Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 26

Can you give multiple examples of misuses of Twinkle that justifies changing the requirements? -62.172.143.205 (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

About three years ago I recall asking if there was anyway to block a vandal or persistent stalker from posting to your user or user talk page. However, by accident I have recently discovered a way to do just that - at least in terms of a "quicky" vandal who is unwilling or unable to go to the extra trouble it takes to find your user or user talk page and cause trouble. The method is simply to use a different name (such as your real first name) in your raw signature line. The solution is that simple. Thanks. --Taxa 13:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

And what about editors that have a legitimate need to contact you? EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It can still be done but not as quickly. --Taxa 17:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxa (talk • contribs)

This post resulted from

WP:SIG. I agree with EVula; we shouldn't put obstacles like this in the way of legitimate editors in order to make things harder for a few vandals. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs}

) 14:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Its not a major obstacle and besides the sinebot usually corrects the missing link in a relatively short amount of time. No one should be so disparate to contact you that they can not wait for the sinebot to appear. --Taxa 17:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxa (talk • contribs)

SineBot is not a replacement for normal user signature, it was designed for those who do not know how or forgot to sign. Besides, you admit yourself that SineBot makes your "method" ineffective anyway. Please fix your signature. —AlexSm 17:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This method is also unlikely to have much effect: I find that vandals usually find my userpage (which is semi-and-move-protected) and my talk page (which is move-protected) through my contributions which are reversions of their vandalism. As one's signature does not appear on the contributions page, but instead links to one's userpage, this anti-vandal method is not very effective, either. If you're worried about vandalism to your userpage, request that it be semi-protected at

WP:RPP. Nihiltres^{t.l

} 15:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition to what EVula and Matt said, not linking to either your user or talk page is a clear violation of WP:SIG, which states "at least one of those two pages must be linked from your signature." --Kralizec! (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur, there must be some link to your user-space in your signature and you must use your signature regularly when editing. MBisanz ^talk 19:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Apart from all these, I should like to draw attention to the lightness of Taxa's signature; many editors will have a hard time reading it, and the lack of a link does not help things in the least. Waltham, The Duke of 19:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• I propose that it is a requirement of
  WP:SIG that every user signature must contain a link to one's userspace; it must be a clear link and not concealed in any way. —TreasuryTag—t—c
  18:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia talk:Signatures#Proposed new section from March (and Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 6#What to do if someone doesn't seem to want a signature? and Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 6#No links in a signature). At least we don't have a problem with images anymore! -- Quiddity (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I made a kind of silly typo, in other language wiki. It looks something like ('(' and ')' are used instead of '[' and ']' to prevent link here)

((:en:exiting page)) instead of ((:en"existing page))

However, on preview, the interwiki link (on left side, which reads "English" was not red, so I did not notice. (so it went out. and when clicked new page for edit pops out)

Is it possible to make it red?

Thank you very much. AIEA (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This totally makes sense. Red interwiki links would help to identify typos and when articles are deleted in other languages. Interwikis can be accurate without having to rely entirely upon bots. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

While red links for bad interwiki links would be useful, it's probably not trivial to implement. When Wikipedia software builds a page for display, it checks (internal) wikilinks in order to mark them for the browser to display. What is being suggested here is that the software needs to go outside of en.wikipedia.org in order to determine validity. Yes, all Wikipedias run on the same set of servers - but each uses a different instance of the software, including a different database. So now information is going to have to be fetched via an API or other database call - en.wikipedia.org needs to ask (say) fr.wikipedia.org if a given page exists or not. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

How would that be any more difficult than simply checking if the page's edit box has any text in it? Or checking the revision history to see if there are any entries? I'm not much of a programmer, but I can't imagine it would be that difficult to implement. And if it were, so what? John F. Kennedy would want to try it. :) --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see how – if not implemented very carefully and thoughtfully – such checks could be quite (computationally) costly. Articles on major topics can have more than a hundred outgoing interlanguage links (see, for example, the city of London). Checking all of those outgoing links every time the article is edited, previewed, or read could cause some very serious issues. As John notes, en.wikipedia would have to send queries to dozens of other wikipedia instances and wait for replies from all of them.

