader.

There are several problems with relying solely on internal links that would be solved by the use of retractable content. The easiest problem to notice is the number of broken links. It appears that the editors of some pages are attempting to provide more information to the curious reader, but the article that he or she is attempting to link to does not exist, for whatever reason. More subtly, when the linked article does exist, the information present in it may not actually contain any information that fits in the context of the previous article from which the reader was directed. Such a phenomenon often happens when specific dates are mentioned. In this case, the reader may want to find out exactly what happened on that date, but is instead redirected to a general article that just lists everything that has ever been recorded to have happened on that date. On the other hand, supposing that an article is created and linked with the relevant information, it might be edited by another person without realizing that it was created in the context of another article, and thus lose its intended meaning. Other times, a specific event or circumstance might be mentioned in an article, but no link is provided for further investigation into this event, whether it be because a specific article relating to it has not been created or because the editor has not taken the time to provide the link. All of these issues might be solved by adding the feature described above whereby editors may provide additional information as simple as a small amount of metadata to a paragraph or two summary of the indicated event. Keeping such text hidden until expanded would help to maintain the simplicity and focus of articles for readers who are just trying to get a general understanding of the information in the article, and also keep the article from being cluttered by information which some readers already familiar with the topic would not wish to waste time reading.

The main benefits of retractable text include the fact that it would not require the creation of a separate article, which would probably just remain a "stub" for a long period of time. Furthermore, it would allow the editor of the article to include information that fits in the context of the original article so that the reader does not have to search through another article for relevant information. If a separate article does exist that expands even further upon such a reference, such as a date, then the text could be made available in that article as well, under a heading such as "(blank) in the context of (blank)," or, "(blank) in relation to (blank)." Then, when another editor changes the content of an article, he can be aware that he might be affecting its context in other articles and treat those articles accordingly.

I have no experience with website design or programming and so I do not know whether my idea is easy to add or not. I also do not know if such an idea has been presented before, but I am presenting my idea to any more experienced Wikipedia editors who might be able to implement it. I would greatly appreciate any response just so I know that this idea has been read and considered, but would be especially interested to know if this idea has potential for being incorporated into the features of Wikipedia.

Jacob T. Martin 199.221.7.30 19:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The idea of documenting what information pertains to what text, in much more detail, is discussed at the proposed Wikicite page. As for bad external links, the problem is that editors are inserting external links rather than citations; with citations, a bad external link can more easily be repaired (or, if necessary, ignored).  You also fail to mention that invisible comments are available to editors who absolutely need to communicate to other editors.   Finally, Summary style addresses the issue of providing more information to readers.  It's true that the intermediate case - where an editor wants to compress (say) six paragraphs to two, rather than (say) 16 paragraphs to two, doesn't lend itself to a spinoff article, but the reality is that with section headings, readers are free to read a couple of paragraphs and decide if they want to keep reading or go to another section.


 * In short, Wikipedia already has (or is thinking about having) most of the solutions to the problems you note, and making the editing markup and process even more complicated than it is now isn't generally a good idea: given that so many editors don't even use the footnotes/references format when providing a source for example, why would we expect them to learn and use something even more complicated? -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 20:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

reference desk and help desk search
first off, i'd like to clarify that i have problems. quiet a few actually. From time to time, i get this unexplainable urge to ask for help with my problems. so i walk over to my computer, and log into wikipedia(the source of all knowledge), and ask over at the reference desk. as much as i love their help, i can't help but wonder if they have already answered my questions a bazillion and one times before, and as such i find myself searching through the archives of old answered questions. if someone could write a script for searching through those pages only ( i have already searched through wikipedia) the help would be greatly appreciated.and even more so if it could just be added into the reference desks template. Xiad e  n  14:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Here you go, use google and type site:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives (what you are trying to find). No script necessary. 68.231.151.161 00:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are 2 sets of archives (pre and post October 2006), requiring different searches. I've updated the instructions at Reference desk/Archives. Use the 2 links there to search using google.
 * Ditto for the Help desk. See instructions at Category:Help desk archives (pre October 2006) and Help desk/Archives (post October 2006) to search those. --Quiddity 17:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Double Proposal
I propose two things: A second 'contributions' watchlist, where one can monitor the contributions of the users watchlisted. This would allow much easier monitoring of vandal contributions. I also make the proposal that the pipe  be implemented into the edit toolbar. The pipe proves to be one of the most used wikitexts, and yet it appears only in the edit toolbox below. I think it needs to be placed among the most important wikitexts, in the edit toolbar, to make access easier. What do people think of this? -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 02:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I like both of them. How difficult would it be to implement the secondary watchlist? — <font color="#888888">thesublime514 • <font color="#888888">talk  • 03:04, July 15, 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it to the devs to answer that 1. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 14:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that we would need an on-screen button for the pipe. When typing, it is always easier to press Shift and Backslash rather than lift your eyes to the screen and a hand to the mouse for one character, then carry on typing. Special characters are only useful on-screen if they are not readily available from the keyboard.  Adrian  M. H.  14:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You can easily type, but thats still in the menu. --  Anonymous Dissident  Talk 15:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with the secondary watchlist idea - I have often wanted to use a tol like that when monitoring recent changes. However, it could encourage vandals to increase their claims of users 'targeting' them or discriminating against them - TINC, but there is a group of editors watching your every move :P. It also reminds me of the blacklist functions on various anti-vandal tools. Not so sure about the need for a pipe symbol though - although I can see that it might encourage newer users, I think the keyboard shortcut and the wikimarkup symbols section are sufficient. ck lostsword•T•C 15:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest. I didnt actually know of the shortcut for the pipe before this. Somehow, i must have missed the shortcut. So that idea can go to the trash, and thats fine. But I think 2nd watchlist is good. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 15:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

On Windows, use Alt+124 to make a pipe (Windows Alt keycodes), and there is already a way to track contributions: Copy User:Tra/userwatchlist.js onto User:Anonymous Dissident/monobook.js. (User:Tra). <font style="background:#7FFF00">Reywas92 <font style="background:#00ff7f">Talk 16:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. thats only for IE 2. its not something in the very topbar; knowledge about it isnt widespread 3. It shares with normal watchlist and 4. I cant even make it work in my IE. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 16:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not perfect and it often doesn't work for people. Having a tool like this in the MediaWiki source code or as an extension would probably be better so this is more of a temporary solution. Tra (Talk) 16:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Post feature requests on Bugzilla.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Advanced welcome template
Is there any sort of template that provides information to Wikipedians who understand the basics but are interested in the more advanced aspects of Wikipedia? This sort of thing might be useful if one doesn't already exist. I'd like to see what people think about something like this. It might give links to pages on JavaScript add-ons, advanced template syntax, MediaWiki bug requests, meta-wiki, and things like that. Pyro spirit   Shiny!  15:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there is an index, not to mention pages like Department directory and Quick directory. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 13:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Watching a single section
Surely there have been many occasions where you have wanted to watch a section on a busy page that you don't usually frequent without having all the noise clog up your watchlist. If there was a way to watch only a single section the problem would be solved. It should surely be possible, right? I've mentioned this elsewhere, but I thought I'd get some feedback here. Richard001 05:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't possible, and can't be done easily. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  05:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it possible and difficult or impossible? Richard001 05:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Right now it can't be done, and to add such a functionality would probably crash the servers from the load. To make this work you would have to completely rework how edits are recorded and pages are watched. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  05:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh well, thanks for letting me know anyway. Richard001 06:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ... so do it. Seriously though, I think this feature is a great idea, would the problems caused by making such a change be insurmountable? — The Storm Surfer 00:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * At least for discussion pages, this is one of the multitude of issues that will be addressed by implementing a proper forum/thread system such as the proposed LiquidThreads. Dcoetzee 08:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's possible to do it externally through PHP, I can think of a couple of ways. Actually looking at it, it would be easier if you didn't want to include a section, but damn excluding all sections except one would take a long time to code.++ aviper2k7 ++ 18:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * First, "sections" are fragile - titles get changed, sections get merged, subsections get created, sections get moved around (so what was section 4 is now section 3). Second, it's possible to edit a section via editing the entire page - newbies do this all the time; so now the software has to examine every whole-page edit and identify which section(s) were edited.  Given how badly the diff software actually performs sometimes, there could be a lot of false positives.  Third, if subsections exist, then even the obvious strategy of looking at edit summaries to see if there was either a whole-article edit or a specific section edit will fail, because the subsection name, not the section name, will be in the edit summary.  (Yes, this can be gotten around by coding to look for all subsection titles as well, but ...).  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 02:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds too difficult to implement, but still it would be useful, especially for huge pages like AN and AN/I. For the others, I've rarely met the occasion where I wish we had that feature. Possibly an automatic change in those two pages format could help? (e.g. like RfA per incident/section -but automatically) Which reminds me that I always thought that pages such as AfD and FAC, RfA etc had too complicated instructions for new users, and that I'd very much like the procedure of inserting whichever new editable section to be listed to be automated via a bot or something. NikoSilver 23:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Different approach. Have an external program compare diff every X hours and disregard sections other than the one we're interested in. If watched section does not exist anymore (section title changed or deleted), also mark it as changed (but no link to section id as thats changeable). Personally, I dont think this can be made to work satisfactorily. If you want to keep track of specific section on a busy page, just bookmark the section title (the part with the #Section_title) and check that page every so often. &mdash; Shinhan  &lt;&thinsp; talk &thinsp;&gt; 09:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's too bad that transclusions can't be specified for just a section of an article. If they could be, then an editor could set up a page of (say) ten or twenty transcluded sections that he/she wants to monitor, and could simply read over the sections, once a day (or whatever), looking for major changes, without having to go to the articles themselves. (Yes, transclusions of parts of articles can be done with include/noinclude tags, but that's a no-no for articles if the purpose is simply to monitor changes; multiple people trying to do the same thing to a single article would have irreconcilable conflicts.) -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 14:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Adopt Wikinews as a namespace of Wikipedia
Despite the hard work of the volunteers at Wikinews, it seems to be taking a bunch of hits on the chin. I'd like to suggest discussion about something that might help Wikinews and Wikipedia at the same time. It seems there are two big problems: My suggestion, create a new namespace on Wikipedia for News and establish a simple procedure for moving News: articles into the encyclopedia namespace when they're no longer a "current event", or to an inactive status/archive for when it's not something for the encyclopedia. Advantages: It would dramatically increase the "horsepower" behind the news reporting engine, would provide a place for non-encyclopedic articles that are covering breaking news, and would solve the licensing difficulties that currently exist with adapting Wikinews content into Wikipedia. This suggestion could be dumb, but on the off chance it isn't, I'm suggesting it here to see if any huge flaws can be identified before taking it to a larger audience. PS, please don't kill my family and pets because I suggested this, it's just an idea. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 04:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikinews could use more people.
 * 2) Wikipedia is overrun with articles that are essentially "news reports".


