Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 1

I've been wondering, why are all the "page might not be neutral", "page needs cleanup", "page might be compromised by weasel words", "page lacks sufficient cowbell" templates in article space? They're horribly obtrusive, in many cases convey the opinion of the editor who has deigned to "drive-by tag" the article more than any measure to which they reflect consensus and are next to useless for the reader. That information on Wikipedia ought to be cross-referenced and taken with a grain of salt (much like any other source) is a fact unknown to virtually no regular browser of the site, and at any rate is a notion that would be much better conveyed with a small universal disclaimer rather than with humongous, descending, colorful, graphic-laden monstrosities of a template, equivalent in all respects to the much-deprecated "Under contruction!!" notice notoriously plaguing novice websites.

In what is in no way an invocation of

I don't know if this has been discussed, but I know that I am against such a measure. There are two reasons why these templates should remain in article space: first, we like to encourage new editors, so it serves us well to give new editors a place to start, and second, it is important that a reader knows that what they are reading is not the best of Wikipedia. Someone might be very turned off from Wikipedia if the first article they read is full of grammatical mistakes and POV and they don't know that we realize that fact and want to fix it. —METS501 (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I use wikipedia far more than I make changes. I'd like to see a compromise between the above two viewpoints where the "cleanup" templates are made quieter: smaller, no box, no color, no icon. With only a little exposure I can know that wikipedia is a work in progress and that some pages are better than others, and that I can edit nearly every page. The only time I care about the box is if I happen to be editing the page anyway and it suggests something I can actually do. Quirkie 18:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur with this and add that a clear separator plus a healthy amount of space between the templates and the article would also be a good idea, both aesthetically and functionally. i.e. something like this, which still has a box etc. but I think would be a step in the right direction (cf. this quasi-current version of the same article, which begins with the equivalent of putting the reader through a powerpoint presentation). --AceMyth 00:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether as user or editor, I find the whole lot of "IN YOUR FACE" templates to be obnoxious and in poor taste—and worse, unprofessional. To me, they are self-inflicted wounds that could be replaced by a modest 2 line tall notice. I don't buy the idea that such tags encourage someone to become an editor. An "editor mentality" will spot and error and fix the typo or grammar without a tag. There are a lot of reasons to quiet them down and make an understated message, not least that they half blast me off the chair when viewing said page. {{

underconstruction}} is probably the worst of the lot, and the least needful to be a big box. A simple statement that the page is a work in progress is sufficient. // FrankB

17:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly true that many of these "cleanup categories" have fairly dedicated "locals", for whom it wouldn't matter at all if there were no (visible) template at all, as they'll be "consumed" by those editors regardless (a minority do work this way: see

underconstruction}} is trying to out-shout other templates, and feels it "needs" to be so visible because of its history as a supposedly short-term "am editing this Right Now, please avoid edit conflicts", but it's since had some wording drift, and of course tends to persist longer on articles than makes any sense. The last point could be dealt with fairly easily by automated removal, though it doesn't look like a large-scale problem at this instant. Alai

08:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I know I started regularly editing 2+ years ago because of a {{

welcome-anon}}, and started a named account. --Quiddity

16:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I also meant to add: even if there's no real "passers-by" effect (and evidently, there is at least some), it's certainly fairly likely to spur regular contributors to that article into taking some sort of action, if the template is sufficiently conspicuous as to make them actively want to remove it. (Of course, sometimes removing it is literally all they then do, but one lives in hope.) Alai 16:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly I started editing because of

how am I typing?

22:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles have talk pages for suggesting improvement or the removal of errors IF it is not possible for the critic to simply make the changes themselves. While done in good faith, I find the litter of commnets often pasted on pages in parenthesis rather bad preentation for wikipeida, not to mention ugly and unnecessary (her is one example [[1]] at the time of posting. I certainly don't remember such text insertions being as common in the past. I suggest what is picked up on is Edited or discussed in the relevant arenas instead Dainamo 07:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing anything out of the ordinary. Can you quote what you mean? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I would guess the reference is to the weasel-word and citation-needed stuff. SamBC(talk) 10:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't see what the problem is. The alternative is just to delete the tagged comments, with the tags it can act as a prompt to whoever posted the information to provide credible citations to back up their claims and as a warning to other users to treat with caution. Yorkshiresky 16:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a request for a new feature in the MediaWiki software. On the article history page like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedophilia&action=history I have to click a thousand times if I want to download all versions so I can grep them. Of course, I could write a shell script to do the job but that would burden the server and only help those who have the script. I think it would be better, if the version history page contained a prominent link to download the entire version history as Pedophilia,v in RCS format as created by multiple

ci -d$DATE -w$USER -l $ARTICLE

commands. Any volunteer implementors reading here? Roman Czyborra 11:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't you just use Special:Export? It allows downloading about 100 revisions each time, and there is an offset parameter so (I believe) you can work your way through a thousand history pages if you want to.

You also don't mention why you want to do this. If you're searching for specific text, for example, then Wikiblame or User:AmiDaniel/WhodunitQuery may be better options. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 11:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointers to tools I hadn't known before. Special:Export is already helpful, but it is wasteful of bandwidth as it does not apply RCS diff compression, and it is limited to the 100 last revisions while I need a complete revision history. The WhodunitQuery is nice but limited to Microsoft Windows. So I still recommend my initial proposal be implemented. Roman Czyborra 08:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have rebooted and rewritten the old proposal to allow for

Cizzam18 16:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems like you are asking a general knowledge question, in which case it is probably more appropriate at the

reference desk.--VectorPotential^Talk

16:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Should a female footballer be called a footballeress or a female swimmer, a swimmeress etc? I think Wikipedia:Manual of Style has it covered. Yorkshiresky 16:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we put a "reply" link on talk page section headers? That would make it easier to reply, instead of having to section edit.

There is a proposal to create

Doesn't this group already exist? Isn't called "wikipedia"??? SamBC(talk) 18:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, join us at one of the linked discussions. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And I've just discovered there's a third location, at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikipedia_Users.27_Alliance. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that the biographies of science writers (e.g. Dava Sobel) are put into the category of scientist (or in the scientist stub category). I find this odd, since many of the best science writers, while scientifically educated, are not scientists. Should there not be a category for science writers instead? I don't know the reasoning for this, hence my question. --Michael Daly 16:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

So fix it. --Jayron32|talk|contribs

05:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If it was one or two pages, I'd assume an error and correct it. However, it appears to be an across-the-board "standard", hence my question. I don't know if a community decision was made on this or it just happened. Michael Daly 13:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There is such a category -- which I know from

WP:WSS/P. Alai

07:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest you bring this up with the WikiProject Biography. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The heading says it all, really - could someone add a link from Special:Blockip to the list of templates that need to be placed on user talk pages of blocked users, say in the "see also" list at the "...&action=success" stage? It would be a very helpful link to admins with poor memories :) Grutness...wha? 00:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The link can easily be added by editing MediaWiki:Blockiptext. I would do it, only I don't know where the link should lead. --ais523 08:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace would probably be the most useful. It gives all the warning and block templates. Grutness...wha?

23:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added a link to that page (jumping to the block-message section, but of course the page can be scrolled to see other sections) to the block message, on the same line as the link to the autoblock tool. --ais523 16:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it be practical to maintain a long-term operation with the duration of about a year? The idea is that we create a robot to which any editors can sign up to to receive the title of an article they can improve, fix, and maintain. After four days or after the user signified that they were finished, the robot would give them another page to improve, and mark the old one off its list if the editor had worked on it.

If, say, 20,000 editors participated, and worked on just one article per four days, all of Wikipedia's articles could be at a very high standard after about a year.