It would be a nice feature to have. Getting it to work in a test instance would be pretty easy. Implementing it in a way that doesn't hammer the servers is hard. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I also found that broken interwikilink is not red either. ie not red is not red, and if you click this link, the page you get is what red link would show in Italian one. It may not be easy for programmers to fix, but it is not straightforward to users to follow link either.AIEA (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Support, though it's not the highest priority. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, There is a BIG backstory behind this article.

This is already been discussed at deletion review

here which is where this should probably be discussed. Davewild (talk

) 07:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ops... thanks for that. Fosnez (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at the page

For a respected editor, when seeing an off-topic discussion, he/she could probably post a link to an appropriate website to carry on the discussion -- once in a while. But a designated area for links like that is just asking for advertisements/spam, so it's not a good idea. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm? What designated area? --Kubanczyk (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

guh...? Either I'm senile at 26 or I inadvertently replied to a thread that was removed from the page just before I clicked edit. In answer to your proposal, I think you're right -- experienced Wikipedians tend not to respect the help pages' value. Those pages in the Wikipedia: space that are more or less identical to a help page should probably be redirected, as long as they're instructions and not guidelines. Guidelines (even rules that haven't been tagged as guidelines or policies) should stay in Wikipedia: space, though. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you were replying to #"Discussion Links", way up top. Algebraist 01:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

which had no business being there anyway. Rectified. Algebraist 01:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(moved to Wikipedia talk:Categorization. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

I beleive that entry is needed for Lt. Micheal Moulton. He was a Revolutionary Soldier and Moulton, Alabama is named after him. He accompananied Gen. Andrew Jackson at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.222.105.224 (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please make your suggestion at

WP:RA. This isn't the right place. -- Kesh (talk

)

I've noticed that many users will use the discussion page of an article to debate the topic of the article, not the article itself. Instead of simply telling them not to discuss these things, give them a space on the page to put links to other website or chatrooms where they can discuss them. 168.216.176.35 (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

For a respected editor, when seeing an off-topic discussion, he/she could probably post a link to an appropriate website to carry on the discussion -- once in a while. But a designated area for links like that is just asking for advertisements/spam, so it's not a good idea. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been experimenting with a shadowing template I created and decided to test it in my Main Page sandbox. Please check it out and give me feedback. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 02:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks neat, but I think the multiple shades look odd. I think just the last, lightest box alone would give a more believable drop-shadow effect. Drop-shadow filters in image editing programs, for example, generally just add the one layer alone. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks neat, trying to figure out how I'd use it, but yea it is a cool thing. MBisanz ^talk 11:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Equazcion that the multiple shades look wrong. It is simpler to use one single shade. If you are going to use several shades you should not stack them diagonally like you did, instead you should stack smaller and smaller variants over the same centre to achieve a real looking shadow with toned borders.

--David Göthberg (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean. The template has the capability to be used for lighter shadow as well as diminishing the shadow spread which would minimize the effect you mention. With your suggestions I'm planning to add another variable like "simple = true" or something that would only display one shade instead of multiple. As per your comment David, I completely agree with you, but I'm still on the concept side of the development of the template. To create a more realistic effect I would use the same diagonal technique I used but with a lot more shades allowing for a lot less positioning shift from the previous shade since I like drop shadows and not perspective ones. Doing it over the same centre would create kind of a perspective shadow. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 17:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

OK I just added the single shade option using the "simple=true" parameter. Is this what you meant? ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 17:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I really like the simplicity and streamlined look of it now, with the "simple=true" parameter resulting in it being all one shade. hmwithτ 18:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As some might already be aware, I suggested this a while ago, and when no one was interested I

Now, keep in mind as you read this, that presently, this toolbar, well, sort of sucks. It's the first Firefox extension I've ever attempted to write, and I didn't have the inclination to really delve deep into the various possibilities. So while I think it's pretty useful, it's really still quite basic, no-frills, and essentially it boils down to some shortcuts that I sought to make for my own use.

