Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 2

One can imagine that 10,000 years from now, perhaps even millions years from now, information on wikipedia will still be accessed by people (or other intelligent beings) who are interested in our civilization. However, on such long time scales, global disasters are likely to happen which would likely cause irreversible damage to information stored on database servers. Also, even if information could theoretically be rescued, this won't be a priority for the people facing the consequences of such a disaster. One can e.g. think of asteroid impacts, nearby gamma ray bursts, etc.

If the entire wikipedia content is periodically stored on CDs (including some equipment to read the CDs), then the survivors of a disaster (who may not be computer experts) will be able to access the information again. Count Iblis 16:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to start copying the

CDs only store 700 MB at a time, and the current contents of Wikipedia is a few 10s of GB, it might take you a while. Also, don't use CD-Rs/CD-RWs, since the shelf-life of generic CD-Rs is only several years, though high quality CD-Rs (sold for archival purposes) may claim a century or so. A professional CD press probably makes a longer lasting CD, so that might work. Really though, the idea of archiving any sort of digital information for very long periods has all sorts of practical challenges that are difficult to overcome. Dragons flight

17:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

One practical challenge being what do you plug this antique computer into so the CD-Rom can be read ;-) B1atv 17:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with storing anything digitally is that nothing will likely last 1000s of years, much of it won't last 100. Some sort of hardcopy would be best. Microfilm can last about 500 years if properly stored. Mr.Z-man 18:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There are two different problems, both harmful to the prospects of very-long-term data storage: 1) The physical decay of the media, as already noted here; 2) Obsolescence of data formats -- it's already very difficult to find machines that can read some formats (such as 5.25" floppy disks), and the same will inevitably become true of every other format you can name. If there's a general collapse of civilization, you can't expect whatever emerges at the end of it to have any recollection of how to read some old pre-collapse data format, while if there isn't any such collapse, the steady advance of technology will make old formats so distantly obsolete that nobody may remember how to use them. Either way, there's a problem. *Dan T.* 19:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Print it on paper, that will only require the ability to read text. Use a few warehouses for storage. No, paper's not durable enough. Write it on parchment, that's tougher. Bind it in metal covers. With locks for security. Use goose quills for the truly authentic experience. Sign in blood, to symbolize the effort of production. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A chisel and a lot of stone slabs. The

these. Better get started. Actually, just read the whole thing out in audio, and broadcast it on radio waves into space. Or, pass it along by oral tradition. :-) Mahalo. --Ali'i

19:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

<-indent. What an interesting question. It sounds like something Brewster Kahle or his Internet Archive would be interested in. Some other impediments. Ten million years is a long time in human evolution (or perhaps it will be an alien race that discovers Wikipedia). First, they may lack the cultural references, mentality, or language to understand it. Don't forget that all human languages, even those on the Rosetta Stone, are very similar with commonalities not only from human interaction but also from the biological basis of language. It's more like our trying to understand whales, or cats, birds, or elephants....we are only beginning to even now. Second, if anyone does perfect a way to store electronic data for ten million years they may well suffer from too much data, not too little. If we don't implode we'll be up to fifty or a hundred million articles pretty soon. What the heck is an advanced civilization going to do with fifty million Wikipedia articles? Will they even be interested? Maybe no more than we're interested in what a colony of ants was up to ten million years ago. I'm not as worried about the data format....that's simple and I think any halfway intelligent species should be able to figure out ASCII and hypertext, particularly if we can give them a primer. I think we should do away with templates, redirects, and talk pages, though. Definitely keep the administrators' notice boards and AFD discussions away from future generations. That will only confuse and upset them.Wikidemo 20:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

zOmG!1!!!! You're right. They might not even know what Family Guy is! :-o There goes half of Wikipedia for 'em. OK, maybe not quite half. --Ali'i 20:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I dumped the entre contents of the English Wikipedia to my external hard drive a few months ago. 85 Gb! Plus images (about 240 Gb), you're looking at a lot of CDs. But the whole thing would fir on 7 Blu-ray discs.

☎

12:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You can go to this page at Webaroo and download of all Wikipedia articles as a set of web pages, for off-line reading. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

WorldCat is a catalog of the works available on 57,000 physical libraries around the world. The catalog is now freely available online. It is far and away the largest such resource. They have recently added a usable "identities" feature. I became interested in WorldCat through the work of User:Dsp13. I have added a template: template:worldcat id

To use this template, first do a worldcat identies lookup. Enter the person's name (e.g, Samuel Phillips.) This will often lead to a list of possible matches. Select the correct link (e.g., "Phillips, Samuel 1752-1802") and click on it. This will lead to the correct page on WorldCat. The id is the string after the last slash in the URL, e.g., lccn-n85-221132. Now, fill in your template as follows:

{{worldcat id|id=lccn-n85-221132}}

or

{{worldcat id|id=lccn-n85-221132|name=Samuel Philips, LL.D.}}

if the article name is not the name you wish to display

This yields

Works by or about Samuel Philips, LL.D. in libraries (

WorldCat

catalog)

Here is my question: should we encourage the use of this template? User:Dsp13 tried to introduce WorldCat links a year ago and got a lot of push-back from the folks who worry about link spam. I think that WorldCat links are perhaps the most useful links there are, and are not by any definition spam. I see this as part of a "grand unification" of two major web resources. but I would like to see a consensus before proceeding.