 * I oppose this in the strongest terms. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service. It is true that they often overlap - Wikipedia will regularly have articles on things that are in the news. However, the style of writing is completely different - we are writing encyclopedia articles about current events, whereas Wikinews is writing news stories about them. The two are not one and the same. Rebecca 04:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is worth looking in to. Wikinews is desperately in need of a larger userbase, and many Wikipedians are no doubt capable of writing newspaper style rather than encyclopedia style.  Wikinews is too great an idea to let it putter along with less than 30,000 users and 8-10 articles per day.  And as the recent New York Times Magazine article suggests, Wikipedia may be strangling Wikinews in the current arrangement.--ragesoss 04:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said to you both on IRC, this proposal is fundamentally misguided due to Chairboy's apparent misunderstandings about the purpose of Wikinews. Any material moved from Wikipedia to Wikinews would be useless for the latter; as it would be written in encyclopedia rather than news style, it would at the very least have to be completely rewritten by Wikinews editors, and may still be of no use, since the Wikipedia article would still take the overarching view of one event, rather than the collection of single news stories approach necessary for Wikinews. This makes one of the major goals of this proposal: using Wikinews as a dumping ground for content on current events wanted off Wikipedia, completely unhelpful for all concerned.


 * As for the second stated intention of promoting Wikinews - did anyone think of talking to the Wikinews people about this first? I fail to see removing the independence of the Wikinews project would aid in getting it any editors. A more helpful approach would be to actually do a bit of useful coordination between the two projects, such as encouraging WikiProjects (particularly those of a geographic nature) to chip in and help at Wikinews from time to time.


 * Both Wikipedia and Wikinews are profoundly different projects, with a very different way of writing articles, and different editorial policies accordingly. I see no evidence that merging them in this way would benefit either project in the least, and indeed, I would argue that it would do serious damage to Wikinews. Rebecca 04:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm not suggesting moving Wikipedia content to Wikinews, I think there might be some confusion there. Also, as I mentioned in my initial post, I'm running it up the flagpole here first before bringing it to a wider audience.  - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 04:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The same issue would then apply in reverse. Any Wikinews material would be nigh-on useless for Wikipedia, since it would have to be completely rewritten into encyclopedia format. The practical effect would be that people would have to start from scratch whenever Chairboy deemed the topic to be notable to get an article on Wikipedia. There is also the serious problem of license compatibility between the two. Rebecca 04:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why are you making this personal? C'mon now, that's not called for. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 04:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If nothing else, we should be much stricter on saying "News gets immediate coverage on Wikinews. It then gets later coverage, if and only if it becomes clear that the event is of lasting and historic significance, on Wikipedia. Don't write "breaking news" articles here, not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Write them there. If one does get written, soft-redirect it to Wikinews until it's clear there's an encyclopedia article appropriate. Don't try to predict when that will happen, wait until it unambiguously has." I actually got the chance to see Wikinews in action today, and it works brilliantly. I don't want to roll it into Wikipedia, but I don't want Wikipedia to choke off its air either&mdash;and in this case, its air and the thing that will draw people to it is reporting breaking news. And they're set up to do that much better than we are. So let's let them, we'll write the encyclopedia article a day, or a week, or a year later, if and when it becomes clear there's one to be written. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ragesoss, would you like to know what I consider Wikinews's primary failing? "Published" articles are no longer editable.  Without that, you are just another news source.  There is no reason one can't write in news style and focus on current events without wanting to lock everything that goes on the front page.  By contrast, as Wikipedia covers items "in the news" the coverage continually improves.  Even the AP will submit many rounds of updated stories during the course of major events and other publishers have various correction processes.  Once upon a time someone at Wikinews wrote an article about my own real life research, but the article contained many fundemental errors in the basic science and I was told there was nothing I could do because it was "published".  If you want to be more than a third tier news service, then I would encourage you to eliminate the concept of publication entirely.  In the mean time, us Wikipedians will enjoy crushing you with vastly superior, continually updating coverage of current events.  Dragons flight 05:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews has an incompatible license with Wikipedia. Corvus cornix 04:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. The Free Software Foundation lists version 2.0 of the Creative Commons Attribution license as incompatible with the GFDL; while the compatibility of 2.5 is not listed, if I recall correctly it's incompatible, in which case this entire discussion is moot.  &mdash; Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 05:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Chairboy suggested that his proposal "would solve the licensing difficulties that currently exist with adapting Wikinews content into Wikipedia". Could you clarify that statement, Chairboy?  I'm not sure how that problem's solved at all.  Even under a separate namespace, every contribution to Wikipedia must be licensed under the GFDL.  &mdash; Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 05:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I should have clarified what I meant.  Merging the Wikinews activities into Wikipedia would, as a side effect, put it under the same GFDL that Wikipedia uses because it would just be a different namespace of the same project.  Past articles would not be affected, there would probably need to be a clean-break point where new stories were created in the News: namespace on Wikipedia while the live stories on the legacy Wikinews would be finished and published and, eventually, would become a static archive.  Going forward, the Wikinews: or News: namespace on Wikipedia would be license-identical to the rest of the project.  There are probably other viable alternatives if this is unpalatable, this is just the one I thought of initially. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 06:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Combining the projects is a good idea. I'm not sure a separate namespace is needed. I can imagine that there could be different standards for "news" articles than for other articles, if necessary. It is true that there is quite a bit of duplication of effort. Since Wikipedia has the bigger audience, articles about breaking news seem to be better at Wikipedia. I hardly ever look at the Wikinews articles because I find out more at Wikpedia.

There is a tendency for many people at Wikipedia to use the word "encyclopedic" to mean "like an encyclopedia" which usually means "like the Encyclopedia Britannica". The other definition, "having a comprehensive scope, especially of information or knowledge (either in general or on a specific topic)" is much better suited to what we are doing. Why do we want to have these artificial constraints on the scope of the project? Wikipedia should be a comprehensive source of information and knowledge, be it old, new, serious, superficial, what-ever. Combining these different forks would strengthen the whole. News articles could have their own portals, wikiprojects, categories, etc... Frankly,  I don't see how the policies and guidelines would need to change much. The biggest change is that Wikipedia would have to loosen up on what it calls encyclopedic.

While we're on the subject, there are other projects that should also be incorporated. First that comes to mind is Wiktionary. What is the OED if not an encyclopedia about words. Combined, there would be many less AFDs to argue about. Create a namespace for definitions -- "Word:" and it would so much easier to look up words (there could even be another button "word search" in the search box.)  Yet another project to integrate is Wikispecies,  with the addition of categorized redirects, we could create category pages at Wikpedia to replace the entire project. For an example of what it might look like, see Category:Genus Panthera. -- &#x2611; Sam<font color="#CCCCFF">uelWantman 07:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm intrigued by this idea, Chairboy. On one hand, it would attract more users there, on the other the two projects are different enough that integrating would be difficult. As far as the issue of published articles, unlike Wikipedia, a Published Article is the same as a local newspaper publishing a reporters piece. Once it's printed, it's done. I absolutely love this feature because I wouldn't want my articles completely messed up by someone who thinks they know something about the subject, although in your case I would have tried to contact you if it was apparent that you were linked to the topic. Rider of the Storm <sup style="color:#2B4F81;">Aftermath |Thunder 13:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Sam, perhaps people are defining "encyclopedic" to mean "like an encyclopedia" because there are so many places that say "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", not to mention that whole "The Free Encyclopedia" slogan on the logo, and because we have that pesky little page WP:NOT which says Wikipedia is not a news site, dictionary, directory of species, or collection of every little scrap of information that could ever exist or has existed. Oh, and good luck trying to change that page, it's one of the oldest, most beloved pages on Wikipedia. Morgan Wick 17:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a bad idea. If we are here to form an encyclopedia then we are here to form an encyclopedia. If we're a "general information hub" or a "comprehensive source of information and knowledge", then we might as well allow Joe Bob to write an article about his new car and offer driving directions like MapQuest. WP != Google, WP != a dictionary, WP != a news source. I also have misgivings about how WikiNews is operated but that's not really my main concern. The fact they're all Wikimedia projects is enough. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 05:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dragons flight that, as is, there are bi-i-i-ig problems with the publishing system of Wikinews that hampers its usefullness. I think that: 1) getting put on a main page should not automatically publish; and 2) publishing should only occur when the facts are known, with 3) room to correct any erroneous info later. I'd just be up for 3 and it would be a tremendous improvement.