Does this idea sound worth it (if it started early in 2008)? —

There aren't 20,000 editors that are that active. There are maybe an order of magnitude less than that (2000 is probably a good number for the most active group of editors). Also, the "Random Article" button and the categories like Category:Cleanup by month and the like serve this purpose quite well. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on something like that to deal with the cleanup backlog right now. --Carnildo 05:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

An interesting premise, and my initial reaction was "cool, sign me up." However, as Jayron32 pointed out, it seems like if editors wanted to do that on their own, they already could be so would there really be any interest? How often do editors use the Random Article and clean up categories to work on articles?

Another issue I can see, is dealing with the issues of what is an improvement and which editors should participate. Lord knows, I have several articles I'm trying to improve and when dealing with rabid fans, it can be a very long drawn out battle when trying to actually improve an articles quality versus letting the fans do what they want. Going a year long with an increasing number of battles over such issues would be a good way to burn out some great editors. And, of course, how to ensure the editors that participate have any clue about how to improve an article? Collectonian 05:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What about SuggestBot? This is a similar idea. Nihiltres^(t.l) 18:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

SuggestBot is very useful, but in some respects it does not serve a very wide range of editors; only a small number of users know about it. Also of concern is the fact that it doesn't list extremely obscure articles since they simply don't rank high enough. My idea is to ensure that every article gets worked on. —

Thomas H. Larsen

03:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I does not seem that the pages you listed are actively worked on heavily by a wide variety of users; my proposal would be a kind of article-on-editor principle. There's no hurry, though, and I would be happy to bring this issue up later on a page of its own. Cheers. —

Thomas H. Larsen

03:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

	object’s name
	caption

Wikipedia:Infobox colours is an historical page. Reserving colors is not practical. This infobox, for example, allows a system of coloration: Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox window covering. --Chuck Marean 19:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The daily email updates, while interesting, have topics that vary widely and appear to have no theme or perspective. I think you could get more mileage out of the knowledge sharing by relating subjects. I also think this would make for more traffic to the site because of interest generated by the themes. "Knowledge News" is a good example of this type of format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.235.218.10 (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

For those who are unaware there is currently a discussion underway about a voting system involving a

Note: This isn't a poll, in case you were wondering, the idea was to discuss but do as ye shall please. IvoShandor 09:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If we're supposed to pseudo-vote here, then...

• Support I think it would be interesting to see a daily suggestion for an good list to look at. An abridged list for the main page, with a link to the rest, as is done for the featured article now.
  Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:09, 10/14/2007

To me, the best way to handle this is to have an additional "Featured content" box on the Main Page, within it, featured sound, list, topic, whatever. Perhaps, nothing more than a link to the content is required, but this would do the job of "getting the word out" about some of Wikipedia's other featured content, which I think should be highlighted more anyway. This system could be bureaucracy free, content could be automatically rotated in based upon the date it attained featured status on a daily/weekly/monthly basis, whatever is appropriate (for instance there are fewer featured topics so maybe monthly for those), which would require very little time/editors to monitor. My two cents have been tossed, thoughts? IvoShandor 04:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I should probably note I don't feel strongly one way or another about this, but I think the community should have a chance to decide. IvoShandor 04:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured lists has twice as many lists as there were featured articles when they began daily with their won dedicated space. They are also producing twice as many per month. I.e., There are over 400 lists and about 40 new ones per month. I see no reason why lists should share space with featured content. They should get 7 days a week for lists. Other content could vie for separate sections when they are ready, which they are not at this time.--

tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM

) 05:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The average FL promotion rate for 2007 to date is 24.1 lists per month.[2] APL 06:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Both August and September were over 40 and the queue for October would indicate it will exceed 30 as well.--

tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM

) 13:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In contrast, the average FP promotion rate was 28.9/month for 2007 up until October. Still below quota, but we've got several years worth of FPs in reserve. MER-C 09:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support wholeheartedly. However, some of the FLs (esp. older ones) may need improvements as pointed out on the previous discussion at Talk:Main Page. Therefore, instead of merely scheduling and such, the TFL coordinator (if we'll do that setup), will review the TFL to see if it is really Wikipedia's best work. --Howard the Duck 05:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think this is a good idea. I strongly believe that while high quality lists are an essential reference tool, they don't have the same general interest as an article. I would propose that very, very few readers would be interested in reading a list of the counties in the state of Kentucky unless they were actively trying to look something up on that topic. It would be wasteful to consume space on the already crowded main-page to attempt to summarize a list of county names, regardless of how well the list is written and sourced. And it would be sad if other main page content was reduced in size to accommodate such an attempt.

