Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 21

Per the posting at

Really, the way that only some words in an article are linked to other articles seems arbitrary. Couldn't there be a system where clicking on a word automatically links to the article with that name, and manually defining a hyperlink would only be required for multiple-word phrases or relevant articles with different titles? One of Wikipedia's greatest strengths is its linked-ness, but this would improve it greatly. 216.45.231.50 (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Build the web#Wikipedia does not use Allwiki -- Wavelength (talk

) 01:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

--Tom.mevlie (talk) 07:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Equazcion •✗/C •

08:05, 29 Feb 2008 (UTC)

It is a community that cares about others. I care about others. (Does anybody care about me? :)

We also have

WP:IRC. • Anakin ^(talk)

14:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Cute, but I think it might tempt people to "choose a side", who otherwise might not have. Debates, at least the Wikipedia kind, should steer as far from two-sided arguments as possible. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:42, 29 Feb 2008 (UTC)

I've been considering this issue for some time, and I believe I have a solution for our Sisyphus problem. Too often quality articles (especially those on popular topics), once they are raised up to a high level, only suffer entropic decay. Vandalism is just the smallest problem; more significant are POV insertions, bad rewordings, and the addition of random facts which maybe "belong somewhere", but don't fit in the article. And it is hard (or even undesirable) to prevent such changes, because we are encouraged to be WP:BOLD, and always up-to-date.

Perhaps, indeed, it is impossible to fully satisfy both "reliable" and "up-to-date". So, I suggest a new namespace as a refuge for articles that have already been found to be of high quality (FA or GA). This would be a complementary process, not a replacement to our current set-up. Changes to such articles would be slow and deliberative, with more of a conservative tilt to this process. And I think elevating and preserving FAs and GAs in this way will only encourage further high quality submissions, as the hard work that is put into these will no longer be in danger of random entropic decay. "Slow Wikipedia" would not be up-to-the-minute; but it would be the most reliable, most readable and most accurate resource out there.

I propose:

• a new namespace for "Slow Wikipedia" articles (any name suggestions?)
• "Slow Wikipedia" is populated by versions of articles that have achieved FA or GA
• "Slow Wikipedia" articles are overseen by the relevant WikiProject
• All "Slow Wikipedia" articles are protected by default
• "Slow Wikipedia" articles are not updated more than once a month (also cuts down on admin load)
• "Slow Wikipedia" are updated by a new positive review of FA or GA status
• All other changes must be specifically proposed and met by a clear consensus on the talk page

So, what do you all think?--Pharos (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

mw:Extension:FlaggedRevs will cover this, won't it? Nihiltres^{t.l} 22:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

FlaggedRevs will only cover blatant vandalism, which is actually the smallest of the problems.--Pharos (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

FlaggedRevs will include both "sighted" (against vandalism) and "quality" (for GAs, FAs, etc.) flags. I think the latter addresses your concern. Nihiltres^{t.l} 04:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"Flagging" is just a method of tagging a static version in the article's history. We already have the capacity to link to the FA or GA version of an article; flagging in this case would just be a technical shortcut. And it will be a good thing when it's implemented. But a purely static version is not what a wiki is all about. What a "Slow Wikipedia" would allow is the continued development of high quality articles in a sheltered but wiki-driven environment, without any significant risk of decay.--Pharos (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds to me very much like Wikipedia 1.0. Kevin Baas^talk 23:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would actually see this as a practical implementation toward that goal.--Pharos (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This was very close to my

Wikipedia:Stable versions proposal. I think each article should have a "stable" version that only sees small fixes and a "development" version for major refactoring and development, analogous to software forking. But I don't see software support for this happening any time soon. A more modern proposal is meta:Reviewed_article_version. Dcoetzee

00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should wait any longer for software changes that will never come, and that even if they do come, might not be really what we want. I am proposing a process that tries to work within the existing processes of Wikipedia as much as possible.--Pharos (talk) 02:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this idea already taken up by Veropedia? Captain panda 01:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever process the Veropedia people are attempting, I wish them well in it. But I do not think we should rely on outsourcing the goal of reliable articles outside of Wikipedia—and certainly, any process that works inside Wikipedia would have the greatest chance of attracting participation and success.--Pharos (talk) 02:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I **really** want Flagged revisions to be implemented! Why oh why has it stalled? By the way, "Slow Wikipedia" sounds negative. Alternatively, flip things around so that only