I'm kicking around a potential template to stick on an article that's getting a bit too news-y in my user space, User:Morgan Wick/newsarticle. Morgan Wick 07:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If anything should be adopted into Wikipedia as a namespace, I think it should be Wikispecies. — <font color="#888888">thesublime514 • <font color="#888888">talk  • 20:19, July 13, 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree to Thesublime514. Why have different articles on both Wikipedia and Wikispecies on the same species and why have different formats to present them, when the purpose remains essentially the same? The fine guidelines of Wikispecies should be highly appreciated here along with a merger of the two wikis. Aditya Kabir 17:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikiverse
the Wikimedia foundation has a burgeoning population of wiki sites, all excellent, all on the same collaborative model (Wikipedia, Wiktionary, etc.). much as i dislike the word "paradigm," i believe wikimedia may be creating a new paradigm for the web.

why not establish a web ring? i.e. a navigable thread connecting all the Wikimedia project sites (and approved affiliate sites). you could call it Wikiverse, Wikiworld, Wikispace, Wikinet, WikIQ. (i have not checked the availability of these domain names).

Just a suggestion.

--Laurence white 17:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what use you're thinking it will have - I believe there are already links to at least most of the sister sites at the bottom of the Main Page. Morgan Wick 18:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Setting the default font via "my preferences"
The standard Arial font used in EVERY page of wikipedia is not easily legible for everybody. therefore a new feature should be added in my preferences page for setting the font, font size, font- and background color, etc. The font selection might create inconsistency among various OSes but at least the browser's default font should be able to be used in the articles for reading.


 * You can already set the font you want to use with your Monobook.css file. Just put this in there. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Lists versus categories: a very particular case
I have been watching the following: All three proposed a mass deletion of the articles listed under Category:Lists of companies by country. The debate is not getting anywhere - one keep verdict is leading to another delete-all proposal. I have been asked to go to DRV with this, instead of a second nomination. But, since it seems to be a bigger issue than a simple-minded DRV I think it should be discussed here first. It is highly possible that an editor with diligence and enough understanding of the policies can go article by article to get them deleted through the proper process. But, it is always better to have broader consensus on a class of articles that keeps harassing the intelligence of many editors.
 * Articles for deletion/List of Companies in Bangladesh
 * Articles for deletion/List of Greek companies
 * Articles for deletion/List of Japanese companies
 * Articles for deletion/Lists of companies (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Lists of companies
 * Articles for deletion/List of British companies
 * Articles for deletion/List of Singapore companies

The appropriate reasons for keeping the articles in this category as well as deleting them have already been, mostly, discussed on the pages I provided the links to. Therefore, I am not repeating them again (WP doesn't have infinite server space and we all can make time for the few seconds it takes to go the linked pages). My proposition is simple - either have policy on inclusion criterion or delete them all. Help Wikipedia from turning into the yellow pages. Aditya Kabir 09:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The current format doesnt have any significant difference from the categories, the question is how a list should be displayed IMHO list should really include basic information, like name,ownership,turnover/revenues/profits,primary/core business, head office. Even red links should be required to have this basic to remain on the list. Gnangarra 10:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In this case I concur with the suggestion to take it to DRV, in particular per the difference between this outcome and this one.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the easy way out. But, DRV may not be the right place to discuss the annihilation of an entire class of articles, especially if it's possible to create a guideline to keep the articles encyclopedic (i.e. inclusion criterion, such as - "no red links, please" - and, organization method, such as - "by existing business organizations categories, please" - and, referencing responsibilities, such as - "unbiased notable third-party references, please"). DRV would only mean only a delete/no-delete verdict, without any scope for further discussion on other prospects. Aditya Kabir 15:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * One more question - how to take measure of WP:NOT and WP:NOT. I also have found an interesting essay. Aditya Kabir 15:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, lists of companies AND basic facts about them would really be useful---but extremely hard to compile and maintain, if possible at all. If the lists are only supposed to be directories of company names, just get rid of them all and use categories. <font face="Courier New" size="1"> ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 19:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hiding redirects at special:allpages
Can we please have the option to hide redirects at special:allpages? — <font face="Verdana">Jack · talk · 19:12, Tuesday, 17 July 2007
 * Edit the page User:Jrockley/monobook.css and add the following line:
 * .allpagesredirect {display: none;}
 * Then do a full reload (i.e. hold shift+control+R).  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Depending on which browser you use, the instructions for a full refresh may be different (although the CSS code is the same); see Bypass your cache for instructions for your browser. --ais523 14:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you possibly comment at...
I'm proposing a rewrite of the guidance offered by the WikiProject Comics, and would appreciate input from the wider community. Thanks. Steve block Talk 15:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for new wiki project "Definitive Debates"
I am unsure where to make this proposal, it might belong outside wikipedia, in a new place in the wikiverse and possibly require some programming

I have read through the FAQ and perennial proposals and I do not see any suggestion like this though it seems obvious to me.

I applaud Wikipedia's endeavour to keep articles unbiased but there should be a place for perspectives that some people would consider biased. There are many huge, ongoing debates in the mainstream media, on Usenet, and various Internet discussion groups where arguments both valid and fallacious are endlessly repeated. I propose that the wiki foundation establish a reference site for summarizing and clarifying these debates with the ultimate hope of raising the level of debate and reducing the endless repetition of fallacious facts and arguments. I also hope that this will reduce inappropriately biased edits to Wikipedia, by provident and appropriate forum for them. It would be would be devoted to the following:

Primary Standards:

A 5 part debate system similar to the California state initiative voter information system, which consists of the following:

A Pro Argument

A Con Argument

A rebuttal to the Pro Argument

A rebuttal to the Con Argument

A reconciliatory view if applicable

Each of these arguments will be subdivided into topic and subtopics that will hierarchically arranged and appropriately cross referenced to other viewpoints and rebuttals.

Though length of subsection will not be restricted. High standards of conciseness and clarity should be maintained.

Lack of redundancy in argument should also be a paramount principle.

Failure to follow the principles of formal logic and rhetoric are also ground to edit or remove an argument. The author should be notified of the breech of protocol and repeated offenders should be banned even if their intent is not malicious.

Failure to provide citation for supporting fact, manufacture of false information, or conflation of opinion with fact are also grounds editing, remove or eventual censure (with prior warning).

Optional principles:

This project may require a higher degree of vandalism protection including any subset of the many perennial suggestions for reducing wikipedia's vandalism.

Users may be required to register on one side or another of an argument.

A message board for less formal discussion of the contents of the debate could be included.

A FAQ explaining why particular fallacious arguments have been removed.

In addition to a reconciliatory viewpoint, we might include space for a fourth viewpoint that disagrees with both sides. I am wary though about the excessive proliferation of viewpoints diluting the utility of this forum by undermining its conciseness.

--Michalchik 22:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you wish to create a WikiProject, you should propose it at WikiProject Council/Proposals. However, it seems to me that you may also be trying to propose a change to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy - if that is the case, you may want to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view.  --Tim4christ17 talk 00:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to replicate Debatepedia, here, my response would be Why?. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 21:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know about debatepedia

Is the "hangon" mention accurate in Nn-warn?
It seems that speedy deletes are happening so quickly that no-one would stand a chance to add "hangon" to the article before it is actually deleted. I'm not complaining that this is the case (after all, it is supposed in a speedy fashion because the case is obvious), but I am complaining that Template:Nn-warn says that the article can be kept by using it, when in reality, the vast majority of the time it appears there is no chance of that actually being possible. Proposal: Remove the "hangon" mention from Template:Nn-warn, and any other templates which might get used with regards to a speedy delete. <font color="#228B22">Mrand T-C 12:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The hangon is a courtesy, and costs little to extend but evokes volumes if removed. basically, we are offering good faith that an article that may not violate the deletion criteria in question may be being worked on.  Since an article which doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria can be written regardless of any previous speedy deletion, it costs us little to offer the hangon, we're simply evoking the policy and extending good faith.  Without the warning, we risk upsetting people who are working on an article in good faith.  Your proposition is that because this rarely gets seen, it is worthless.  That ignores the few times it does get seen, and the fact that it is an acceptable action to take.  It is an accurate offer, and so should not be removed.  It would only be inaccurate if no-one responded to the hangon. As to whether our speedy criteria are obvious or not, that is simply not the case, as a trawl through the talk page of WP:CSD will tell you. Speaking as an admin with experience of trawling through WP:CSD on a blue moon, I find one in about fifty to a hundred are misapplied. Given the number of articles so deleted, that's quite a few articles to which the hangon can be fairly extended. Wikipedia is pretty much a balancing act between building an encyclopedia and doing the right thing. Steve block Talk 12:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. However, the cases I was referring to are where the speedy delete happens within minutes of the article being marked - i.e., for all practical purposes, no human could possibly hope to apply a "hangon" before the article is already gone.  So while I appreciate the good faith intent of hangon, my point is that there is a set of deletes that are occuring where I believe are fooling ourselves that it provides anything except a false sense of good faith.  Perhaps that set of cases is too small to worry about creating a separate template - in which case I'm perfectly happy to accept that.  <font color="#228B22">Mrand  T-C 14:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, one suggestion might be to have two versions of the warning, one with and one without, but that's trivially useless. The user applying the template has no idea how soon an admin will roll along and agree with the tag. Maybe you can suggest an alternate wording that tells people about hangon without creating false expectations. SamBC 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am now not sure I understand your point. Are you suggesting that someone will see the speedy notice, but between reading it and adding the hangon notice the article may be deleted? I'm not sure how long the speedy deletion has been really speedy, there have often been backlogs, and to me this really feels like trying to create a set of processes to cover every eventuality, something I can't really subscribe too.  I'm much more a fan of muddling through the best way possible with the best intentions and sorting every thing out as calmly and as helpfully as possible when it all goes wrong. I appreciate the point you are making, I'm not sure there is an answer though. Steve block Talk 15:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe just add "(unless an admin deletes the article between now and when you have added the tag)" or, in the case of nn-warn, "(unless an admin has already deleted the article by the time you see this)"? (As the title of the section implies, he's not talking about db, but about a template added to user talk pages, which does survive the deletion of the page.) Morgan Wick 18:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly correct, MW. In response to Steve, good point(s).  It is certainly not my desire to have rules or processes which cover each and every case (there seem like too many as it is!).  But if there is a way to make things somewhat cleaner without much effort... <font color="#228B22">Mrand  T-C 20:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This certainly would be a good addition. I would change the second paragraph as follows:"If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or 'db' tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, the article may be deleted at any time."
 * I have streamlined the language a bit without removing any information so that it remains the same approximate length, despite the additional detail.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Having neither heard yeah or nay, I have posted the above proposed language.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Can it be moved to article page instead of its talk page
Having this category added through and on Talk page makes it less visible can something be done to make it more visible. Vjdchauhan 21:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC).
 * It is placed on talk pages precisely because it is not supposed to be visible; it is a self-reference. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do we want to hide (to normal Wikipedians) because there's a self-reference or we want to hide for possible vandal attacks. Vjdchauhan 13:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC).
 * See Avoid self-references for the explanation. (and please fix your signature at Special:Preferences to make it clickable. Thanks :) --Quiddity 01:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we have sub-categories as well
There are around 900 identified notable Wikipedians can we have several subcategories of this category based on occupation/nationality as well. Vjdchauhan 21:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC).