Furthermore, does it seem inappropriate to anyone else to start this discussion while the proposal is still pending? Much of the debate on that talk page seems to center around not implementation details, but whether a Feature List of the Day is fundamentally a good idea. APL 06:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impressions that the point of bringing the discussion here was to see if the community at large is in favor of it, since such a discussion on that talk page would garner attention from too focused a crowd.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:31, 10/14/2007

My intention wasn't to be "inappropriate," it seemed that consensus on a List of the day procedure is useless without actual community consensus on List inclusion on the Main Page, which has been brought up several times to no avail: (see, here,here, here and for a mock up here). The idea being, get consensus here for inclusion of lists, then go back there and say "okay we have consensus on this now how do we do it." Meh. Maybe twasn't a good idea, but seems to me that that proposal has no chance at any kind of consensus. IvoShandor 09:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry. APL 16:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a test: if you're looking for "Presidents of the United States", the most likely page you'll need is

List of Presidents of the United States, not President of the United States

.

As for using excerpts, we can use prose. Or graphs. We don't need to display only the first 3 rows of the lists. --Howard the Duck 07:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What's it a test of? I don't think anyone would deny that lists are usefull reference tools. APL 16:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose and unsure why this is being done as if it were a poll Reading a list is less interesting than reading a list, but more importantly, including excerpts of lists on the Main Page would be unattractive and fill a disproportionately large amount of space. 17Drew 06:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I would think that depends on the size of the excerpt...
    Equazcion • argue/improves • 06:32, 10/14/2007
• I'm thinking, how does one decide on the length of the excerpt, and the items to be included in it, and where to draw the dividing line between important enough for an excerpt and slightly less important. There will always be discussions as to what to include, and why not include more. With the FA blurb it's probably usually simpler I think... and besides, what has already been pointed out - reading a list is not that exciting. I'm a weak oppose right now. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support I think that having a featured list on the main page is worthwhile. I agree that having excerpts of the list would be odd, as many have said, and world therefore endorse that only the introduction would be needed on the main page. It would look something like this:

The more ...) Recently featured: Featured Lists

What are peoples thoughts .....Todd^#661 09:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There is this: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_lists#This_month.27s_featured_list

IvoShandor 09:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - puts Kevin Rudd's photo on the main page (only kidding).

At the current promotion rate, you'll have enough featured lists for 64 months. Does that mean you'll need a featured list director - after all, isn't that the system we're most familiar with? The current proposal seems needlessly bureaucratic - why do you need to vote on such a thing? At

WP:TFA, articles are picked randomly but you can nominate articles to appear on a specific date. We don't have an article of the year yet either. As a result, I still oppose, though without prejudice to a less bureaucratic version. MER-C

10:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's why this discussion is here, because the voting is unnecessary, and frankly detracts from determining whether or not consensus exists for lists to appear on the Main Page in any form.IvoShandor 10:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support in principle, though there is a problem of the 400 current FL's being very heavily weighted towards sports and political lists. That is only natural, given that these topics lend themselves quite well to lists. Ultimately, however, the point of the main page is to feature Wikipedia's best work. That is why we show a featured article and picture every day. The best new articles appear at DYK. Why not a Featured List section as well? Resolute 03:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• 'Support in principle as well. Would like to see a selection system free of bureaucracy however. - Shudde ^talk 23:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• I oppose this, just putting the intro to the list defeats the purpose of the featured list - the focus is not on the prose as much as it is on the list. At the same time, putting an excerpt from the list is like trying to summarize a novel by reading a couple chapters - it just doesn't work right. This proposal should really be merged into the other active proposal for the same thing. its really confusing when you have very similar things being proposed in 2 places at the same time. Mr.Z-man 17:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

how about someone make a mockup of what the main page woulf look like, then we can vote in. The Placebo Effect 13:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is this discussion happening in two separate places? This seems unnecessary. There is a discussion at