FA or GA class articles are in the main namespace, and everything else is considered a draft, in the Draft: namespace. • Anakin ^(talk)

14:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking of an analogy with Slow Food, and trying to look at the issue counterintuitive to our usual perspective. I would agree in regarding uncertified articles as "drafts", though it might be too drastic to consider putting the "regular" articles in the new namespace. Of course, any "regular" article would continue being edited at its breakneck pace, alongside its more placid "Slow Wikipedia" sister article, and I expect a fruitful dialogue would develop between the two.--Pharos (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I had proposed the idea of making and "Edu" version of Wikipedia at

Thanks Ray, I've removed the large discussion you copy-pasted into this section. You should know that Jimbo's talk page is not the place to make proposals. Instead, you should start a discussion on this page, but under your own section. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 06:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Korea has made some video games, manwha(their version of manga), animation,movies, etc.. I can't find any articles about Korea's entertainment section. It seems their manwha, video games, and animations are neglected. I think we need a Korea Entertainment Project.71.142.242.233 (talk) 06:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

I see no changes

06:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The current wording in the {{

If the text in the {{

See also here:

Oops, I just noticed that the current template does include a link to

WP:DP, although a very small one. So I still think a rewording would be a good idea. --RenniePet (talk

) 08:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Google Map allows users to embed its navigable maps in the users' webpages, blogs, etc. but it comes with the Google Ads. However, Wikimapia.org (yes a non-profit) is also using Google maps, yet there is absolutely no advertisement running in the page. The only thing (I guess) you can call as advertisement there is the "powered by Google" logo. Maybe Wikipedia may make arrangements with Google to allow embedded Google maps in Wikipedia that comes with no ads. It will be very helpful in some articles, especially those that discuss the terrain and scape (e.g., cityscape) of a place and that no appropriate available free map is available. Wikipedia’s objective is to collect knowledge and make it available to millions of users worldwide. I believe Google maps can help booster Wikipedia’s current knowledge base.

As an example, in one of the articles I authored,

--Estarapapax ^{Talk! Contribs!} 12:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

While it may be technically legal to have Google Maps embedded in a Wikipedia page, there are various reasons why this can't be done, since the map data is copyrighted and it would need to be released under a free license that covers all reusers, not just Wikipedia. However, it is possible to follow the instructions on

(Talk)

13:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have patched up my old proposal. Please reconsider! Park Crawler (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The proposal is reworded slightly ([1]), but essentially identical. Problems identified during the last go-round have not been addressed; the proposal remains {rejected}. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Recently I've run into some difficulties with the Special:Newpages page. Users are frequently creating large numbers of articles in a relatively short period of time, clogging up the queue and making it harder to find actual articles in need of patrolling. Normally this isn't a problem in articles, but in the category namespace patrol where I do the bulk of my patrols, where a user can easily create many categories with little difficulty, this has become quite a nuisance.

It's a waste of the time and energy of patrollers to go through users whom we know aren't vandals. There are many examples to choose from:

• Dimadick (talk · contribs) created 219 categories about elections and political parties as well as an early smattering of valid categories I have personally looked through. The majority of these were created within a 48 hour span.
• Good Olfactory (talk · contribs) created 567 total categories, 178 of which are recent and unpatrolled, of religious people by country. All are valid and conform to our naming conventions. Most of them were created within the page two weeks.
• Plasma east (talk · contribs) has created 342 categories relating to transportation, including rail transport and aerospace museums over the month of February alone.
• 16@r (talk · contribs) created 82 categories relating to telecommunications, television and the Internet.

Some are even from mainspace:

• talk · contribs) created
  110 articles pertaining to foreign relations in the past week.
• Taivo (talk · contribs) created 58 articles of languages over the past week.
• talk · contribs) created
  4,805 articles within the past MONTH. If there was ever a need for someone with autopatrol, he exemplifies it.