Nevertheless, less than 4 months later, the download count reads 600, and that's just at the extension's Mozilla page.

To give you an idea of the significance of that number:

• If you'll read
  WP:WPTB
  , the Mozilla page is actually considered a secondary download site. People who find the toolbar via its Wikepedia page are strongly advised to download from a different external site, the downloads from which I have no way of keep count of. So the 600 count likely doesn't include those who found the extension here.

• Also, the extension is currently not in Mozilla's main public listing. Right now, it's in what they call the "sandbox", where just about anyone can upload just about any extension, and most of them don't get much attention. As far as I can see, the number of downloads this is getting is astronomical in comparison to other non-public extensions.

In the past, I think the mention of a Wikipedia toolbar made people cringe, because they think of crappy ad-campaign toolbars like Google and Yahoo. Had I heard the suggestion I might've thought the same myself. However I'd attest now that a toolbar doesn't need to be something that takes over the user's computer. It can instead be a real asset, especially to WP junkies who spend entirely too much time here (such as myself). My goal here is now to get some more interest going in development of this, perhaps even by Wikipedia's developers. There's only so much I can do here myself, and I think it's a shame that a tool with so much interest and potential has to be so limited.

The fact that this toolbar, in its admittedly very basic form, currently averages over 60 downloads a week, just at the secondary site (and that's a number that's been climbing steadily for as long as I can remember) should surely tell us that this is something worth serious consideration. I'm reasonably certain that a well-written tool could help get more people involved in the project, get more of the casual users to be more involved, and not to mention, make work easier for our current regulars. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea.! Fully supported :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Kudos on developing this. There was another Wiki toolbar for Firefox some years back, with some nice features such as custom macros etc. Unfortunately, it seems to have been abandoned and is no longer compatible with current versions of Firefox. I'll check and see if I can find more about it as the features may be useful here. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at that old one back when I made the initial proposal. It seems to have just recreated some buttons of the MediaWiki edit bar as a Firefox toolbar. That is to say, it was mainly for use while editing a page, rather than a "traditional" toolbar made for navigating/searching. At least that was my understanding -- I couldn't actually install it because it hadn't been updated in a while and wasn't compatible with the current Firefox. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for the kudos :) I would like to get more people other than myself involved in development though, like I said. I'm quite beginner at this. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Howzat for a provocative headline, eh?" — superluser_tc

There have been some discussion on Template talk:Reflist about whether to remove multicolumn support from {{reflist}}. The simple solution would be to remove support for it in the reflist template, however, some users suggested it might be better to have a policy change? (I'm guessing they where referring to MoS?). So if you have any thoughts about that please consider taking part in the discussion.
— Apis (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I just did my first Deletion review, and as I noted there apparently the Deletion review doesn't drop automatically drop a note on the relevant AfD. That would be convenient for people looking at the AfD later, but even more convenient is that it would let people who are still watching the AfD know about the Deletion review. I think that, whenever possible, we should automatically link relevant things together. Previous AfDs should be automatically linked to later AfDs, previous RfAs should be linked to subsequent RfAs, ect. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 03:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

^Agree completely. The fact that people watching the deletion discussion aren't notified that it ended up at DRV is a problem. A link should be automatically generated and placed in the XfD. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Imperfectly informed"... Tell me about it. :-)

I also agree; there is a need for good information flow. There should be a certain degree of standardisation, I suppose... A dedicated section in each page, perhaps, to be added only in the event of further action on a deletion. I don't know the deletion pages that well, but I've seen templates used in some cases; however, template proliferation should be avoided. Any ideas? Waltham, The Duke of 22:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a template to link to previous deletion discussions. I don't think I've ever seen one linking to deletion reviews once a deletion ends up there. Perhaps we just need to create a template, then people would use it. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Change_to_DRV_instructions. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'll get around to doing it, but I can't make any guarantees. Ideally we should construct a database which automatically links up articles with the same title and transcludes a list of all the old DRVs/AfDs I don't think relying on human input is efficient or long-term feasible -- it requires too much reading and attention. Impin | {talk - contribs} 09:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