Organization of WP:AN, WP:ANI, and similar noticeboards (including this one!)
This seems obvious enough that it's probably been debated ad nauseum somewhere before (if so, a link to the discussion(s) would be appreciated), but...

Would it make sense to change the way new topics are added to, for example, WP:AN/I, so that each new topic is a subpage, transcluded into the main page? Like at WP:RfA. This would make it possible to watchlist only the threads of interest, and make navigating to that thread easier. As it is now, someone interested in one particular thread on ANI has to reload the whole page, and scroll down. The TOC is so long that even that is hard to use, especially if your thread of interest is somewhere in the middle.

The only drawback I can think of is, I'm not sure if there's a way to see a flag every time any change is made to any thread (i.e. no way to replicate watchlisting ANI right now). But right now, watchlisting ANI doesn't do much good anyway, because so many editors are making so many changes to so many different topics all at once. And I think watchlisting the main page would still notify you every time a new topic was added.

I think the transclusion at RfA is done thru template magic, so someone who knows what they're doing could make it fairly painless for new users to add a topic. I imagine you could even have the template add a time/date stamp of some kind to the subpage name, so the problem of trying to reuse "popular" topic titles like WP:ANI/I have been insulted by another user would be eliminated. Instead, you would soon have WP:ANI/I have been insulted by another user (13:26 July 19, 2007), WP:ANI/I have been insulted by another user(14:26 July 21, 2007), WP:ANI/I have been insulted by another user (15:26 July 24, 2007)...

Another benefit I just thought of before hitting save: Links elsewhere to that particular thread would not become obsolete when the thread is archived; the transclusions are just taken off the main page after a certain time, and the archived talk template would be added. You'd just move the transclusion to an archive page.

I have 0.01% of the knowledge needed to actually effect such a change, so someone would have to take it on if it were done. --barneca (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen this proposal once before, though it's not likely to make the perennial list anytime soon. The objection raised at the time was the one you anticipated - namely, there can be only one subject heading called "Block review", and all others would need a different name.  As you point out, this can be resolved by adding a datestamp to the heading.


 * Another problem, which was not pointed out then, was that the advantage to watchlisters may be offset by the disadvantage to posters on the page. Admittedly, I'm biased - I simply don't use my watchlist, if you can believe that - but creating subpages is a little complicated for new users, and increases server load compared to the sections model.  The choice of subpages versus sections can seem arbitrary - note the various XFDs - but for sure, if you want anonymous IP users to be able to file a report, creating a new page will not be possible for them.  Also, having lots of subpages will create a large workload for some to-be-determined archiving bot.  Finally, most posts on ANI receive fairly low traffic - one to three responses - so the separation afforded by subpages is usually not needed. Shalom Hello 06:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I could successfully argue with many of the points you bring up, but this: "but creating subpages is a little complicated for new users ... ... if you want anonymous IP users to be able to file a report, creating a new page will not be possible for them" is probably a fatal flaw in my plan. If there's a technical way around that, I might be able to salvage it, but I agree a process where IP's are locked out of initiating a report is a non-starter. --barneca (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The watchlist issue is another needless problem caused by our ad hoc, difficult-to-manage wikithread system, that would be fixed by a real forum system. See User:Dcoetzee/Why wikithreads are bad. Dcoetzee 01:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Television article review process as a fictional article noticeboard
I've made a proposal to expand the review process of the television wikiproject into a fictional article notice board, to discuss the cleaning up of articles in line with the manual of style and that on notability. I think we need an area where we can bring issues within articles concerning fiction to the attention of the wider community, and this seems a useful way of doing it. It would mirror notice boards implemented at Fringe theories/Noticeboard, Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Television article review process. Steve block Talk 15:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Improvements to the source and menu bar
I propose that words in the source that have brackets around them be linkable just like outside of the source, unless   is in force. I think that this would make accessibility much easier. I think that also several aesthetic changes need be made to the source - more useful items to the menu bar, enough to indeed cover the whole breadth of the top of the source. I also think a tab for templates ( – ) should be added to the menu bar, to be specific. What do people think? -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's possible to make something "clickable" in a textarea (browsers limitation). "More useful items to the menu bar" is too broad to be a real proposal. Anyway, try wikEd script (a bit heavy, for Firefox only), Extra edit buttons script, check out some other scripts. Anything major is not likely to be accepted sitewide anyway ∴ Alex Smotrov 13:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist and multiple edits
The watchlist is a useful tool for tracking changes to pages of interest, but it could be greatly improved by compassing multiple edits. At present, the watch seems to show only the most recent edit of watched pages.

I propose that with each page on the watchlist, a user may nominate a particular revision by its oldid as the "BASE" of the watch. At present, I am presented with option to click on the diff of the most recent issue only, or look at the history list. I would like also an option to see a single diff from my nominated "BASE" revision up to the current version. The current "watch" button should (by default) establish the revision in place as the base, and when viewing diffs there should also be the option to update the watch with a single click to establish a new base as the last version of the diff being viewed.

I envision this as working by addition of "&oldid=########" on the page name in the current watch list. This could be optional, allowing for continued use without considering a particular base point. If the oldid information was present, the watch list would include a single clickable word "base", to go along side the current links for (diff) and (hist).

Here is a concrete example (without any working links), showing a line from my current watchlist, and another line should my proposal be adopted: The extra base would be the link that gives the diff from the base oldid to the curent version. I don't know how hard this would be, but it might also be possible to give the number of changes since the base version, optionally excluding bots and minors. Proposal submitted by -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 00:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (diff) (hist) . . Pran Nath‎; 10:06 . . (+370) . . Duae Quartunciae (Talk | contribs)
 * (base) (diff) (hist) . . Pran Nath‎; 10:06 . . (+370) . . Duae Quartunciae (Talk | contribs)
 * Without commenting on the proposal itself, I just want to make sure you're aware 1)There's a button in your preferences (under the "watchlist" tab) that says "Expand watchlist to show all applicable changes" which will show you every change yo pages on your watchlist. 2)Applications like Popups have a feature that allows you to compare revisions since the last time you edited the page. --Ybbor<sup style="color:green;">Talk 00:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! That does indeed allay some of my concerns. The major new effect of my proposal would be to allow possibly better ways to organize the watchlist. The popups are handy, but a bit annoying. I'm very new to all of this and so I'll try out the popups for a while. I'm leaving this proposal for comments, as I think there is still some benefit from a simple link to the diffs from some nominated base version than an editor has reviewed and would like to use as a base for considering what has happened since. But your suggestions have certainly given me some valuable immediate help. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 01:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Already existing solution that works perfectly for me: in your preferences put Watchlist → 'Expand watchlist' (as stated above), Recent Changes → 'Enhanced recent changes' (so they are grouped together). Get a very useful Watchlist since script. Then dedicate a separate browser window for your watchlist, keep it open and only click the "Changes since last load" link (you should open diffs/articles in new windows). This way every time you will only see new changes in your watchlist items ∴ Alex Smotrov 13:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you also! I'm amazed at how much there is going on behind the scenes at wikipedia. I had no idea... There's only one last small benefit with the proposal I have given, which is that it would allow for a way to have independent check times on different pages. But with the kinds of script stuff I am seeing, I bet that could be added also if anyone really wanted it. I am content. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 13:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines for striking comments
It does not appear that any guidelines exist for striking comments. I have seen the striking feature used in a very irresponsible way (at least, I think so). Does anyone else have any comments about this? Would this benefit the community as a whole? I think it would Jmfangio ► Talk 16:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you provide an example of what you have seen?  Adrian  M. H.  17:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would hesitate to do so simply because I think people have a tendency to drift attention away from "what" and move it toward "who". Simply put, a user is currently going around and striking comments from talk pages where another user posted to.  The original poster is currently banned and has been reported to be a sock.  Many of the comments were made over a year ago and don't have anything to do with the "Striker".  He is unilaterally striking the comments regardless of their content. It makes it frustrating, if not difficult, when trying to review the discussions. Jmfangio ► Talk  17:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that I see the problem and see no reason why we shouldn't have a clear solution at the talk page guidelines. See my proposed solution at:--Kevin Murray 21:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC) (signed earlier post)