I agree how many places is this going to be discussed.Ridernyc 06:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

we now have this discussion going in 3 different places. JUst talking about this is turning into a bureaucratic nightmare. Ridernyc 14:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well if they call enough 'votes' eventually everyone but the vocal minority with get distracted by bigger or better things, and one of the votes will finaly pass. They will call this a consensus. 69.95.50.15 16:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The section on choosing measurement systems has been changed from:

• In scientific articles,
  Mpc
  rather than its SI unit of s⁻¹)

Into:

• In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current
  Mpc
  rather than its SI unit of s⁻¹.

Comments on this change are welcome at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Units_of_measurement. Thank you Tim Vickers 18:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd include a search box in the help summary, but it has been immediately reverted. My proposition is this version. What do think of this?

I like the look of a search box; not that the search is a particularly great one, but still better than nothing, and the help pages are pretty difficult to find sometimes. Tom Sauce 00:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, we're discussing the changes to Help:Contents at Help talk:Contents#Icon and searchbox. I didn't realize he'd brought the matter here whilst I was replying there!

Anyway, the current question is, can we make the 3 checkboxes selected by default, instead of unselected? Fixed. Thanks. --Quiddity 20:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the jerky donation message ticker that has recently started appearing on every single Wikipedia page be removed. Not only is it extremely distracting, it also has some weird effect on my cursor every time I try to edit a page. Most annoying. Suggest a static display instead. Matt 10:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

A static version's now been implemented and is the default, due to the large number of complaints about the scrolling version; you need to bypass your cache to update it to the latest version. --ais523 11:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Aha. Yes, I see it now. Thanks. Matt 13:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.243.72 (talk)

I've started a discussion

I just made a proposal about the archiving system we use here, but because it's a proposal about this page I made in in the talk section, here.

PS - if this is too earth-shattering a change please don't hate on me. My initial proposal was to immediately de-sysop all administrators, but in researching the matter I got sidetracked into a smaller-scale issue. Wikidemo 02:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to propose the following to be added to the tutorial section. I have linked couple of pages from Wikipedia to their relative pronunciations from Merriam-Webster Online. See

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.63.158 (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster's pronunciations are great, but free alternatives would be preferred. Anyone can record a pronunciation of a word and add it to an article, so long as it's accurate. See

• We can't use their pronunciations because they're not free. I'd be happy to provide pronunciations for the chemical substances. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• What makes you think that they are not free? Am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.225.204 (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we have rounded corners for the tabs, navigation, et cetera? However, this wouldn't work in

Answered your own question. Look at browser usage stats to see why any CSS3 declarations are a bit pointless for anything but user space content. Adrian M. H. 14:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You could put the following code (from User:GeorgeMoney/UsefulCSS) in your monobook.css for it to appear just for yourself:

#p-cactions ul li, #p-cactions ul li a {  
  -moz-border-radius-topleft: 1em;
  -moz-border-radius-topright: 1em;
}
#content { 
  -moz-border-radius-topleft: 1em; 
  -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 1em;
}
div.pBody {
  -moz-border-radius-topright: 1em;
  -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 1em;
}

However, I'm using IE7 at the moment so I can't test the code.