Giving administrators the power to flag trusted users, like the ones above, so that their creations are automatically patrolled would help reduce the strain on a greatly burdened system. It would allow us to actually evaluate questionable articles instead of developing carpal tunnel syndrome clearing out the backlogs of these users above. Please help us. Thank you. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. Even the categories, for example, should be checked for typos in the category name. I'd only think we should flag a few things, like the next Rambot - or a bot taking entries from Wikispecies as the basis for stubs here.

GRBerry

21:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Typos would indeed be a possibility and a valid concern, but I disagree that the issue should prevent us from autoflagging worthy users. The ability to clear out massive valid chunks of our backlog is, to me, slightly more important than the rare and easily noticeable category typo. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

A brief scan of the talk page of at least one of the users mentioned above will demonstrate that 'trustedworthyness' is not necessarily evidence of good sense. Similarly, the user who created 4,805 articles in the space of one month is probably in need of a good talking to. Does that user have permission to run a create-article bot? Judging from the edit history, this is quite obviously what he/she is doing.

While someone who has a particular interest in television or transportation or whatever will eventually run out of categories to create, and these creations are all part of normal "interest", the other -- and very abnormal -- edit patterns are just the sort of thing that should be seen on Newpages. No one who creates oodles of categories outside his/her sphere of interest is ever going to bother to maintain those categories, and an editor who creates 4800+ one line geo stubs in a month is without question asking to be hit over the head with a non-wp:notable trout. Both editors are gaming the system in that they are counting on it to be too much effort for anyone to bother to clean up their droppings.

-- Fullstop (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles about cites defined by a government are inherently notable - like the Rambot stubs. Also, IIRC, he is not running a bot, he's just using a standard template for each page, and probably tabbed browsing. Also, how much maintenance do categories need, and since when is it solely the responsibility of the creator to maintain a page? Mr.Z-man 23:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know which user you're speaking of, but these are just recent examples. And if your concern is that these are just one-time things, which is an understandable one, keep in mind that there are other category creators whose interests are far more diverse.

talk · contribs) has a one-month category creation log (I wish we had ones that went further back) of category creations, all valid, that cover topics such as cinema and health and countries ranging from Kosovo to Korea. My own log is just as diverse. As for the 4800+ article creation, it's hardly different from when we uploaded the U.S. Census data a few years back and created 30,000+ articles on towns in the United States. But that to me is more of a debate over worldliness and systemic bias than my proposal.--Hemlock Martinis (talk

) 23:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

My point was... While there is no question that most established users are inherently trustworthy, which criteria would one employ to flag an editor as such? i.e. Where does trustworthiness begin: Doesn't AGF tell us that all users inherently trustworthy, or is it some arbitrary number of creates that determines the threshold of trustworthiness?

But isn't someone who is trusted to create new articles without oversight not also trustworthy enough to wield a mop? Or even, to efficiently revert vandalism (read: hold the new rollback bit)?

In any case, it ought not to be very difficult to have a javascript routine 'hide' Newpage entries that are by editors that have any trusted bit set (rollback, admin, bureaucrat whatever).

-- Fullstop (talk) 08:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You're reading way too far into this. I'm just proposing this to allow us to more effectively comb through the Newpages backlog by not wasting time on users that we know aren't creating crap. Their ability to wield a mop or fight vandalism is irrelevant. It's a different kind of trust.

Your questions about criteria are valid though. This ability wouldn't really be something that could be abused, so any criteria should be loose in that regard. I would go personally by more of an "I know it when I see it" philosophy; that is, I weigh each individual's contributions and creations separate from other individuals and go by my own personal judgment, and trust my fellow administrators to do the same. Likewise, if we later determine that a user is probably not suitable for autopatrol, we remove it. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have the ability to hide users who have created more than a certain amount of articles (say 1000) in the same way you can hide bot created articles? This would mean that patrollers could concentrate on the articles more likely to be troublesome if they wish, while not bringing in autopatrolling with all the problems that this could bring. JASpencer (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I like that idea a lot, but I would like to see a lower number. Personally I'd love 150, but 300 is probably more reasonable. Would this be sum creations (that is, the number's based off of articles created since the beginning) or monthly? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

When someone is googling for something, he or she probably clicks on the first option without being aware of the contents of the wikipedia disclaimer. Wikipedia disclaimer does not show up anytime in the process and even I, as an editor to wikipedia, was not aware of it before certain issues were brought up. If the main point of wikipedia is to provide information, then what's the point of not telling the readers about what they may see.