 * WP:TPG says "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing others' comments is not allowed." Adding strikethroughs is clearly editing someone else's words on a talk page.  So there already is a guideline on this.  If that needs clarification, the place to do so is at that guideline, or a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 20:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree and tried to clarify that at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines and was promptly reverted. I think that the prohibition of editing anothers comments clearly includes strikeut, but apparently there is a problem and a new editor has asked for help.  I see no problem with adding the clarification.  --Kevin Murray 21:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Problem is that there are, or many believe there to be, valid reasons to strikethrough, such as AfD !votes from a recognised sockpuppet. At least, I've seen that and no-one seemed to complain. It was a clearly disruptive !vote that made malicious use of sockpuppetry, but if that's okay than a blanket ban in policy isn't appropriate. SamBC 21:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a strike through outside of a voting situation is very bad. This is what prompted my question.  I would say that the vote itself (that is the bold part) should be struck through in situations where it is used by a CONVICTED sock.  This could be a problem if someone is falsely convicted, but, because of wiki's fluidity, and because that is the exception, i don't think that should stop us from creating the guideline.  Again, in a voting situation, i would leave the explanation but strike through the votes.  Outside of that, I don't believe it is appropriate to strike through a user's comments, even if they are banned.  While we have some brief comments about it on the TPG page, it needs to be flushed out there OR moved to a separate section somewhere in wiki. Jmfangio ► Talk  22:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see removal of inappropriate comments including those of sockpuppets as exception to either striking or deleting, and I favor the latter. However, any removal or strikeout should be performed by an admin with good cause.  --Kevin Murray 22:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a problem that needs to be addressed. A guideline needs to be written by the right people, now. These are issues that relate to civility, the comments of the Wikipedia community, and WP:BITE. We need to have something solid in place to ensure the strike is used properly. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 22:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (EC) With regard to AFDs and struck through statements, if they are struck through, it should cover the statement, since the bold word is a mere summary and should not receive the focus of attention. Hence "!vote". With regard to your editor, I think that he is being very over zealous and unhelpful, and it makes it look as if he had an issue of some kind with the blocked/banned editor.  Adrian  M. H.  22:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see your point on the strike through. For me that's not a part of the issue, but my thinking was this: Let's assume that a person uses three socks to make votes on a single vote.  It is possible that all three arguments are unique and well thought out.  Therefor, while the vote itself shouldn't be considered, a person might benefit from reading it.  Perhaps laying out reasons for each choice would be good.  Eitherway, I'm so wishy washy on that part of the issue, that I'll let others decide and not "vote" against it. With regards to the situation, it is nothing that can't be repaired once the people who i think are being WikiBullies just move on.  I view this as a major issue that should have it's own page.  It applies to WP:TPG and WP:CIV and a whole mess of other things as well. Jmfangio ► Talk  22:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The short guideline on striking comments is " Don't ". The slightly longer version adds an exception for striking your own comments, as well as for striking !votes on deletion debates and RFA and such that were made by an obvious sockpuppet or meatpuppet.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a school of thought which is allowed but not sanctioned whereby contributions made by sock puppets to evade bans can be deleted or reversed, but I can't recall that ever applying to talk space. Steve block Talk 12:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Radiant - Where is this long guideline or are you just speaking about the WP:TALK page? Steve Block - is there someplace where this is documented?  I'm thinking that it would be good to formally establish this guideline. Jmfangio ► Talk  21:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The banning policy, which states Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users. Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take responsibility for their content by so doing. Now I'd argue you could argue that gives license to remove comments by a ban evading sock, but I'm not going to argue it does so 100%. :) Steve block Talk 14:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The WP:TALK page now says: "Do not strikeout the comments of other editors without their permission." This was reverted yesterday, but I put it back and the editor who had reverted it seems to have relaxed his oposition after I gave a more detailed explanation of the addition.  It seems that this should close the issue.  --Kevin Murray 22:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Google page rank
December 05, 2005
 * http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2005/12/wikipedia_will.htm

Wikipedia Will Fail Within 5 Years

 * By Eric Goldman
 * Over the weekend I had dinner with Mike Godwin, one ...

I am afraid he could be right. The Google Page Rank gives us two problems: Let's request google to not include us any more in their Algorithm for establishing Page Rank. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * people want to be on wikipedia to be noticed
 * editors are over-zelously fighting external links and articles alike, to avoid hijacking of wikipedia.
 * Since that article was written, Wikipedia has used rel="nofollow" for external links, so there is no longer any value for a site's PageRank if they spam Wikipedia. People do still spam for other reasons, however. They might wish that humans will click their links or they may be unaware that the rel="nofollow" attribute is used. Tra (Talk) 12:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe be more vocal about it, i.e. in the edit menu? &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (are you sure this affects google's algorithm as well? Loading a link and adding to a counter are not necessarily connected actions &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Since Mike Godwin now works for the Wikimedia Foundation, it appears he disagrees with that assessment. :)  Corvus cornix 20:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It also appeared so when the page said, "I was surprised when Mike disagreed with my assertion. Mike’s view is that Wikipedia has shown remarkable resilience to attacks to date, and this is evidence that the system is more stable than I think it is." Atropos 05:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Marketers will insert links in Wikipedia despite the nofollow tag. See http://www.searchengineguide.com/searchbrief/senews/010298.html. Eric. 13 July 2007
 * Thx, most interesting ! &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Link addition to Wikipedia will be reverted by users and administrators despite marketers. We still have a huge userbase which removes this crap - unless you have a thousand marketers inserting links at all hours of the day, it's unlikely to let spam through. The thesis that Wikipedia will fail within a few years assumes that our userbase will eventually degrade - a critical flaw, in my opinion. <font color="#275CA9">Nihiltres ( <font color="#000">t .l ) 13:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Use of talk page transclusion?
I've run across the same fragmented conversation talk page problem as most people. This usually is resolved with something like"'If you initiate a discussion on my talk page, I will reply on my talk page, but, I will notify you on your talk page via a short statement (ex. ==RE: Subject== See reply on my talk page) and will do this every time a post a reply. This way, not only are conversations not fragmented, but you will know if I've acknowledged your comment.'" I think it would be a nice to have something like a transclusion option located next to "This is a minor edit" and "Watch this page" just above the button where you "Save Page". For example, if the "Transclude this thread" option is checked and "Save page" is pressed, this thread also would appear on my talk page via transclusion and my pressing the thread "edit" link on my talk page for that transcluded thread would bring me back here to post. Any responses posted here, of course, would appear here and on my talk page. I think this will solve the user talk page fragmented conversation problem. Could/would someone create such a "Transclude this thread" option? -- <font face="Kristen ITC"><font color="Blue">Jreferee  (Talk) 19:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Transclusion may eat up to much resource. How about a bot that goes back and forth between two talk pages using  command to substitute thread posts into the otherwise fragmented discussion? -- <font face="Kristen ITC"><font color="Blue">Jreferee  (Talk) 19:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why can editors not watchlist any talk pages on which they leave comments??  Adrian  M. H.  19:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There are a few problems with that approach. If one's watchlist has a lot of active pages in it, it can be easy to lose the talk page in the shuffle.  More importantly, the talk page only shows the most recent change, so there's no way to know from the watchlist if someone has responded to your comment unless it is the most recent change; it's only possible to see that someone changed it.  Again, on a busy talk page, you can miss the reply if a bunch of other people have posted after your response.  I'm not sure a technical solution is a bad idea here.  Something easy would be to make the + button create a new transcluded subpage instead of just a section, but I'm guessing that would be an unpopular idea.  — The Storm Surfer 22:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But it is not too hard to take a brief moment to check the page if there might have been other revisions that you missed. It is not a bad suggestion, as suggestions go, but I really think that this is a solution in search of a problem.  Adrian  M. H.  14:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this idea has merit. Because of the projects I'm involved in, I utilize talk pages frequently. Often times I forget to check the watch tab and end up forgetting about my message until something triggers an "Oh, yea!" Then, sometimes, it's too late. I tired the posting to both pages; the full response and the "I've replied here" post. That seemed like a waste, so then I tired the "If you post here, I'll reply here. If I post there, reply there" concept. It didn't work for me. Now it just kind of depends on my mood, I suppose. Not considering how much Wikipedia resource this would take, I support this idea. However, if it would be taxing on WP, then I'd oppose.  Lara  Love  T / C  04:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(undent)I've recently come across this template :

(yes? 68.4.3.164 01:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC))


 * Funny you brought it here... I wasn't even aware of this discussion, yet I created this template just a few days ago, just to overcome the problems stated above. I did announce it at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 142#New template though. --Edokter (Talk) 11:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this tag legit?
I'm not so sure about PD-Gutenberg for a few reasons, most of which are shared with the now renamed PD-NARA:


 * Not all works on Gutenberg are out of copyright (Echo NARA's "...the vast majority of which are in the public domain")
 * It gives no warning of this and could easily be (Like NARA's old template) used to "PD" something which is copyrighted.
 * It gives no reason WHY they're out of copyright (On Gutenberg main, all they check for is United States copyright), hence fails to state that it's potentially only PD-US and may be copyrighted elsewhere (All the Gutenberg download pages state that they ONLY check United States copyright).
 * There are multiple Gutenbergs, from the original, which IS mostly PD, to the German one, which claims copyright (!), to the Australian one, which is for Life+50 stuff that's in copyright in Life+70 countries.