When there's a renewed deletion attempt of something that previously survived XfD, the new XfD should include a link to the old one(s) (though this isn't always done); but, to spread the notice more widely, the old, archived XfD should be edited to include a link to the new one. In fact, I'm inclined to say that anyone reopening a previous discussion, whether through a new XfD or a DRV, should be required to drop a note on the talk page of every editor who expressed a contrary opinion in the earlier discussion. A prior decision shouldn't be overturned just because the people whose views prevailed then didn't happen to know about the new discussion. JamesMLane t c 15:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That is an impossible task. Why not tell people to keep these things on their watchlists, and then change the old XfD page. It sounds like you're suggesting this, but not realizing that by doing it, you can be informing people efficiently. You need to consider that we're volunteers with limited time. It's not smart to waste that time on endless bureaucracy. Plus, there's often a ridiculous number people weighing in on these things. Impin | {talk - contribs} 09:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. Magioladitis put something on my talk page about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Sullivan, which otherwise I would most likely not have known about. Thanks Magioladitis! That should be a required step for new XfDs -- Imperator3733 (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

After the deletion discussion of Modernista!/Notice, which thoroughly rejected the idea of a disclaimer on the Modernista! article, a disclaimer of sorts was added to MediaWiki:Common.js that is displayed to anyone coming to Wikipedia from modernista.com. I do not believe there was community consensus to do so and am proposing that this is removed from Common.js. --- RockMFR 19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What did/does the notice read? For those of us not familiar with the situation you may need to explain this more. I tried the deletion discussion but it wasn't apparent what the notice said or why it was originally thought necessary. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Also this is probably better suited to AN or ANI than proposals. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that, like the move feature, we require some time before people are allowed to upload images. I find it quite common to see people who are simply using Wikipedia as their personal image storage place. Besides, there is no reason for someone's first edit to be an image upload. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This would also greatly reduce the number of problematic images uploaded. The statistics I've seen are a year or so out of date, but something like 50% of all deleted images were uploaded by people who aren't autoconfirmed. --Carnildo (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't I know it. Sometimes it's simply a technical issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Support, this would make it much more difficult for fools to upload vandalistic images and copyright violations.

Perhaps something has changed, or there is incorrect information at Wikipedia:User access levels, or I'm misreading it, because it seems to say that an editor must be autoconfirmed in order to upload an image. Your statistics may not reflect that.

That doesn't mean (at the moment) that an editor's first action can't be to upload - it just means that the account needs to be at least four days old, so that it becomes autoconfirmed; then the editor can start uploading. And if that seems like a good argument for adding an edit requirement in order to become autoconfirmed, and/or lengthening the amount of time until autoconfirmation, then you might want to express your opinion at Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed Proposal/Poll‎. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd support adding an edit requirement for autoconfirmation. I'm thinking something in the low double-digit range, like 10-15 edits, although that might be a bit low. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Heck, I didn't even know that an editor had to be autoconfirmed to upload; I never paid attention. Oh well, it wasn't my proposal.

talk

) 00:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does the German Wikipedia logo look so much better than ours? Can we do whatever they did? Notice their smooth anti-aliasing and lack of any white edge around the globe, despite the transparency. Any thoughts?

Equazcion •✗/C • 17:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Even better, would be to fix the errors in the logo.

The last mention was Brion's message in June 2007: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-June/030972.html

The listings at these 2 pages, Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos#The current logo and meta:Logo#Current logos, claim we're using different (fixed) logos, Image:Wikipedia-logo-en-big.png and Image:Wikipedia-logo.png, from the one we actually are using.