I feel that the justifications for WorldCat links are clear:

• With one link, we add a massive bibliography to an article.
• The WorldCat bibliography is biased, but the bias is at least based on the consensus of thousands of librarians throughout the (mostly english-speaking part of) the world rather than a few Wikipedia editors.
• A high number of library accessions as subject or author is prima facie evidence of notability and the link makes it trivially easy to verify the notability.
• The easy availability of this link may encourage editors to actually go find the real books rather than just surfing the web for references.
• WorldCat is starting to link to Wikipedia. We should return the favor. The community that uses worldCat should be enticed to become Wikipedia editors as they are likely to be knowledgeable.

If we reach a consensus that WorldCat links should be encouraged, It should be relatively easy to use a semi-automated technique to add the templates to the articles. Based on User:Dsp13's lists, we have articles on all but 37 of the 1500 subjects with the largest library presence, and I suspect a very large percentage of our pre-1990 biographies have WorldCat bibliographies. I am trying to teach myself how to create a Firefox extrension for this purpose: see User:Arch_dude/worldcat

-Arch dude 00:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

My own opinion about this is basically neutral. While such links are useful, they are also at least somewhat of limited usefulness, based on the probably limited supply of links they offer. For instance, I can imagine that one of the better sources for the histories of several smaller towns may not be specific books, if any, that such a catalog holds, but rather the biographies of residents of that town. I sincerely doubt that many of them would be listed under the name of each town, though. Also, while useful, it could potentially present a bit of an overkill problem. Would I for instance be obliged to read every book listed to construct a biography of a given individual? Certainly, some individuals might think that way, and maybe potentially, not start the article at all. In this way, it might have disadvantages as well. I'd wait a bit and get several more responses, however long that might take, before starting such a lenghty endeavor. John Carter 01:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Concur. There is absolutely no way we should create a WorldCat link if the WorldCat database is not useful for that particular article. My intent is to create a WorldCat link only when the link is useful for the Wikipedia article in question. The editor who contemplates adding the link must ensure that the link actually adds value to the Wikipeduia article. Please note however, that my (tiny) sample of links shows that the links are extremely useful. Even the two links with the most extensive WorldCat bibliographies,

WorldCat catalog)), are still very valuable. -Arch dude

02:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Further Concurrence: In general , the editor of an article about a town should not add a WorldCat link to the town, unless the link refers to valid books. Instead, the editor should either link to Wikipedia articles about the specific persons, or create WorldCat links to the bibliographies of the persons. The "meta-rule" here is simple: If a particular WorldCat identity yields a useful bibliograhy, then link it. If it does not yield a useful bibliograghy, then do not link it. -Arch dude 02:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

So you're following the lead of the Open Directory Project links. In External Links, a link to a dmoz.org page can be used to point at relevant collections of external links when that directory seems relevant to the topic at hand. (SEWilco 19:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

For public and small academic libraries, WorldCat is very US-centric. It does include almost all in the US, but it includes only the larger academic and national libraries in the UK/Canada/Australia/NZ, and a very few major libraries elsewhere. That's no reason not to use it widely, for its wonderful for what it includes and is a excellent reference guide, covering much more than books, but it is not a pancea and we should not forget the need for integrating other available libraries. DGG (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Concur. A worldcat link only references the 57,000+ physical libraries that contribute to worldcat. This is biased toward the Anglo-sphere. With respect to bias, it is still overwhelmingly superior to the references given by random wikipedians. -Arch dude 04:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be great if we could set up a system by which articles that are exceedingly popular but are determined to be uneneyclopedic via AfD could be archived somewhere? Almost any admin will userfy such an article on request, so why not have them moved to one place? They could be protected so people don't waste time editing them. I think archiving this popular - both on and off wiki - articles would do no harm while providing some good to editors who've grown attached to these sorts of articles, and would probably discourage "plz don't delete it because I like it/it's interesting" arguments from popping up in AfDs. And by moving the pages the GFDL history would be retained, eliminating the need for BJAODN-type copyright problems. Everybody wins. Milto LOL pia 01:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder what the purpose is of de-linking (but keeping, for only administrators to see) deleted images and articles, copyvios, etc. They're GDFL, so I think you could also create an off-Wikipedia home for deleted Wikipedia articles. Not sure what that would accomplish, but they could be somewhere for all to see.Wikidemo 01:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiKnowledge is an uncensored wiki which could be used (and already has been used) as a place to resurrect deleted Wikipedia articles. However, it's a small, non-commercial site, with one site owner whose decision is final, so some people might prefer to userfy such articles, to reduce the risk of them being lost.—greenrd 12:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Userfying deleted articles is a violation of GFDL and a

WP:POINT violation. Corvus cornix

20:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If the history is preserved then the GFDL is satisfied, and