As such, I suggest it be redirected to PD-US or changed to a source tag or just deleted outright. 68.39.174.238 16:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that this would be best discussed at WP:TAG. --Tim4christ17 talk 16:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanx, will do so. Also, anyone wants to reply to this, check the new discussion there. 68.39.174.238 01:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Info about multiple checkboxes
I propose editing MediaWiki:Watchlistedit-normal-explain (displayed when users edit watchlist) to include the info that you can select many checkboxes at once by shift-clicking "on the other end". This is Mediawiki built-in Javascript functionality. Note that this info was accessible from the old MediaWiki:Watcheditlist (which by the way is no longer a system message and can be deleted, or moved somewhere for "historical puproses") ∴ Alex Smotrov 22:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It would do no harm to mention that more than box can be ticked, but most moderately internet-savvy people should know that from using forms (because of default checkbox behaviour). I don't think anyone needs to hold the Shift key, though.  Adrian  M. H.  22:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I have to be more specific: this Javascript functionality allows you to select/deselect any number of checkboxes with just two mouse clicks. Click one checkbox, then click some other checkbox while holding shift, and that will change all checkboxes in between.
 * And it's not limited to any particular page, e.g. Special:Undelete (where admins have to select which edits) to restore will benefit from this notice as well ∴ Alex Smotrov 23:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... as regards Special:Undelete, that's very useful to know - last time, I went through clicking 44 times to selectively delete a couple of revisions... very tiresome. In the future, I'll save 42 clicks :). Given that, it might be useful to add such a notice. I suggest you add an at that MediaWiki page's talk page. <font color="#275CA9">Nihiltres ( <font color="#000">t .l ) 01:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Reduce allowed length for signatures and usernames
The current length limit for signatures is 255 characters. However, it is considered bad form to have long signatures because they take up a lot of space on the source page and can be confusing to navigate through. Also, many users have been warned for having a very long signature that can be simplified. Why not just limit the total length a signature can be?

The same goes for usernames. I'm not sure exactly what its max length is, but it is too long. It is already been disallowed to have very long, repetitive, and/or confusing usernames. Users have even been blocked for having long names. The limit must be shortened. Any comments? Thanks! <font style="background:#7FFF00">Reywas92 <font style="background:#00ff7f">Talk 15:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If we are going to start making more rules, I'd add to the preceding suggestion a related one to eliminate oversized (i.e. font size greater than the normal text size) and coloured user signatures. Creativity is a wondrous thing, but, at the moment any given non-article space seems to be more about editors and less about the subject at hand. Perhaps we could make exceptions for what appears on a User's Name or Talk page. Bielle 16:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Avoid instruction creep by allowing the community to decide which usernames are allowable when cases come up, rather than attempting to forge a controversial general policy.  Λυδ α  cιτγ  16:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * All I know is, some usernames are a pain when using the Undo function, because it leaves almost no room in the Edit summary for an actual edit summary. - Kesh 16:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops. Thanks to  Λυδ α  cιτγ , I see that in Signatures, section 4.1, there are guidelines about colour and size of signatures. It would appear, then, that the ones that bother me don't bother anyone else. Bielle 19:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See User:Athaenara/Gallery for the most blatantly annoying. They really irritate me.
 * I'd very much like to see colour, size, and typeface changes made technically impossible (including sub/superscript). Userpages are suitable for individual creativity, not signatures. --Quiddity 20:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They really irritate me too. -- Hoary 21:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there's nothing worse than a frivolous signature that uses a different font. Who ever heard of a serious document being signed with a signature in a different font? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that changing the current technical restrictions will do anything to solve the signature problems. — The Storm Surfer 20:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * [scratches head, thinks deeply] Help by rendering problem signatures impossible (other than by copy and paste, etc.)? -- Hoary 21:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

On signatures, I don't want to stop customizing of them, only shorten them so they aren't rediculouly long. <font style="background:#7FFF00">Reywas92 <font style="background:#00ff7f">Talk 13:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm someone who you might say likes fun signatures. I don't see any real problem with them. I know you will all accuse me of having a overtly large and repulsive signature, but I'm okay with that. Granted writing an encyclopedia is serious, but some people will start to leave if there is no joy and fun invovled. By the way my signature is only two lines long. Only a few symbols longer than Reywas92. Just a thought. --<font face="Perpetua" size="3"><font color="Blue">Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (<font color="Black">ταlκ )  22:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No reason for further guidelines on this...what we currently have is enough. (Also - with respect to sub/superscript, more people should use them - it makes it easier to find the user's talk page).  --Tim4christ17 talk 14:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think what we have is enough - I know that I designed my signature to be simple and unobtrusive with a few useful links. When I changed it recently, however, I was forced to remove a link to my contributions page because the system would not allow me enough characters for the formatting (which isn't anything ridiculous, as you can see). Further, many users design unique signatures so that they and others can find their comments easily on a crowded talk page. While I think that some signatures may be a bit more garish than others (yes, The Random Editor, yours is a little on the big side ;) ) it's a matter of what's reasonable. If users are asked to change their signatures by the community, it is often enforced to some degree. As long as signatures aren't flashing, using a ridiculous amount of space, et cetera, I don't see the problem with allowing a certain amount of originality. <font color="#275CA9">Nihiltres ( <font color="#000">t .l ) 14:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with eye-catching signatures, is the counterpoint to the statement that people "can find their comments easily on a crowded talk page".
 * They obscure or overwhelm a thread visually, much like gratuitous text-formatting does. They make it harder to pick out the signal (any relevant links), when scanning down a crowded talkpage.
 * They also make it harder to pick out default-style-signatures, from the mess of bright-custom-signatures.


 * They're like the WikiProject Stargate banner (see Talk:Stargate) that refuses to adopt the standard color scheme, and thereby screws up part of the intended-simplicity of the talkpage banner system, wherever they are placed.
 * They're lacking in empathy.


 * Instead, I'd suggest using Javascipt to highlight your own sig, privately. (just add that code to your monobook.js page, and replace the 2 instances of "ais523" with your own username)
 * And then be as creative as you desire within your own userpages. --Quiddity 19:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To hammer the point home, it's not the aesthetics that are usually the problem (I quite like the letters/font Audacity and The Random Editor are using, and colour choices from editors like Radiant!, etc) it's that they are Distracting, both visually and mentally. --Quiddity 20:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a "Look at me! Look at me!" quality to signatures that are larger, brighter and more complicated than the default standard used by most editors. I am tempted to conclude that, if Jimbo Wales doesn't shout, perhaps the rest of us should be equally reticent. Bielle 21:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Having recently been in a discussion with someone who uses very long signature (code-wise) for the first time, I have to admit I found it confusing to read the discussion because their signature would fill 5 lines of the edit window. I'm fine with other people using custom signatures, but a lot of times I wonder why they'd spend so long on something so pointless. Atropos 00:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

A simpler home page?
The home page http://www.wikipedia.org/ ... sometimes loads quite slowly because of big number of links on it, even with a broadband connection. How about abbreviating the links under the search field to one link like "look for your own language"?

I notice it because I have a macro to look up something on wikipedia, and despite a couple of seconds delay I've added, often the page is not done loading before the macro attempts to paste in the word I want to look up, and it fails.

Yours, Eolake —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eolake (talk • contribs).


 * Perhaps change your macro to point to the search page instead? pw 15:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Information Repostiory
Hey guys, check out this Feature Request I submitted and see what you think (read MY comments to see MY idea, because its been shifted about alittle by the repondents. Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 19:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This wasn't an appropriate topic for a bugzilla request, because it involves a major policy change. It also requires a change to the software, but the developers are going to ignore the request unless there is a large amount of community support for it.


 * The proposal is (in a nutshell):


 *  articles within Wikipedia should have a third page, to supplement "Article" and "Talk". This third page should have a name such as "Repository" and should store all information, that is known on the topic that doesn't fit the specifications of the article, such as layout etc., in an organised fashion. The advantage is that the article would hold all available information (provided it is still referenced) on the topic, while leaving the article clutter free. In the event of an issue arising where there is disfigurement over the validity of information in the main article, it could simply be put in the Repository.


 * I'll start: (1) A "repository" sounds like a place for massive copyright violations to occur; how exactly does one collect "everything" if most of "everything" is owned by someone else? (2) It's hard to imagine information that is important (for encyclopedia purposes) that wouldn't at least merit being mentioned in an "external links" or "references" or "further reading" section, so what exactly would this repository hold that really would be useful for further work on the encyclopedia (very specific examples would be really, really appreciated)? and finally, (3) the purpose of Wikipedia is to write informative articles, not, per WP:NOT, indiscriminately collect information.  If this is a proposal to make Wikipedia into a massive collector of information, discussing that at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not might be a better place to begin, rather than here.   -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 23:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Or suggest the creation of a new project, Wikirepository. A.Z. 23:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed guideline: Plagiarism
A few days ago I posted on WP:VPP about quoting public domain sources and plagiarism. Now I'm proposing a policy or guideline about it. Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style & join in discussion. Thanks. --Yksin 00:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

i'm koo-koo for adding references!
Problem: Lots of people enjoy adding unreferenced content to WP articles, even when providing substantiation would be relatively easy, useful and appropriate. This is especially true for "pop culture" topics and articles that attract a "fan base".

Cause: One possible cause for this: citations are a bit cumbersome to add.