From a glance at commons:Category:Wikipedia logos, about 1/5 of the Wikipedias are using an updated/fixed logo:

Everything else I could find (back in Jan 2007) is listed at: User talk:Ambuj.Saxena/Wikipedia-logo#All the related discussion links

I emailed all this to Brion about 3 weeks ago, but he didn't respond. I was going to wait another week, before emailing someone else, but since you've brought it up... :)

Anyone know what's going on, or where/who to ask? -- Quiddity (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I doubt there is any one person in control of the logo, I'd imagine any admin can change it. I defiantly agree with its replacement, I say just use the exact image that our German counterpart is using, bar the German tag line of course... ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 19:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

On some wikis the logo can be changed by admins at Image:Wiki.png, but that isn't enabled here. A request on Bugzilla could get it changed. Mr.Z-man 22:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This has long been suggested but there's been no activity and has turned largely into a farce. Someone needs to take the initiative and get the mistakes in the logo fixed and the ugly transparency problems and get them included. -Halo (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I support switching to the improved logo along with fixing all the logo errors. -- penubag  (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the German style is better. Hut 8.5 19:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Much better, in my opinion. Waltham, The Duke of 03:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• See bugzilla:14137. If someone knows the exact locations of the logos in use at both English and German Wikipedias, I can composite the image myself and upload it. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  http://en.wikipedia.org/images/wiki-en.png and http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/b/bc/Wiki.png Dragons flight (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks, I'll post again when it's uploaded. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  Oops, please note I corrected the DE link above. Apparently dewiki is configured to draw their logo from a location other than the default. Dragons flight (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks again. One more question: Anyone have any idea which fonts were used for the banner? I can fix the globe easily by copying the German one, but the English text has aliasing problems and I obviously can't copy the German text. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  PS I just need to know which one was used for "The Free Encyclopedia". "WikipediA" itself can be copied from the German logo as well. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  Nevermind, found it. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I also like the look of the Simple Wikipedia, it is very crisp and clean. Maybe just a tiny contrast adjustment and it would be better than the German Wikipedia. -- penubag  (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

New logo

Resolved

 – fixed version implemented

Equazcion •✗/C • 18:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me know what you think. This is Image:WikiNewSample.png, a sample showing the new image, Image:WikiNew.png, against our background. See Image:WikiNew.png for the actual new logo with transparent background. According to the Bugzilla response, when we're ready, the image needs to be uploaded to Image:Wiki.png, then full protect the image description page again, then re-open the bugzilla ticket. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Looks much better. Go for it. Can't be letting the Germans out-do us!
  talk ¿ review
  ) 16:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• This is so obviously an improvement I see no particular point in waiting. Dragons flight (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support changing the logo. Obvious improvement due to the removal of the rather unprofessional white lip. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Definitely support I don't even know if this is controversial. I mean, it's not like we're changing the logo, it's just a higher quality version than we had before. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• I honestly can't see the difference. And does it make a difference? Who stares at the logo for hours deciding how transparent the barely visible back layer of colouring is? NIN (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• So...weak support? The difference is pretty apparent to me, now that it's been pointed out.
  talk ¿ review
  ) 18:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• The difference is subtle, but on a site as prominent as ours, subtle imperfections come across as unprofessional. This would also vastly improve the appearance of user pages that have custom background image placed under the logo, such as
  User talk:LaraLove. I know that's not the most important thing to consider, but it is an added benefit. Equazcion •✗/C •
  18:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• i like the crisper look of the old logo. The new one looks too soft. Maybe something inbetween? --Dschwen 18:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• The new logo is a vast improvement. I definitely support this change. hmwithτ 18:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• We need approval to fix ugly graphics errors? Just do it.
  t/e
  18:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Like Lawrence Cohen, I do not really even see a need for a discussion about this, I say apply
  WP:BOLD and just change it. Tiptoety ^talk
  18:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It needs to be done by an admin. Place Image:WikiNew.png at Image:Wiki.png, then full-protect the image description page again. Once that's done I can re-open the bugzilla ticket and the devs will make the switch. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• As far as I'm concerned, in direct comparison I like the new one better. I'd never notice the difference if they were on different pages. So yes, go ahead... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• The new image has been uploaded to Image:Wiki.png and the request made at bugzilla:14137. Guess now we wait. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Belated support. This one looks much cleaner to me. The lack of any halo artifact makes the illusion of depth look much more striking. Note, the new lettering below looks a bit thick/heavy to me but it's still professional and will likely show up more clearly on some displays. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. By the way, the Japanese script is wrong. -- Taku (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • See
    WP:AN#New_logo for a bit of discussion regarding the text errors on the globe. Equazcion •✗/C •
    22:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I like the new logo, it appears more crisp without the white "halo". Lazulilasher (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Yep i think we all agree, we can now finish this as a
  talk 2 me
  ) 01:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes if only it were that easy. I've done all I could, finished and submitted the request as instructed, roughly 6 hours ago, and so far nothing. Sigh. There's a reason Germany is ahead of us in the technology, wokmanship, and logo department. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support -- I don't see how anyone could oppose this. (Although it seems that I'm a bit late with my vote. Oh well) -- Imperator3733 (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support This can be classified under "no-brainer". Noble Story (talk) 05:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support MilkFloat 12:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. This new logo does look much cleaner--thanks for putting it together. --pie4all88 (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support The new one looks much better. This isn't
  SNOWable, is it? Paragon12321 (talk
  ) 21:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Thanks for all the support. The new logo has been uploaded to Image:Wiki.png. We're now just waiting for a developer to get off his or her duff and make the switch. The request is at bugzilla:14137, in case anyone with a bugzilla account would like to comment there. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Befürworte! Obvious improvement. Thank you equazcion! Iunaw 03:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support not that it's needed, but what the heck. Very nice indeed. -- Ned Scott 06:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• I don't really see much difference between the two of them.
  talk
  ) 01:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Fix the logo completely, or not at all