WP:POINT may or may not apply depending on the particular circumstances. Anomie

20:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad idea. Userfying the odd deleted page at admin digression is basically harmless, however keeping a pile of deleted pages archived somewhere would be disastrous. Deleted pages are not just articles on school bands and essays that don't fit wikipedia - they also include libels, attack pages, copyright violations and other toxic nonsense. We simply can't keep that stuff about. And any proposal that said we want to archive everything but x,y and z, has the problem that it would create another bureaucratic process to differentiate between deleted articles and another wave of people complaining to OTRS about what deleted articles said about them. In short, a lot of work, for little or no gain. Further it might encourage people to post their essays to wikipedia - knowing that one way or another we'd keep them somewhere for them. We are NOT a free webhost. --

Doc

^g 10:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually think the idea should not be rejected out of hand. In the absence of deletions for BLP or libel or copyvio, there is nothing actually harmful in articles deleted at AfD--what led to their deletion was that is was considered harmful for t hem to be part of Wikipedia. Having them in a collection of articles that have been rejected from wikipedia establishes that just as well. The material could even be protected from google and similar crawlers if this was thought to be a problem. DGG (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a simpler solution is to change the threshold for DRV to some suitable space? Basically allow a speedy undeletion to that "deleted articles" hangar on simple request so that an admin nonetheless can insure there is no BLP or copyvio trouble lurking in the article? — Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear wikimedia. I think you've got great programs and services. I've got an idea for a new service. I'm imagining it this way. A new WikiForum, where you can ask each other questions, exchange theories, and gain knowledge from people in other ways. Like this; a student is doing a scientific project for his school, but because he isn't really technical, he gets stuck somewhere. He really cant find a solution, so he contacts other students. They can help him, and he finds his way out. There will probably be another student having the same problem, so the disscussion will be saved on the WikiForum. Or a scientist thinks he discovered some new things, and wants to talk with other scientists about his discoverings. Or a student who wants a explanation from a proffesor about a difficult biology lesson.

In fact, it would be really exchanging and explaining knowledge, and not just writing something in an encyclopedia, wich can sometimes make it even more difficult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.218.115 (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You should check out the

Wikipedia reference desks where many dedicated editors answer questions and explain information, often clarifying Wikipedia content. This doesn't, of course, have the broad reach you seem to be suggesting, but is an interesting microcosm of these type of interactions. — Scientizzle

22:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I fully support the creation of the Wikiforum. A.Z. 22:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering if you could add a search box at the end of articles? I find myself reaching the end of a lengthy article and having to scroll way up to the top to search again. I know it sounds trivial but I think it would be useful. 10/29/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.137.7 (talk) 07:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If you get an account on Wikipedia, you can change the skin. I use the Classic skin which does have a search box at the bottom of the page.-gadfium 08:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Or if you use Windows (I'm not sure about Mac) you can press Ctrl + Home which takes you to the top of the page. I find it useful with long lists or categories. James086^{Talk | Email} 11:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

is a collection of every single reference to avery single work in the largest physical (paper) libraries in the world. I have created three templates:

• Template:worldcat id
• Template:worldcat subject
• Template:worldcat

in support of an eventual consensus to link Wikipedia to

.

I personally think that such links are not only valid, but that they are the very best external links that Wikipedia can ever include. If I am correct, we should expect to eventually add Worldcat links to every Wikipedia article that meets our strictest notability requirements, because a subject that is not noted in the world's 57,000+ physical libraries is not (by definition) notable. This is a radical proposal. Please comment.

In truth, I feel that a worldcat link can establish notability, but the lack of a worldcat link is not prima facie evidence of non-notability.

Please note the radical nature of this proposal: We have in excess of 2 million articles. I propose that most of them should be linked to worldcat. If we achieve a consensus that such links are desirable, I intend to create a project to actually create the links. -Arch dude 04:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Replace_this_image_female.svg&redirect=no

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Replace_this_image_male.svg&redirect=no

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Replace_this_image1.svg&redirect=no

(those are the HTTP links to the non-redirected versions, as the image pages redirect to

)

The last discussion got bogged down in wording and colouring discussions, but I think the one point everyone could agree on was that the previous images were hideous and jarring. So for these, I have:

1. changed the background from transparent to a soft blue (#E6E6FF)
2. made the text into a path.

I have not changed the actual image outlines and I have not changed the text (except adding a comma to two of them).

The text issue was that the font was being rendered by MediaWiki's servers as serif, even though the actual image specifies Bitstream Vera Sans. (I don't have Futura here, or I'd have used that. Mind you, Bitstream Vera Sans is Free™.) Making it into just another path makes that not an issue, although it reduces editability. (We can always use a previous version as a base if anyone can ever agree on a wording change.)

Hopefully these look more inviting and less like a spork in the viewer's eye ...

As well as adding hundreds of placeholders, I have been busy on Flickr looking for replacement images and have uploaded quite a lot of them in the past week or so. So I'm trying to help things along in the right direction ;-) - David Gerard 20:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't they all read, "If so, please click here." (with the comma, and perhaps a fullstop at the end)? Nothing too big. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried that and thought they looked better without the full stop. Anyone who wants to try to convince people of other variants ... - David Gerard 21:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I preferred the transparent backgrounds previously in the images, and really dislike the "soft blue" as it appears in articles now. Was this aspect in particular discussed for implementation? If so, and it was community consensus, I'll understand. But if not, I'd like to initiate discourse on the return of the transparency.