Solution: A drop-dead simple search box that allows a user to: 1) type in a query; 2) issue the query to "Google Books"; and 3) obtain a pre-formatted "ref" tag with the fields already filled in; ready to be cut-and-paste into the article text for an inline citation.

Rationale: The easier it is to add properly-formatted inline citations to published works, the better. This would increase uniformity and consistency across articles.

Pitfalls: One potential pitfall: this might encourage people to add references that they haven't actually read, and do not actually substantiate the point being presented in the article. The rebuttal: people who do that will probably do it regardless of how easy it is to add references, this just lowers the "entry barriers" for people who don't have a lot of time to learn wikicode.

I can't be the only person who has ever thought of this, but so far I haven't seen anything. I don't want to start hacking together my own code if someone else has thought about this already. Please provide your thoughts and feedback. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 20:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Another potential Pitfall: The search and the code spat out may have nothing to do with what they are writing about, causing innapropriate references. "people who do that will probably do it regardless of how easy it is to add references, this just lowers the "entry barriers" for people who don't have a lot of time to learn wikicode." And members who DO use correct sourcing may be inclined to use this feature, causing them to become inadvertant spammers. despite this, I like your idea, I hate looking for sources Gbenemy 20:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I dislike unreferenced material every bit as much as you – probably more so – but I have to echo the above quoted rebuttal, and point out that researching one's material properly and creating footnotes in the usual manner are two important parts of the writing process. Refs are simple to implement and research is essential to developing an understanding of and empathy with the subject, even when already familiar with it on a broad level. Research and reading is part of the enjoyment of creating (or substantially contributing to) articles.  Adrian  M. H.  20:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree 100%. In fact if any aspect of my proposal could be interpreted as a potential "substitute" for research and topic-familiarity, let me state unequivocally that is not what I am after. Let me state it again: there is no substitute for well-researched content by reasonably informed contributors.


 * Nevertheless, let's be blunt. It seems very unlikely that someone would use my proposal to add cites to, say, Axiom of choice. If someone is unfamiliar with that topic, and needs to "Google" for cites, they probably should not be editing that article to begin with. I would venture to guess most of the contributors to that article would not even consider using what I am proposing.


 * However, it is extremely likely that someone might make unsubstantiated edits to Axiom of Choice (band), simply because academic familiarity with the subject matter is ordinarily not regarded as a prerequisite for this kind of subject. Perhaps, it *should* be ... but let's face it. Too many people view WP as a great way to pay tribute to their favorite band/pop star/whatever.


 * All I'm saying is, perhaps with a few more tools to help this latter kind of contributor, there will be less dispute, fewer excuses and more "peer pressure" to add references. Nevertheless, I know there are counter-balancing considerations here, which is why I admitted "pitfalls" at the outset. I guess it's just a little sad to see so many repeated ignored requests for references, when they would be so easy to obtain. Thanks M.H. for your comment. dr.ef.tymac 21:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To throw in my two cents, Citation templates is my one-stop-shop for writing citations; I just copy/paste, fill out, and remove the newline characters. Actually adding the citation is about 1% of the work (to be fair, software is my living; for others it may be up to 10%), whereas finding the reference is the rest. Manually searching for sources within one's library (mine, for example) and at Google Books/CiteSeer/whatever is probably just as easy as using the proposed search box would be.  Big Nate 37 (T) 20:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I hear ya Nate. I do something similar to your 'one-stop' approach, (see here for example). I would bet, however that your 1% could be reduced even further if you didn't actually have to re-modify the ISBN, title, year etc. every time you do the cut and paste. Imagine all those users who barely understand what "wiki code" actually is (let alone non-programmers) -- although it is a dismal circumstance, I can see why there are so many users who *never* add references, even though it should be De rigueur (ironically ... the article has no references! D'OH!!). dr.ef.tymac 21:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is the reference generator which isn't linked from any templates (I found that through a user page) and Wikipedia template filling which I found from template:PMID. Graham 87 00:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are proposals and projects. Read all of WP:FOOT especially near the bottom.  (SEWilco 04:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC))

Reasonable Restrictions On Those Who Can Edit The Wikipedia
Jul 20, '07

To; All Wikipedians,

I would like to make a proposal that the editing policy for Wikipedia be changed to resonably limit those individuals who are allowed to edit the Wikipedia. Another recommendation (in addition to) would be to have a serious screening procedure in place, where one must apply in order to be allowed editing of this free online Encyclopedia. The reasons for my making this suggestion I think are quite obvious; serious vandalization of Web-pages on Wikipedia occur rather frequently. The E-article on "Mood Rings" is just one example, among (I am sure) many others. However mundane the topic of Mood Rings might be to some (it is only an entertainment-hobby of mine)- I still would like the information regarding these novetly items to be reasonably accurate. I grow very tired of checking the E-article on Mood Rings from time to time, only to find the Web-article on them to have again been seriously tampered with, which includes; misinformation, incorrect information, crazy & even obscene entries. The "Mood Color Chart" appears to be a favorite target for these vandals. I did edit the entry on Mood Rings with corrections specifically to the Mood Color Chart & made every sincere effort to ensure that my edit was correct.

Please consider this proposal as I think that (considering how the Internet is basically viewed globally)- It is a serious diservice to all who use this free online Encyclopedia to be bombarded with misinformation perpetrated by roving E-vandals!

Thank You for Your time.

Dawnofrabbits 19:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * according to Jimbo, "anyone can edit" is a non-negotiable axiom. You may want to look at Citizendium. That said, we need a more efficient way to kick out people who prove they are morons (check my edit history for today to see that I know what I'm talking about). Don't ban people after four months and two arbitration cases. Ban then as it becomes apparent that they are unable or unwilling to contribute constructively. That isn't a violation of our axioms, just a reasonable tightening of our blocking practice. dab (𒁳) 20:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) Yes, it would be great (in theory) to have only good editors, but can I inject some reality for a moment? Firstly, this is a Foundation principle; anyone can edit and that is not going to change. Secondly, many good (or certainly not bad) contributions come from anon IP users, some of whom are not even regular editors. That is why, on balance, the current system is better, has remained unchanged for this long and will continue to be in effect for the foreseeable future.  Adrian  M. H.  20:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (Post edit conflict) I have to concur with Dbachmann about the need to tighten up the controls on existing editors who prove to be problematic.  Adrian  M. H.  20:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How about assuming some good faith not every IP is vandal, more over the worse offenders are the registered accounts. At every opportunity we should be encouraging edits not restricting them. Gnangarra 03:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that some very responsible & important people edit Wikipedia from IP addresses. The example I best know happens to Ward Cunningham, who told me that he does so for the simple reason "because I can -- & I think it's cool." (He has recently created a user account on Wikipedia, but I doubt he has used it edit yet.) -- llywrch 19:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

How to get Uncategorized pages with only stub categories
Is there anyway to know which all pages have only stub categories and not normal categories as these pages needs to be put under proper category. Vjdchauhan 16:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC).


 * I think the categorization taskforce was doing something with Alai's bot. The place to go is probably the taskforce's talk page.--Boson 06:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Can it be moved to article page instead of its talk page
Having this category added through and on Talk page makes it less visible can something be done to make it more visible. Vjdchauhan 21:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC).
 * It is placed on talk pages precisely because it is not supposed to be visible; it is a self-reference. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do we want to hide (to normal Wikipedians) because there's a self-reference or we want to hide for possible vandal attacks. Vjdchauhan 13:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC).
 * See Avoid self-references for the explanation. (and please fix your signature at Special:Preferences to make it clickable. Thanks :) --Quiddity 01:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we have sub-categories as well
There are around 900 identified notable Wikipedians can we have several subcategories of this category based on occupation/nationality as well. Vjdchauhan 21:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC).

The Zen of Wikipedia
Because I think that it should be linked to more, and have more entries, I'm mentioning The Zen of Wikipedia here. That is all. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 13:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, not spam, just a good chance for me to learn about the process of deleting articles in Wiki-space. Thanks for giving me this opportunity to improve my knowledge of Wikipedia processes!GDallimore (Talk) 16:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to (which was in response to ), yes it is spam. This isn't a proposal so it is off-topic for this page, and thus is an inappropriate advertisement (see spam defn. N1).  Big Nate 37 (T) 16:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I appologize. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 17:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