(Talk)

15:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You could also add -webkit-border-top-left-radius and the like if you use Safari, and border-top-left-radius and the like if you have a future browser that supports CSS3. Anomie 16:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that webkit and moz use different names for the same corner properties in some cases, and has different syntax. I have implemented the milky skin with rounded corners for webkit. You can see what I needed for that in this diff --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Also see
  Wikipedia:Skins. It's certain to mention the vast of custom skins available. - Mgm|^(talk)
  16:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don’t know whether there are better solutions available. If not, I would suggest that somebody with appropriate skills should produce a method of making multiple references to the same source and different pages. It could look like this: “1. Kirk, Russell: The Conservative Mind Chicago 1986, Regnery. a) p. 5. b) p. 114. c) p. 478.” --Jonund 19:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

See

WP:CITE or WP:FOOT or their Talk pages. (SEWilco

20:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC))

I agree that the discussions are scant and the outcomes often dubious and inconsistent. I'm having my own issue with the deletion of

WP:AN/I. On the other hand I'm not sure how useful categories are in the first place on Wikipedia. They're not used often or consistently enough to be reliable, so I'm not sure you could gather a large enough audience to get a good discussion going on deletion. Wikidemo

20:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is that people need to be informed; people who might care that their category is up for deletion. If people don't want to participate that's fine, but right now no one is even informed that a debate is going on.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:47, 10/23/2007

That's why I started watchlisting categories I care about. Deletionists are all over CfD. Anomie 11:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it's not "just a few select editors". The composition of UCFD participants varies over time, with many having come and gone. Second, there is nothing "select" about the group (see

I believe Equazcion is a political prisoner right now for speaking out against some admins, so I'll offer a quick response: 1) It is just a few editors, whether or not they are "select". Most people don't participate and don't even know it's happening. 2) The few editors, and even fewer administrators, who participate in CFD seem to be self-selected. As with many policy issues this leaves the decisions in the hand of the very few people who spend a lot of time on meta-issues, and they can be persnickety with a vengeance. It's a bit of tyranny of the wikignomes. 3) Agreed that CFD is esoteric and relatively trivial piece of Wikipedia. I'm not even sure categories are doing any good at all. Maybe it's the whole category system that needs reform, not CFD. Are categories (except those there for admin / maintenance purposes) really doing anyone any good? 4) Yes, precedent has an interesting role in deletion decisions. 5) no comment 6) Notifying people of a pending vote is okay in this sense, and is not a canvassing problem if done neutrally. People affected by a decision ought to know it's being made. That would tend to counteract the undue weight of the gnome overlords, who when they establish consensus tend disregard the fact that only 3-5 people may be voting on a proposal, yet 500+ may have voted with their "save page" button out in article space. Still, I'm not sure how such a notification system could work. 7) I've seen enough bad results to agree that there may be a problem. See the current AN/I discussion on category:furry Wikipedians (decision made to delete despite consensus to keep) and my recent deletion review on category:American entrepreneurs (unanimous but low participation vote to delete made by people who didn't seem to know the subject). Wikidemo 00:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think UCfD is a total disaster, but I am not sure what can really be done about it, except for a general policy decision by the entire community about what the rules ought to be for what is acceptable. I do not myself use these categories, except to make sure I am on a few lists relevant to WP activities. But I havent the least objection to what other people do, as long as it isnt obnoxious or divisive. There seem to be a few people who do object, however, to such things as listing oneself in a category of a given religion or nationality or computer equipment user or game fan, and they are forcing their preferences upon the community by dominating an obscure process. the immediate remedy is to call attention to it like this, and for many more people to go there. The way to get them there is a bot notifying everyone in the category. But the people who hang out there have steadfastly opposed it and still continue to oppose this. Not involving user in questions about their own user page content is in my opinion very close to paternalism. I dont think these categories are used for unfair lobbying. those who seem to worry about must be basing their concerns over very exceptional examples. If a less aggressive attitude had been taken to removing what is important to others, w might not be having this discussion. Black Falcon & I have discussed this a few times--I am fully convinced that he means the best here, but we continue to disagree radically on the use of this process. DGG (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I myself don't particularly care to make an argument here about whether or not user categories are useful. That said, I agree with Wikidemo's assessment and wording. I don't always consider each of my words as completely as would be required in order to argue with Black Falcon. So I'll keep my wording relatively short here. My concern was only that no one is currently informed of deletion debates. As long as people are informed, then problem solved -- and informing people isn't canvassing. So back to the original proposal: next to the transcluded category links at the bottoms of people's user pages, there should be a notice/link that the category is up for deletion. Otherwise people just don't know that it's going on. And they need to know. If the developers need to implement it, then let's get them to implement it, however that's done.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 21:08, 10/30/2007