As for the text itself, for what it's worth, I'm not in favour of one iteration over another at this time. —

=/\=

| 14:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The transparent background led to a garish white and grey image that people really hated. I think these look more like "placeholders". A soft blue seemed to find favour in the previous discussion, so I used that. I tried plain grey and the blue looked better to me. But yeah, experimentation welcome. The current versions may be hard to edit, but the previous version on the image pages is easy to play with in Inkscape - David Gerard 14:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not an image editor beyond the very basics. I just didn't care for the background, and preferred the transparencies. However, I also didn't know that anybody particularly disliked them either. All things being equal, I can live with the new versions as they are. Thanks for the reply. —

=/\=

| 15:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Something we can stand to live with, that gets people to contribute images (the goal), but doesn't make people recoil in horror, will do for now ;-) - David Gerard 20:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we please change the hideous wording? If so, please reply here. — Omegatron 02:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Replace_this_image_female.svg&redirect=no Margaret Thatcher?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Replace_this_image_male.svg&redirect=no Birth Deformities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Replace_this_image1.svg&redirect=no Agent 47.

How about ones that look like humans, not several cats put in a blender then poured onto the floor --No Brainer 08:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wikimedia.

I had an idea yesterday which I wish you to hear and wish to formally donate to you in the spirit of your organisation's values about sharing knowledge around the world.

The idea is of a website on which people can post their good ideas, for free asking nothing in return other than if the idea is picked off the site and developed to do something successful then there is an acknowledgement of the source. If this does not happen then there could be no redress so the ideas are truly donated free to the world.

Entrepreneurs and others struggling to source solutions to problems could pick ideas off the site completely freely. The site content would be arranged in a searchable database, linking issues and problems and solutions and subjects with key words.

I could find nothing similar to this on the web, though I confess I did not spend much time looking, on to the next idea..

Most inventor sites are about how to turn ideas in to products or wealth. It is my view that people with ideas are usually wealthy enough and only wish to ensure good ideas are not lost in their imperfect memories, and usually have too many to develop anyway. Having an impact and bettering the world is all we can hope for in our brief lives so what better way than to publish the idea on the web. And what better company to promulgate this and any further ideas that might flow than yourselves.

Call it Wiki-ideas, Sparkipedia, or something similar.

Kind Regards,

Enjoy,

Mark Williamson MRCGP, MA, MBBS

Thank you for your suggestion and your interest in improving Wikipedia. However, new ideas are not implemented directly by request; all changes to the way Wikipedia works come from its community of editors. If you'd like your idea to be considered by other Wikipedia editors, you might like to post it on our community forum, the Village Pump, for further input and suggestions. You can do this at: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump>

Yours sincerely, Nick Birse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.195.193 (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Refactored. I actually like the idea of a freely-donated ideas wiki.

☎

11:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Open_Source/Open_Content/Idea_Banks/ (SEWilco 14:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC))

Indeed, like most good ideas this one has been thought of before. The Wikimedia Foundation could potentially have a project devoted to ideas. I'm not sure how close that is to its mission of promoting free content, though. Ideas and content are two quite different things. The devil's in the implementation, and also gaining what they used to call "traction" - a critical mass of contributors and users that allows it to sustain itself without massive injections of money and publicity. I've seen a few others in addition to the open source list. One big issue is that it would be nearly impossible (per US law, probably the same elsewhere) to enforce a GDFL-like attribution of source. With content there is copyright protection, which attaches automatically upon creation. By contrast, an idea is not protectable as such unless it's patented, which is a long and expensive process. Moreover, most ideas are unpatentable because among other things they are not original. Ideas can also be protected as trade secrets but if an idea is posted on a website, even behind a password, it is not a secret. The only realistic way to enforce an attribution requirement for ideas would be by contract, in this case a terms-of-use or similar agreement between the idea bank and its site visitors. Although online contracts are enforceable, this one would be quite weak. More likely, all you could do is ask people to please admit where they got the idea from, and try to shame people into doing it. I should also say that very few ideas are worth anything, and there's a tendency of people who come up with ideas to overestimate how important they are. 99.9% of the art of invention is execution, not conception - building, refining, testing, commercializing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, etc. That's not to say they're all bad. If ideas were worthless we'd have no patents. But even with patents, 90%+ are worthless even after an investment of $5,000 to $15,000 in the patent process. Wikidemo 18:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, that proposal should be emailed to the Wikimedia Foundation. This page is for proposed changes to Wikipedia itself. -- Kesh 19:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Or someone could just point people to the Idea Wiki, which already does this. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Or have just an ideas wiki. For everything. Like a Brainstorm per subject, with the original post at the top, then the other posts around it. At the bottom, with enough ideas, it could be written up. Or have a forum, or any number of these things. Thusly, the original maker of the thread could be able to do something with his/her idea, and must credit the people involved on the ideas page. Users could get account points for featured ideas, and money if the device/idea is patented and sold. Also, cheap patent: MAIL THE IDEA TO YOURSELF=TIMESTAMP=SORTED! --No Brainer 09:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

An editor has requested

of a bot that is designed to revert the contribution history from an editor en masse. (Presumably to undo the damage caused by vandal-only accounts, vandalbots and socks of banned editors).