Here is my suggestion:

As we have a "Did you know" on the main page that talks about interesting things about the article, we create a box at the top of any article and put up there notable facts about the article. Its content can range from the date of creation of the article, its status, its stability, the expected time to read it, important stuff, or even certain interesting content issues if there is a consensus for that. --Be happy!! (talk) 06:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What would the purpose of that information be? Jmlk17 20:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

To provide information about the history of the article on wikipedia. For example if the article has been in DYK, what the content of DYK had been (of course if there is no disagreement that it is POV). Anything notable about the article that worth mentioning. --Be happy!! (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. But I think putting it on the top of every article could be annoying, I'd like it in the sidebar. I'd probably include date of creation, Wikiproject rating if available, basically stuff that can be generated automatically. I'd be more sceptical towards a human written box. Puchiko (Talk-email) 20:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. the side bar format, if noticeable, would be good as well :) --Be happy!! (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

{{

dyktalk}} is a "This page was listed at DYK" (+date) banner template for talk pages. The template could probably be extended to hold the text of the DYK as well. -- Fullstop (talk

) 20:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but one can have a short notice at the article's page as well. --Be happy!! (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This stuff can be found by looking on the article's talk page anyway, and including information on controversies involving the article would violate

WP:ASR. This sounds like another Muhammad image proposal anyway. Hut 8.5

21:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I object to the disingenuous way in which this has been presented - the real agenda here is hidden in "or even certain interesting content issues if there is a consensus for that. ", this is an attempt to create a thin end of the wedge, what this editor is actually interested in is getting religious disclaimer stuck on the Muhammad article, once the disclaimer is in place, the next step will be "well we have the disclaimer in place, so we might as well hide the images". I have no issue with a statistic box making of objective facts about an article but under no circumstances should we start slapping subjective POV content disclaimers on article based upon the perceived offence of sections of our readers. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And I've got to wonder why we are bothering with this charade, if the proposer is going to run to Jimbo and make emotional special pleading about "forcing people to sin" and try and get him to overturn our normal policy on disclaimers. If you have that much contempt for the views of your fellow editors, why bother with this? --Fredrick day (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not support the idea of including disclaimers at the tops of articles, even when tucked away in content that is not a disclaimer. We are not subservient to Google and do not have to engage in any special behavior merely because our articles come up high in the search results. - Chardish (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Jmlk17 09:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If the idea is good, but some potential applications of the idea are bad, support the original proposal and oppose its being used for the specific purposes to which you object. Addressing the merit of an idea (which may be lacking here, or may not) is usually a more constructive way to approach a discussion than attacking the person. That's called ad hominem circumstantial. Discussions of Good Faith don't enter into it, because this is not a situation in which you MUST trust the person to evaluate the idea. By analogy, if someone you considered a 'problem editor' painstakingly copy-edited a few thosand words in an article, you would not be justified in reverting those edits SIMPLY because you thought the editor might be up to something bad later. Balonkey (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the idea. - Chardish (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Jmlk17 06:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for bringing this back from the most recent archival, but I just thought it was interesting to note that this proposal was mentioned in New York Magazine (this very proposal, along with the name "Wikimorgue"): "Someone recently proposed a Wikimorgue—a bin of broken dreams where all rejects could still be read, as long as they weren't libelous or otherwise illegal. Like other middens, it would have much to tell us over time. We could call it the Deletopedia." Words to ponder. I know we're working on Wikipedia:Trash namespace, but maybe this might be a source of some renewed interest. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:36, 2 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this. I will cite that article in Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. –Pomte 18:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of you probably know that there is a strong controversy regarding some images posted on Wikipedia article on Muhammad. More specifically these are the images that show an attempt to draw his face (i.e. this and this ). About one year back, on behalf of the community some editors and admins have decided to retain those images on the article. However, because of the changed circumstances (widespread awareness about the issue and a strong opinion against that decision) we need to revisit that decision. I have the following proposal to make in this regard. I have made this suggestion on designated Article talk page, but I have been told there, unless I get my proposal validated here, it is "hot air". So here I am. I request Wikipedia admins to go through this post and if it sounds reasonable, please request the admins who are deciding the fate of article Muhammad to atleast nullify the erlier concensus and reopen serious discussion.