• User:Thue has worked on the character issues that were mentioned in New York Times. It is pending a fix for the tamil character. See below his version.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganeshk (talk • contribs) 22:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, there was an article in the New York Times about this on June 25, 2007. See my other comments at the top of this thread for the relevant links and details. Can nobody figure out how to fix these handful of problems at once?!? There are 2 major character issues (Devanagari and Japanese), and 2 minor misplaced accents (Ώ and Й), plus the aesthetic issues discussed above. I'm going to poke a few other talkpages/people, see if we can finally solve it. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"Fix completely, or not at all"... I just love people who say that. How 'bout: "Bitch about it and fix it, but don't bitch about it while demanding that others fix it." It's along the same lines, you see. Complaining is just a partial fix -- the least-helpful part -- and yet, you demand that others either do a complete job or not try at all. Think about it. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, see

WP:AN#New_logo. We discussed this a little. Equazcion •✗/C •

23:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying, whilst we have the people together, and the programs open, and the issue raised, wouldn't it be nice to solve the multiple problems? It's shinier now, but it's still wrong. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a capital idea. However to say that if all issues can't be fixed then none should be fixed is just wrong. I hope we agree there. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I just learnt, the character was not tamil, it's khmer. Quiddity, can you confirm what else is pending in Thue's version? Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears that all the errors mentioned are fixed in Thue's version linked above, no?--Father Goose (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all the character errors seem to be fixed in Thue's version (2 characters, 2 accents).

I don't know the technical details of the transparency/anti-aliasing error, so that might be an issue still? -- Quiddity (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If the developers change the logo settings to point to Image:Wiki.png, as we want, then the sitewide logo could be subsequently updated by any admin that uploads over that protected image. In other words there would be no bottleneck to uploading further corrections as they became available. Dragons flight (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

See Nohat's comments at the end of Talk:Main Page/Archive 86#Wrong devnagari symbol for "wi" in Wikipedia's logo: "The logo is a trademark of the Wikipedia Foundation. It is not subject to the same editing policies as Wikipedia content. Even if someone were to make an acceptable replacement image, any change to the logo will have to be subject to the approval of the board."

See also his comments at the end of User_talk:Nohat/archive_2005-06-12#The_characters_on_Wikipedia_logos: "The legal status of the logo's copyright is not currently well-defined..."

(Both old threads though).