Given the very large potential damage from such a bot, I (and I fully expect the other members of the

to agree) will not consider approving this request unless broad consensus that such a bot is desirable can be reached. Please comment.

(It is probably preferable to keep that discussion here as opposed to the request page itself to avoid cluttering it. Once the discussion here has reached consensus it will be permalinked into the BRFA for reference). — Coren ^(talk) 00:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This should only be used when neccesary, i.e. if an editor has made 10 vandal edits for example, they can be reverted manually. For vandal bots with, say, 100 edits, as long their edits are seen to be entirely obvious, blatent vandalism, the bot can be used. If there is any indication that not all of the edits are vandalism, the bot should be blocked or stopped immediately to sort out the problem. Obviously, this bot should never be used for edit warring or any kind of article dispute. As long as this is followed, I'd be happy to have a bot like this run.

(Talk)

00:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't really the job for a bot. An admin can do it reasonably easily by going to the contribs screen of the user all of whose edits need reverting, preferably turning on bot rollback (that feature exists specifically for this situation, as far as I know), and in a tabbed browser just middle-clicking down the column of rollback links, which is probably faster than setting up a bot to do this in the first place unless a very large number of edits are involved. (100 clicks in a predictable order isn't at all difficult to do quickly, and JavaScript could be used to automate it if it became necessary, which I don't think it would do.) I don't see how a non-admin bot (or maybe even an admin bot) could do this job as fast or as easily as a human admin, and also don't anticipate this sort of thing happening very often. (Note that an admin with bot rollback also causes the edits that are being reverted to be botflagged, and so will cause less damage to Recent Changes readability than the bot would, because the bot would leave the original edits there.) --ais523 10:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The potential for abuse here is so huge that I think it far outweighs the marginal benefits. As those above me said, this can easily be accomplished without a bot. It would only be useful in very extreme cases. And besides, that's what we have

indef-blocking for. - Che Nuevara

15:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing that can't be done by jude's tool and a bit of regex & macro processing (to edit the list of pages). Also, I doubt that you have thousands of edit, am I right?

However, I support the idea of the bot, but I would prefer that the owner was an admin (not that I don't trust

White Cat, but I think that such powerful bot should be run by admins and maybe with a determinate procedure for when to use it) Snowolf ^{How can I help?}

22:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Voice of All includes something like this in his admin JS tools. One just has to go to the user's contributions page click a "revert all edits" link in a new button on the top of the page, confirm the action and it clicks all the rollback links. It can even do page moves if you are on the move log and delete uploads on the upload log. I think I've used it less than 5 times - there's really no reason we need a bot, it would be faster to click all the links by hand than to go to the operator's talk page and asking them to run it - that could take hours if the operator is not online when doing it by hand could take minutes at most. Mr.Z-man

22:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't see much benefit to having this bot. The situations where it would be useful are few and far between. Maybe I'm being naive, but vandalbots don't seem to be a huge problem for Wikipedia since admins quickly cleanup any damage. Chaz ^Beckett 12:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The request for this bot has been denied. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. At this time, the bot request as been denied as redundant. — Coren ^(talk) 22:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The most frequently asked of the frequently asked questions is almost certainly 'how do I create a new page?'. This question comes up often enough at the Help Desk and other places (often twice in the same day) that there's even a templated answer to it; this implies to me that there is a usability problem with people trying to create pages. I'm proposing a new project page that could be linked from the sidebar, explaining about the creation of new articles (much like the AFC wizard), but ending in a link to actually create the article, like this one:

(The 'Try title and create article' button is just Go, but it puts up a list of similar page names and a link to create the page on the search results if the page doesn't exist, which is much the desired result.)

I think that this feature would help usability to quite an extent, allowing users who wanted to create articles to more easily find out how to do so, and also educating them on what's important in a new article at the same time and hopefully cutting down on the number of bad new articles in the process. --ais523 10:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You're probably aware of this already, but just in case, Wikipedia:Article wizard is the start of an (optional, I think) wizard for new article creation; there may be some overlap here. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

All Wikipedia users would greatly benefit if upon opening the main page the cursor in the search box would be active (just like when one opens www.google.com) This way typing of the search terms can be started immediately rather than needing to activate the search box by pointing and clicking on it. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.31.52.131 (talk) 06:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This question is asked rather frequently. The general consensus is that we don't do this. See the

Main Page FAQ for some explanation why. Raven4x4x

07:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Shortcut kull

I'm sure this has probably been discussed before, but how about a consolidation of shortcuts. It just gets confusing sometimes when you see

WP:NFT

used in an Afd (for example anyway). I'm sure it would be even worse for newcommers though, particularly when they find that they both lead to the same policy. Some pages have strange shortcuts that I've never even seen used (granted I haven't been here that long). Template messages in particular is a right little bugger with 6. The first time I saw all the various shortcuts, I was concerned about having to remember hundreds of policies. Now it's just a problem of remembering which shortcut goes to which page.