Maybe this should be added to WP:Perennial proposals. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:42, 4 Mar 2008 (UTC)

The broader 'content warnings' section of that page seems to already touch on the matter (though only slightly). Perhaps it could be expanded a bit, so as to cover things like this. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have posted the suggestions in the help desk but all I get is people telling me to post them here or in Bugzilla. I've done that but have gotten nothing back. I just want someone to tell me no were not doing that or yes we want to do that.

• User Talk Pages Suggestion

I have a suggestion which would be a pretty big overhaul of the user talk pages system used by Wikipedia. I have noticed that users always struggle with this when commenting and replying in user talk pages. When someone leaves a comment, do you reply on their talk page or on your own? If you do it on your own, will they see the reply? Have they set your talk page for watching? The result of this is almost always having half a conversation on one page and the other half on another page. Sometimes they even duplicate messages on both talk pages.

My suggestion is to have each comment section in a type of "template" in some Wikipedia Comments database, while only adding tags to all user talk pages of those who have participated (left a comment) in the section. Whenever someone edits the comment, they can do it on their own talk page, and even when it seems thay are editing their talk page, they are actually editing the template, so the changes will appear in all pages who have the tag. This way the full conversation will be visible in all user talk pages, and will never be duplicated. Every comment would have an ID (e.g. 00215468) and its template page has everything including the title, all messages and a list of all users who have commented on the section. When a user chooses to add a section to any user talk page nothing will be apparently different since the interface would remain the same, but they will be creating or editing a "template" without openly realizing it.

An example tag that would be included in user talk pages could be something like this:

{{Comment:00215468|title=Suggestion}}

Everytime the comment is edited, all users listed for the comment will receive the "new message" notice.

This would not apply for article discussion pages since it is better to keep those attached to their articles like they are now.

Some users have implemented it manually (e.g. User_talk:Alphax/Threads) but I would like to see if it is possible for Wikipedia officials to implement this natively into Wikipedia.

• Delayed Educational Wikipedia Suggestion

I'd also like to see an Educational version of Wikipedia. Let me explain myself. I know Wikipedia is very educational at the moment. The problem is that I have seen so many complaints about users searching for information on Wikipedia just to find a blanked page with streams of nasty curse words splattered all over (which I know don't last very long). Still, many children use Wikipedia for school/educational purposes and are vulnerable to sudden bursts of strong language, profanity and even adult content. My suggestion is to create a "filter domain" which is an "edu" Wikipedia address, that schools and parents can add to their "safe sites" list that would filter Wikipedia pages. The filtering can be fairly simple that would only allow pages with certain properties:

1) Locked pages

2) Special pages

3) Exclude pages with certain key words (profanity) in their content even if informative

4) Pages that have been unchanged by x minutes (x being a statistical number derived from the maximum amount of minutes a vandalized article stays unfixed)

These are just examples. Other rules can also be included.

Wikipedia has highly reliable information which can be stained by very short vandalism periods. A "delayed" version of Wikipedia would be priceless.