References to discussions about neutrality, factual disputes etc.
Often the links provided on banners such as "neutrality disputed", "factual accuracy disputed" etc. etc. take you to the top of a lengthy talk page covering myriad topics discussed over a long period of time. It's often difficult or impossible to discover what specific concern(s) prompted the addition of the banner, what if anything was done about it, and whether the problem is still perceived to exist. To prevent this happening I propose that all these banners should require a reference to a specific talk page section, and, to force people to comply, shouldn't work if one is not provided. Matt 20:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC).
 * The thing is sometimes, when the neutrality is questioned, the presence of a tag alone may be sufficient for other passerbys to have a closer look at the article to see if it's true. The talk page comments can assist in identifying the problem, but aren't always needed.--Kylohk 05:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't change at all. People will still see the tag, that will still be sufficient to alert them, and they can still take a closer look if they want to. The point is that they might read the article and not understand why the tag is there. The auto-link to the talk page often is of no help. Either there is no explanation at all at the talk page, or it's unclear which part of the possibly voluminous discussions stretching back many months the tag refers to. My proposal will force people to create a specific section to discuss the tag, so that it's clear to everyone what the perceived issues are, what other people think, and where to add their own comments. Part of the reason these tags hang around for so long is that no-one's confident about removing them even when the perceived problem may have been fixed long ago, because there is no clear history on the talk page of what's taken place. If someone can't come up with a short explanation on the talk page of why they added the tag then they shouldn't add it. That explanation is then the starting point for subsequent discussions that hopefully eventually lead to the problem being fixed and the tag being removed. Matt 13:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, having just written all that, it struck me that you may be referring to the problem of tags that are already in place that do not have a specific link. Perhaps my "should not work" was misleading. I was referring only to newly added tags. That is, after implementation, anyone who adds such a tag should be required to create a talk page section and link to it. I was not suggesting that all non-linked tags in existence should suddenly disappear. Matt 13:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcomebot
Is there a bot that automatically leaves a welcome template on new user talk pages. If not, could one be created? just a thought - Pheonix15 17:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been opposed in the past because of the concern that a user being welcomed by a bot is not as 'personal' as being welcomed by a human. Tra (Talk) 18:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But some human welcomers welcome so many new users, it's like a bot is leaving the message. Why not just have newly registered account automatically be redirected to WP:WELCOME? Flyguy649 talk contribs 18:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it would not be personal. A.Z. 01:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I know it wouldn't be personal, but even a welcome message left by a bot could be made to look like a human entry. Most new editors on Wikipedia really aren't going to be able to tell the difference, and it would save the time of many who could be doing better things, such as writing new content. As long as the bot's username doesn't contain the word "bot", we'll be set. ChrischTalk 14:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, a bot would be unlikely to reply if the new user had questions. — The Storm Surfer 14:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * While it would be impersonal, I think such a bot would be very useful... If you look at the standard welcome message, it achieves two goals... the first is to let the new user know that someone else has noticed that they have created an account and joined the project. To makes the new user feel good about joining the project and want to contribute.  The second is to provide them with links to the core policies and guidelines, so that they can learn how Wikipidia works.  It is the second part that I want to focus on... While our Welcoming Committee volunteers do a great (and often thankless) job, they don't (can't) get to every new user.  Thus, we have new users that never get welcomed... which means they never are provided with the links to the core policies.  A bot would take care of this. I don't think we should abandon the Welcoming Committy... we should have both a bot and human volunteers. Blueboar 15:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really think that the links to core policies matter to newcomers. I think the welcome matters most, so I a message such as "Hey, I notice you! Welcome!" would be enough. A.Z. 19:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

As with most issues, I find that I see both sides of the issue, and while I do agree that having a bot may be helpful in some cases, here are the reasons I would probably vote to keep the Welcoming Committee:

I personally don't just drop welcomes on any new user. First, I go through and check their contributions, and talk page. If they've received many warnings, or a bunch of notes regarding CSD or Image deletions, I tend to not drop my personalized welcome, because it shows they've previously ignored attempts to have them review the help info.

I have noticed while doing this, that many of these new accounts are created exclusively with the purpose of defaming/vandalizing pages (see information posted today on Morton's Page .) In that specific case, an article was published online, specifically directing people to create accounts with the express intention of targeting this member and vandalizing his pages. Now, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to welcome people who come here with the solitary intent on doing damage. ;)

I will also drop a welcome on a new user's page if I notice while on RC/VP that they've never had any activity on their talk page. Especially when they are contributing constructively, and especially if they seem to need a little help with formatting (like not 'indenting' paragraphs lol).

Probably the most important reason, if those folks the bot welcomes have questions, they have nobody to ask. Yes, there are the many help pages, but I can tell you from personal experience that that is a whole lot of information to wade through to find the one answer you need sometimes.

I've responded swiftly to new user's questions after I've welcomed them, and I take great pride in that. If a bot was going around welcoming every individual, it would take a lot from the community. Those in the Welcoming Committee seem to be more than happy to do it, and I'd hope between everyone, they get a good majority of the contributing new members. For me personally, I live a pretty solitary life, and I feel at least vicariously, that welcoming new users is spreading a smile that I'm not able to do in real life. And there's nothing I enjoy more than getting that orange box telling me I have a new message! <font color="CC66FF">Ariel <font color="FF0000">♥ <font color="0066CC">Gold 15:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Another shortcoming of this proposal is that the default template is, frankly, inadequate. It provides far too few useful links and is not sufficiently visually interesting for new users (although some customised templates go too far in the other direction). I use my own template, because none of the published custom design quite fit the bill for me, but if you wanted a better template for a bot to use, I can envisage arguments about whose template should be chosen. Yet another shortcoming – mentioned by ArielGold – is that a bot cannot estimate the nature of a new editor by viewing their initial edits; a human can, and I prefer not to welcome anyone who has made nothing but obviously unconstructive edits because giving them more information may actually be counter-productive. People who sign up solely for the purposes of spamming, vandalism, or other bad behaviour tend to become obvious to a human eye quite quickly.  Adrian  M. H.  21:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose the idea because it would be impersonal (most users welcome people using a template, so it makes no real difference). With help, a link to a help page is enough. But I agree with the above point that vandals should not be warned. Hence I would oppose a bot for now. Recurring dreams 11:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * While it is somewhat distasteful, it might be worthwhile if each bot post returned a helpful user (i.e. randomly from a list to which welcomers might add themselves) who might help a new user if they need guidance, rather than signing as "WelcomeBot". The welcome itself is somewhat dry - In my opinion, I don't think many newbies actually read it all. <font color="#275CA9">Nihiltres ( <font color="#000">t .l ) 14:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea, Nihiltres, if the welcome bot's message included links to a live user (picked from a list of volunteers) to refer them to for questions, that would make a big difference. However, I personally still like the Welcoming Committee, and I'd be sad if that was done away with by bot welcomes. <font color="CC66FF">Ariel <font color="FF0000">♥ <font color="0066CC">Gold 14:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Remember that most new users in fact aren't, so the bot would be pretty pointless for those.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User Page Vandalism
I am a new wikipedian, and as such have never had my user page vandalised, however I have noticed that several of my fellow contributor's have "This User Page has been vandalised X times."

I know this has probably been suggested MANY times before, however I couldn't find it in the FAQ. I suggest to make it so that only the user that OWNS the user page can edit it (and admins, ofcourse.)

This way, only the owner of a userpage can edit it, ofcourse other members will be able to edit their Talk Page, but this will prevent User Page vadalisms.

This may seem like a massive task, redoing databases, adding new codes to every page, but I believe it could be done quite simply.

I do not fully know how wikipedia codes its pages, but I believe something like this at the top frame (which is the same on every page) would do the trick:

Obviously this wouldn't be the EXACT code, because I am no "expert" in php, and I am aware that this would only HIDE the "Edit this page" button, and still leave the link to edit (if known) available for attack, however I still believe this would significantly reduce the number of User Page Vandalisms, and could lead to a future code which blocks the link from being accessed unless logged in as the current user..

I am sure that there are several users on Wikipedia who could work this (or a similar) code into wikipedia's own.

Please comment on my idea, and tell me if this is a good suggestion or not, and if it has been suggested before. If it has (which i'm sure it has) then please delete it, as I don't want to suggest something that has been denied in the past. Gbenemy 19:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In effect, what you are asking is whether semi-protection (excluding the owner) should be applied across the entire User: namespace. In nearly all cases, protection should be and is applied on a page by page basis, because protection detracts from the ideal that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The only cases where it is applied across the board are the MediaWiki namespace (parts of the interface) and every user's monobook.css and monobook.js (and likewise pages for other skins). I'm sure the instances where such pages are vandalised are extremely low. On a technical note, the solution you propose only hides the edit link. Anyone could append "?action=edit" to the address bar to edit the page. <b style="color:darkblue;">Harryboyles</b> 10:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is already in effect for users' skin pages: for example, only administrators and I can edit my monobook.js user subpage, and I have made, as an administrator, a very small number of edits to other people's skin pages (mostly for people with a particular speedy deletion script that accidentally inserted their skin pages into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, had to insert commented  tags). On the other hand, for the actual userspace it doesn't seem necessary or appropriate to automatically protect or semi-protect all of them, because the rate of vandalism isn't high enough. By the way, anyone can have their userpage(s) indefinitely semi-protected on request, according to the protection policy, so anyone worried about vandalism to their userspace need only file a request. It might also be disruptive if only sysops were permitted to edit other users' userpages: there is a suprisingly high incidence of spam pages among userpages, and disallowing access to tag a page as such would hinder deletion of this spam and indeed make more administrative backlog. I understand your motivation, but I don't think such a system would be useful in practice or desirable in theory. Thanks for the suggestion, <font color="#275CA9">Nihiltres ( <font color="#000">t .l ) 14:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughts Harryboyles and Nihiltres. Harryboyles, I pointed out in my proposal that this would only hide the edit tag, I also suggested that this could be further developed to deny access to the /w/index.php?title=xxx&action=edit. However, most most amount of spammers will be looking for a quick fix, and will not be bothered to go through all that. You (Harryboyles) also said that "protection detracts from the ideal that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit." and while this is true (and a fundamental part of wikipedia's founding policy), I would like to point out that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit." As said in the template "This page is not an encyclopedia article" therefore, is exempt from the anyone can edit policy as it is not an encyclodedic article. As far as requesting page protection goes, this would be even longer and create even more backlog, as it, like you said, is done on a page-by-page basis, not a system-wide page protection on the User namespace. Ofcourse, something mroe than a mere php code would be needed, but I still think some form of universal protection is needed. Also, I thought that requesting a page for protection required one to have evidence that it needs protection, if one hasn't been vandalised before, but does not wish to have the experience, one could not request a page protection. <font color="FF0000">GBenemy  (<font color="#FF0000">talk . <font color="#FF0000">it.wiki ) 21:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)