I understand there would need to be a large discussion as to which to keep and which to lose, but I can't understand why there are so many to begin with. A^RendedWinter 10:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. This was a 'me being tired and not thinking straight' idea. Just ignore it! A^RendedWinter 11:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

With Israel-Palestinian issues, there are many POV-related disputes. The articles are difficult to work on, they don't improve in proportion to the amount of attention they get, conduct accusations are common, and the articles and Talk pages often look like a

. I recently made a proposal to ArbCom to launch a modest initiative to monitor some disputed pages. I doubt ArbCom will accept it. Still, more generally, I'm wondering if Village Pump readers might like this idea of an initiative to monitor articles. Specifically, I'd recommend:

• (A) The goal of this initiative would be to ensure excellent user conduct on Israel/Palestinian related articles and Talk pages.
• (B) We get a group of fairly non-POV, uninvolved parties to set up a sub-project or working group to observe user conduct and article disputes in Israel/Palestinian categories. This working group would exercise no new authorities, though it may promote
  dispute resolution
  or recommend remedies through existing channels. The working group would periodically reports its observations to ArbCom or the community.
• (C) (Maybe we'd ask ArbCom to provide a liaison to this effort).
• (D) We would focus on improving articles and discussions, on monitoring and reducing POV-pushing disputes. It would not be about tracking individual user conduct.

Have such mini-projects been attempted before? What problems or advantages would you foresee? Might it have some effect in reducing the POV disputes that cover a range of articles? Who'd like to help out? Thanks for your input. HG | Talk 22:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• If this initiative is to be tested, I would recommend using a smaller dispute as a testing ground. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is probably the fiercest on Wikipedia, and I'm not too keen on using an untested method to monitor the articles. If this is a success with smaller disputes, it can always be extended to Israel/Palestine. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. The original proposal would concentrate on a tiny subset of Isr-Palest. articles, those arising from the allegations of apartheid dispute(s). Thanks. Other suggestions/advice? HG | Talk 23:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Since it's the fiercest, perhaps it should not be tested at all on the Palestisraelian conflict before it has been tested on a potentially more resolvable one. I thought Aecis meant a small dispute within that conflict--victor falk 16:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There is some kind of Italo-croatian conflict over Dalmatia that might be a good candidate.--victor falk 16:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've written up a (very rough and embryonic)

17:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Icon standardization; WYSIWYG editor

Think maybe Wikipedia could use some new icons? I think maybe we should just standardize around those Tango icons everywhere. They're nice, easy to make, and also I heard there were plans for a WYSIGYG editor? ViperSnake151 13:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Tango icons? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Tango Desktop Project? ViperSnake151 22:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't know. I kind of like the icons we are using already and the collection we have on the commons doesn't seem to be large enough to accomodate our needs (nor does it contain the sort of icons we need from what I can see). Protection icons are already standardized as are good article and FA icons. What exactly is the issue you hope this will resolve? (As for the WYSIWYG editor, I haven't heard anything about that. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Regarding the latter point, see mw:WYSIWYG editor, mw:Extension:FCKeditor, the demo site of the MediaWiki+FCKeditor project, mw:Extension:Wikiwyg, and the demo of Wikiwyg for Wikipedia. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There were requests for more professional/formal sets of icons, during discussions at

WP:ICONS). If you can find a graphic designer willing to put in the dozens of hours required to design us a new set of free high-quality icons, then do so! --Quiddity

18:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I would much rather see the whole thing customizable. I can pick my "skin" in my user preferences, why can't I choose what icons and icon style I want to use for the edit box? The current set, in my opinion, is ugly and generally unintuitive, but I'm sure others like it. Why use a "#R" when an arrow would make more sense? — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 15:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm resurrecting this

members will be vouching for the contributions of these so-called "experts".

Note: by experts, I don't mean we should take somebody's word for their education and vocation. I mean we should recognize those editors whose edit histories can show their knowledge of the five pillars and associated policies and guidelines.

Food for thought: how many folks would apply to become an expert editor? Versus: how many folks would be nominated by their peers and volunteer associates? Probably self-noms should be discouraged, with nominations requiring examples of "expert" edits.

If anybody thinks this is a good idea, or even a potentially good idea, please add your comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.40.194 (talk) 04:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It might be a good idea, but it will never happen. Too many people have a vested interest in there not being experts around. Raymond Arritt 04:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia DOES recognize experts. Its called

WP:RS. The encyclopedia only recognizes as valid contributions which can be cited to reliable sources, which is the ideal. A Wikipedian with some degree or credential would not be exempt from these guidelines or policies. --Jayron32|talk|contribs

04:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

We're not a college, not a professional organization, so we don't have the expertise or the bureaucracy to award such a designation. Anyone who wants can put most any userbox they wish on their page, and also include however much of their professional resume. But as Jayron32 says, we count on the outside world to sort out the true and the notable for us. Some people here do acquire respect within their fields of interest, and that's by acting reasonably and writing good articles. In theory, as long as you're reasonably familiar with a subject you should be able to gather the appropriate literature and write a decent article. If you have a point to make, or a disagreement with someone, you carry the day if you can cite an authoritative source for your position, not by asserting your personal understanding based on your expertise. One of the attractions of Wikipedia is that anybody can edit. It's utterly egalitarian. Everyone gets a fresh chance here. We do not keep or respect the hierarchies of the outside world.Wikidemo 18:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting an "outside world" hierarchy, but more of a Wikipedia hierarchy. I think each one of you would nominate yourselves to be an "expert editor", if that meant that you were a "professional Wikipedian", and adhered to the faith of the five pillars (while not forgetting

and others). Also, my conception of expert editors are those editors familiar with several Wikipedia processes for handling contentious material and editorial disputes.