Please let me know! Thanks! ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 18:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a "delayed" Wikipedia would be very good provided the delay time was set too short. Rather I think the first thing that should happen for Educational Wikipedia should be that we set up a series of anti-vandalism bots (~50 of them should be good) here on English Wiki, and set the new article delay for 1 day. After that, a page becomes semi-locked after diasppearing from the New Articles log. Strenuous, but possible, and maybe even neccesary if the site is set up. --

^{REV LIMITER}

19:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The anti-vandalism bots are doing a pretty good job at the moment. Only a delay must be added. A day could be a possible delay time. Semi-locking or locking the articles, in my opinion, would not be beneficial. Remember that it should be only a filter, not an overhaul of the articles system. The filter should not intervene with current editing, meaning that Wikipedians should not see any change. The suggestion is not about building and copying the whole encyclopedia with safe content either. It's just a tiny little filter. I feel safe to say that a significant delay would ensure the integrity of the articles practically 100% of the time. For new articles, for example, a rule could be that a {{safe-article|user1|user2|user3|user4|user5}} tag with 5 registered user's "votes" must be included before it can appear in the Educational Wikipedia.

Also note that the current Wikipedia pages such as http://en.wikipedia.org will see no change. People visiting the original site will see unfiltered content such as how it is now. Only those that visit the filter page (e.g. http://edu.en.wikipedia.org) will see filtered content. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 19:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. That sounds better. I presonally think it should be 10-15 uses signing the template (20 if possible). This would allow more of the community to comment. --

^{REV LIMITER}

23:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought I heard there was something being considered or worked on where new versions of pages would not be displayed immediately to most users, so a more stable, more trusted version would tend to be displayed. I forget where I heard about that -- maybe it's in Bugzilla somewhere or something.

Re talk pages: It's good that you're thinking about that. Maybe someday we'll get a better system. I wouldn't like the system you describe because people would either have to be able to unsubscribe from those threads, or not. If they can, then when you post you wouldn't know whether a certain user was going to see it or not. If not, even worse: people would be subjected to seeing long threads on topics they're no longer interested in.

I think pretty good solutions are: Usually reply on the same talk page where the conversation started; and if you want to make sure the other person gets the message, use the {{Talkback}} template on their talk page. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

For the "delayed" proposal, it sounds a little like

Wikipedia:Flagged revisions, an extension to MediaWiki which has not yet been activated on en.Wikipedia, partially because it's still in testing and partially because no-one's worked out exactly how to implement it here (and after the kerfuffle that happened when the developers introduced non-admin rollback, it may take a bit longer). Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!

) 03:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As for the talk page suggestion, I think we're waiting on another MediaWiki extension, called LiquidThreads. So your ideas are good, the thing is that there's already some development on related solutions (although with the number of things the developers are working on, any kind of change to the status quo will be some time in the making). Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 03:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a Wikipedia for schools. Basically what they did was choose the most important articles (it's based around the UK National curriculum), checked them for factual accuracy, and age-appropriateness. The Wikipedia for schools is available for free download (torrent or direct) or viewing in your browser without downloading anything. What I think is important is for schools to know about this resource and use it. It's been there for over 10 months, but it isn't used much because parents and teachers know nothing about it. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And because it obviously does not have the extensive content available at Wikipedia itself. Creating another website, selecting, fixing and copying Wikipedia articles is too much, since it is not maintained by the whole Wikipedia community. The idea is to use the same content, from the same source, only automatically filtered a bit. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 13:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As the community anticipates a few closures of current

This is already being discussed at

WT:RFA. Davewild (talk

) 07:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't noticed that a discussion about this was already happening there. Húsönd 10:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

it may be useless, but could you add built-in increase text button? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.34.37.64 (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This is built-in on most browsers. On Firefox and IE ctrl-shift-+ works. Algebraist 14:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, every browser has text-size increase/decrease capabilities.

* Firefox: As Algebraist notes, or Ctrl-+ and Ctrl-- (and Ctrl-0 to reset), or Menu::"View"->"Text size"

* Opera: '+' to increase , '-' to decrease, '*' to reset; or Menu::"View"->"Zoom"

* Safari: same keyboard accelerators as Firefox, or Menu->"View"->"Make text bigger" etc

* Konqueror: keyboard accelerators and menu as in Firefox

* IE and AOL Browser: Menu::"View"->"Text size", but don't count on it working correctly.

-- Fullstop (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And in IE (newer versions) there is a "zoom" (in the right bottom corner) affecting the whole page, including text. −Woodstone (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, Opera has the same kind of full-page-zoom feature as well. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Use Ctrl-mouse wheel to increase or decrease the size.

I see no changes

23:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)