Hi I think, we should also figure out a way how best offer Videopedia to Wikipedia and how we can start allowing the contributors to add authentic video clips. Ofcourse it would be nice something like YouTube links to start with...

Cheers!!

:o)m

[email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.239.104.60 (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there is no reason that general editors cannot receive rollback access. If there's an issue about vandals being able to revert as fast as administrators, why? Just block 'em and move along. If there's an issue about vandals being able to revert as fast as general editors, why? They can do so already. Few vandals know how, or have the time, to revert vandal-fighters' efforts, and if rollback is simply a feature that becomes available to registered users four days after signing up, what's the hassle? Are there any other reasons that rollback is withheld from editors? For those who say that general editors can use Twinklefluff instead, it is much slower than rollback, and uses a lot more bandwidth loading the page (albeit behind the scenes). Even one-click undo would do, but please, show some respect for Wikipedia's hard-working vandal-fighters, instead of making them perform seven-click reverts (history, select, edit, save, back, back, back) when they could do them in two (rollback, back) ... —

Except that rollback deletes the edits from history, which ALSO deletes the edits from the vandals contribs list. It would become impossible to detect long-term vandals if we lost their contributions. The same database is parsed for both the page history and user contributions pages, and if we lose the data from one we lose it from both. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Its a simple revert. There are tools out there to emulate the admin rollback function. Rollback isn't given to everyone because we don't want to disseminate the idea that reverting is usually a good idea. Viridae^Talk 05:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

To a certain extent, Wikipedia is a technocracy. Although rollback is, through Twinkle et cetera, available to all registered users, it's an obvious general pattern that only those who know a little bit about what they're doing will install it and use the extra power it provides. I think that that's the best way of restricting the rollback function: although it is not "really" restricted from people, only those who have been around long enough to know its ramifications will use the one-click ease. In the meantime, the undo functionality, which achieves effectively the same result for vandalism only one level deep (multiple levels of vandalism require a manual revert), is available to everyone. I think the system's fine as is. Nihiltres^(t.l) 18:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin rollback is actually faster than any other kind of rollback, but even so, I cannot see why non admins would want/need it. There's plenty of alternatives, but rollback should really be used sparingly - it's not like it always catches every bit of vandalism on the page, it isn't that great. Tom Sauce 14:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of making it easier for general editors to revert content. For some editors, most of their contributions are reverts of others' contributions. Making it easier to revert makes it easier for the revert warriors to operate.--Lester 17:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin rollback is only slightly faster than Twinkle rollback and does not have any of the options that Twinkle does. With Twinkle though, if people abuse it, it can be removed from their JS file by an admin. If regular users got admin rollback, the only way to stop abuse would be blocking. Mr.Z-man 18:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a geek complaint (<geek mode="on") about Wikipedia aim... Wikipedia will never finish because it has no space to do it !!!. As you can see logo has no space to complete... You should move a little down so there will be enough space to complete puzzle :)

I hope you read these lines with humour and, if you agree, move 5/10 pixels your logo down... :)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/01/Wikinospacepv3.gif logo

Well yes, but Wikipedia will never be completed. It shall forever be work in progress, because as things change, and new topics emerge, there will always be something to write. Remember, our goal is an collection of all human knowledge. Wikipedia will never be complete, and that is a good thing.
Though I must admit I liked the picture. Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 11:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL; It is actually vitally important that we prevent Wikipedia from obtaining space.. here's why.

EasyTarget 12:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I like this one better. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)