I guess another to describe my vision would be to liken expert editor status with FA status. We have stub editors, B-class editors (as I consider myself), GA-editors, and some obvious FA-editors. It would have been in the spirit of Esperanza to nominate a peer for FA-expert status. —Preceding unsigned comments added by 75.111.40.194 (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, I see. Sorry for not paying attention. You mean experts as in expert editors, people who are recognized for their good editing work. There are two issues - quality and capability of editing skills, and then what kind of changes and articles they're good on. Some people do good research; others are good at copyediting. Some write great stubs; others are good but lack the detailed skills you need to bring something up to FA. I probably wouldn't be interested because I'm not a joiner and I don't like contests. But I don't see the harm, and I think it could do some good as an accolade and designation of respect. As long as the project is all in good spirits and we're not creating a more entitled class of user with all the bureaucracy and politics that goes along with that.Wikidemo 01:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I explained myself so well, at first. Perhaps you might help rewrite the page for

WP:Expert. I've been trying to expand the new essay page beyond the basic 5 pillar standard and include some notable policies and guidelines, but I'm afraid it's difficult to pick and choose. Maybe I'll just have to include everything.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.40.194 (talk

) 05:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I rather like the general idea.

And I see a lot that's praiseworthy in the previous idea, too.

There's little overlap between that earlier idea and your new idea, and I see no compelling reason for your appropriation of the earlier title and destruction of the older essay when you could instead have called your new essay/proposal Wikipedia:Proficient editors or whatever.

I'd like to see a page titled Wikipedia:Be timid whose importance would be impressed on all new members. Once they'd demonstrated a certain degree of maturity they could be tipped off to the existence of a complementary page about (judicious) boldness, a page whose title and conspicuousness unfortunately may encourage a substantial percentage of "challenged" editors to have articles reflect their own ignorance. -- Hoary 05:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my appropriation, but I perceived the essay to be abandoned. Please keep your destructive adjectives off my actions; I'll load a previous revision and copy everything forward, if it would prove beneficial. As I said on another page, it was suggested to start from scratch. "Expert editors" is more marketable than "Proficient editors".

Yes, Hoary, perhaps I should be more timid. Perhaps, once I demonstrate the requisite level of maturity, you won't see me as a non-member. I may be "challenged", but you forget that one of the pillars,

ignore all rules

, trumps an editing guideline. "Be bold, but don't be reckless." Also: what's the big deal with the so-called "destruction" of a page that's not even in the main namespace?

I trust the five pillars. I've read enough pages and talk pages to know how the various nuances between the pillars work together to maintain an improving system. Maybe my tone of voice is off-putting to hardcore atheists. Jimbo's five pillars are our prime authority on Wikipedia, no other person can claim such status. Secondary and tertiary authorities undoubtedly exist, but I don't care to outline their details on this page.

My vision for WikiProject:Expert Editors is to have a committee (of community approved members) field nominations and complaints, similar to the process for Featured Articles. This project obviously faces a bootstrapping problem. I will declare myself an expert in Wikipedia policy, beginning with the five pillars (I know you're tired of reading that phrase, by now). I am not an expert in anything else: chemistry, politics, TV shows, or Kurdish history. Similar to the process for creating new stub categories, the "expert committee" can create sub-expert fields, and promote 5-pillar experts using a critical process similar to that for adminship. 75.111.40.194 23:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

As this is a village pump, I'll ask again if there's enough potential and interest to make this idea grow, and for this discussion to move to the appropriate talk page. 75.111.40.194 23:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking on creating a symbol for a redirect, once there's a logo for disambiguations. Then I created a graphic representation for #R. If somebody liked it, I would like to make it official. MATHEUS WAHL ▪ 18:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

erm, what would it be used for? Making the "redirected from" notice more visible? -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess most people don't think "redirected from" should be more visible (I don't). Maybe it could be used to illustrate pages and guidelines about redirects. I don't know exactly, I just had the idea. MATHEUS WAHL ▪ 18:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not really necessary but I think it looks great so why not use it? Good-looking decoration doesn't hurt.--victor falk 18:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I feared you were willing to add some pictures in the interface when a redirection occured ;). Simple, but good. Be bold, add it to the guidelines and see what happens IMO :). -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's clever but a little busy. Does it work when small? I'm not much of an artist but maybe move the tail of the R so it starts on the semi-circle section, not the intersection with the hash mark? Something about it just seems like a lot of lines, could be distracting. I'd have to see how it looks in operation but the idea makes sense. I often overlook redirects when reading, and that can result in some confusion. Wikidemo 01:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm also not sure what this would be used for, but personally I would prefer something more like the merge arrows. If anyone else is interested, I might put together an SVG tomorrow. Anomie 03:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer no more little graphics without good reason. WP has quite enough visual clutter already. When you come up with a graphic, propose to have it adopted officially, but don't know what it would be adopted for, that's a pretty clear sign, I think, that your priorities have got confused. Moreover, if a graphic really were helpful in some way, then I think something like an arrow bent at a right angle or thereabouts would be a lot easier to understand.