That's part of the reason I'm suggesting we need get everything fixed at once. Any board members following this thread? -- Quiddity (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The part about the legal status was a comment from April 2005. It has been resolved since then since Nohat signed over the copyright to the Foundation. Angela. 14:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Heaven help us. I know the arguments about WMF copyright as well as anyone, but if we need the Board's approval to remove the white lip from the edges, then we truly have sunk imto a bureaucratic hell. The logo is an unregistered trademark, and it certainly will continue to be their trademark even after the much discussed errors are corrected. And lastly, as a point of order, I believe the WMF executive (rather than the Board) is principally responsible for brand management. Dragons flight (talk) 06:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, A version of the logo with the errors mentioned in the NYT article is here: Image:Wikipedia-logo_thue.png. Thue | talk 07:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Could the kerning between the D and the I not be as tight as the German version? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• On the legal issue: That's actually another reason to get the minor change implemented first before worrying about the character errors. This was brought up at the bugzilla ticket, and my only saving grace was the fact that this is such a minor change, and most of all that this change has already been implemented on most other language wikis. If we need to wait for the approval it would take to do something totally different, then we'll be waiting a while. It's better to get this minor graphical error fixed first, get the logo uniform with the other languages, and then start worrying about this more major change. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• On the Character selection issue: According to Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos#Alphabets represented in the logo, they do represent the "letter from that alphabet that most closely resembles the English "W" as in "Wikipedia"."
  However, according to Nohat at User talk:Nohat/archive 2005-02-22#Trouble in All the Logos!, "only some of the symbols were selected to represent "Wikipedia"— others were chosen at random." 2 threads at User talk:Nohat/archive 2007-06-06 say the same thing. Angela says the same thing in meta:Talk:Main Page/Archives/2006/01#Error in the Wikipedia Globe. Zocky repeats it at Talk:Main Page/Archive 86#Wrong devnagari symbol for "wi" in Wikipedia's logo.
  So, I think we're good to go for replacing the currently in-use logo with Thue's version (if the anti-aliasing issues are dealt with in his version?). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think the aliasing issues were only present as a result of the scaling-down. The original high-res image didn't have those issues, so it would just be a matter of scaling this one down correctly for the small version. Though I do believe as someone said above that such a change would require board approval. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I created meta:Errors in the Wikipedia logo to summarize wanted improvements to the logo. Please feel free to contribute. Thue | talk 21:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)My two cents:

1. several glyphs have extra diacritical marks that make them read 'vih' or 'wih', while others have only the base 'vah'/'wah'. All should, I think, be normalized to use the base character, sans diacritic (where possible). For instance, the Devanagri and Tibetan/Bhutanese (far left, respectively 2nd & 3rd from bottom) glyphs read 'vih' and 'wih' respectively -- instead of unadorned व (U+0935) and ཝ (U+0F5D).
2. the Thai symbol (far right, bottom) should be ว (U+0E27 with diacritic วิ U+0E27+0E34) and not ฉ (U+0E09).

-- Fullstop (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to work on that. As Quiddity remarked, making all the characters sound like "W" was not the original priority, and changing it is currently a lot of effort. But you could start a list at meta:Errors in the Wikipedia logo, and then it might be changed if we decide to regenerate the logo from scratch. Thue | talk 09:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There are a few things about the basic pages that come up when "edit this page" or "history" is pressed that I would like to improve.

• Above all, it's so aggravating when I accidentally fire off an edit with an incomplete summary (or worse, wasn't even double-checked properly) because I catch the "Enter" by mistake when looking for a punctuation mark typing the edit summary. Enter is supposed to trigger a default action for a Web page, and that action should be show preview, not save page!

• The proximity of the "this is a minor edit" checkmark to the Save Page box is also annoying, especially since style guidelines practically prohibit minor edits, and some people might not see them on edit summaries. I think I only once actually managed to press minor edit and save page with the same click, but it's still discomfiting.