There's probably a demand for graphics for some purposes or other. Why not offer your services and then try to respond to actual (or perceived) needs? -- Hoary 06:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hoary. Purely decorative images are distracting. This image is artistic, but still requires mental interpretation that the arrow symbol currently in use does not.

See

Wikipedia:Graphic Lab for people who are requesting help with graphics. --Quiddity

17:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Lucasfbr, you were talking about this arrow that appears in &redirect=no? MATHEUS WAHL ▪ 15:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. Maybe just use a miniature copy of the redirect arrow. That would be easier for people to interpret than the busy little words "Redirected from". The first time someone encounters it, on their very first day of Wikipedia, the words would be more clear than the arrow. But if they click on it they'll get to the redirect, click around a little more, then figure it out. From there on out, an arrow is a better visual cue than the words.Wikidemo 20:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Redirect Strikes Back

When I saw this, I thought of a caption, as shown on the right. While the logo is kind of fancy, I think an arrow of some sort would be a better choice for the use you're thinking of. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

On many important articles, there are one or more sections that branch into related "child" articles, typically using the {{main}} template. In these sections there is a summary of the child article, usually two or three paragraphs. For example, in the Minnesota article, there are twelve child articles corresponding to various sections (e.g. Geology of Minnesota, History of Minnesota, Climate of Minnesota, etc.). The problem is that the child article and its corresponding summary paragraph in the parent article are not always updated together, so inconsistencies may arise from time to time. Also, people tend to add to the summary instead of the child article, so the summary text grows while the child article does not.

I propose that the summary text be moved from the parent article to the child article and put inside <includeonly> tags, and the whole text of the article itself be put inside <noinclude> tags. Then, in the parent article, instead of having actual text, the parent article will just transclude the child article.

For example, in the Minnesota article, we would change this:

== Geology of Minnesota ==
{{main|Geology of Minnesota}}
Minnesota contains some of the oldest rocks found on earth, 
... ... ... (six paragraphs of summary text)

to this:

== Geology of Minnesota ==
{{:Geology of Minnesota}}

And the Geology of Minnesota article would be changed to this:

<includeonly>Minnesota contains some of the oldest 
rocks found on earth, ... ... ... (six paragraphs of summary text)</includeonly>
<noinclude>(full Geology of Minnesota text)<noinclude>

Advantages

• Summary of child article is now fully visible to editors of the child article (and vice versa), so it will be easier to keep them in sync.
• People interested in the child article but not the parent article don't need to keep the parent article on their watchlist.
• People not interested in some sections of the parent article won't be bothered by changes made to those sections because they didn't add the child articles to their watchlist.
• Child article summary can be transcluded to multiple parent articles. For example, Geology of Minnesota could appear in both the Minnesota article and a new "Geology of U.S. States" article.

Disadvantages

• Much more difficult for new editors to figure out how to edit summary sections in the parent article, since the text is now actually in the child article.
• People interested in the entire parent article will need to manually add all of the child articles to their watchlist.
• Transclusion of numerous child articles in the parent article may increase server overhead.

Thoughts? — Jonathan Kovaciny ([[User talk:Jonathan Kovaciny|talk]]|contribs) 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts

This looks like an attempt to workaround the lack of

)

If the includeonly tags are left out the lead section of the child article could be used as the summary in the parent article. An undesirable effect would be the bolding of the selflink to the parent article.--Patrick 17:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Creating summaries of each child article (or each article period) would be a massive, but perhaps useful, change to Wikipedia. The parent/child distinction breaks down, though because the organization structure is a web, not a tree. An article may be the child of more than one parent, in which case the summary in each parent article would necessarily be different because it has to be relevant to the parent. The mini-summary would be useful for all kinds of purposes, though. What would the relationship be to the lead? In general, because of this forking problem, I think summarizing articles within other articles should be discouraged. That's what hyperlinks are for. The forking of content is actually a huge organizational problem around here. If you're lucky the child article at least has a hyperlink to every place the subject is discussed. In practice, a thing may be talked about in many articles that don't even link to each other.Wikidemo 20:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that a lead section for a child article has to presume that the reader knows nothing about the subject - so, for example, the Geology of Minnesota article begins "The geology of Minnesota is the study of the rock, minerals, and soils of the U.S. state of Minnesota, including their formation, development, distribution, and condition." Putting the words "the U.S. state of Minnesota" into a section of the article "Minnesota" makes no sense. In short, you can't use exactly the same text for the lead section of a child article and a section of a parent article.

For what it's worth, the {{

sync}} template, designed to point out where significant divergence exists, seems underused. -- John Broughton (♫♫)

00:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)