• On the History page, the current GMT time (as of the time the History report is generated) should be printed at the top of the page just above the most recent edit. This way it is possible for people to instantly see how long ago an edit was made without having to check the system clock, do mental arithmetic, wonder if they are set differently etc. This would help with vandalism and inadvertent edit conflicts. It would also occasionally help people to notice if they are looking at an old history page in their browser. Wnt (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I rather like the enter key defaulting to save. When I'm done entering my edit summary, my next action is generally to save the page, and I wouldn't want to have to switch to the mouse in order to click the save button (or tab over to it). "Style guidelines prohibit minor edits" -- You might not understand what minor edits are. They're usually for spelling/grammar corrections, versus major removals or additions. They're not prohibited at all. If you look at your preferences under the "gadgets" tab, there's a tool available that will constantly display the current GMT time at the top of your browser. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want preview to be the default action, then turn on 'Show preview on first edit' in your editing preferences. Algebraist 18:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. The GMT clock is a handy gadget that I'd missed, though it doesn't mark when the History page was actually served. It's also true on reviewing the current guidelines that I've been underusing minor edits; I'm not sure if the policy has evolved or if I just never paid enough attention. Showing the preview on the first edit might serve as a workaround, though it's not quite what I had in mind - but I suppose that if an editor speaks up so soon who likes the current system I'm unlikely to find a strong consensus for a change. Ah well. Wnt (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest two additions to image pages; titles (as opposed to file names), and image information boxes.

My first suggestion is titles. While images that are displayed within a wikipedia entry are in boxes that also contain the image's name and artist/photographer, once you click through to the image's own page, there is no longer a simple artist & title summary, only the file name. There might be comments, or general info on the artist that is not specific to the particular image, but not a dedicated place or requirement for an image title. That leaves it to the uploader to have thought to name the file with the picture's title, or at least something that isn't "IMG-0024", but that is rarely the case with images on the internet.

Here are two pages showing images of the same print of Mt Fuji:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hokusai-fuji7.png
2. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Red_Fuji_southern_wind_clear_morning.jpg

The first example's picture title is "Image:Hokusai-fuji7.png", and the second's is "Image:Red_Fuji_southern_wind_clear_morning.jpg". Rather than having those file names as titles, I think it would be better if each page's title has both the image name and file name, but on separate lines, like so;

Red Fuji Southern Wind Clear Morning, by Katsushika Hokusai
Filename: Image:Hokusai-fuji7.png

It's personal preference that I want the image title to be bigger than the file name. I'd actually like there to be less of a size difference between the two lines, however this is the best I could do with my limited knowledge of html.

My second suggestion is for a standard info box underneath each image, which can be filled in by users. I would suggest the following (example based on page 2 mentioned above);

Artist: Katsushika Hokusai
Title: Red Fuji Southern Wind Clear Morning
Series: 36 Views of Mount Fuji
Date: Original wood print circa 1830
Edition: circa 1930 reprint
Materials: Wood block print on paper

"Materials" could also be "composition", or whatever word is appropriate to represent the many types of art styles as well as photography, diagrams, etc. Or perhaps there could be different options for different image types, whatever you think would work best. There could also be Additional Comments, where further information, anecdotes, et. could be mentioned.

What do you think? Wwoorrddss (talk) 04:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Both of those images are on Commons, so any changes need to be applied there. The closest template I know of that does what you want is {{information}}. ----— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what any of that means! I'm just a user, I don't know anything about developing the site. I emailed with a suggestion, and was told to post it in the village pump. Is there, or perhaps there could be, a suggestions page, where people like me can add things like this? Wwoorrddss (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You're in the right place, friend. Thanks for your suggestion! I'll try to break this down for you.

1. The images you linked are on
   Wikimedia
   project (including this one, the English Wikipedia) can use. The tight integration allows us here on Wikipedia to simply link an image on Commons as if it were on Wikipedia itself. Anyway, because those specific images are on Commons, we here at the English Wikipedia can't do anything with them.
2. That said, I believe Gadget850 missed your point. You were merely using those images as examples, not requesting any specific change to those specific images. We do have images here on Wikipedia -- lots of them -- including some that cannot be uploaded to the Commons because they aren't free. Your proposal would certainly apply to those images.
3. Most of your proposal is something that could be done easily by whoever uploads the image. As Gadget850 mentioned, we have a template called {{information}} that includes some of the information you suggest, but any of it could be added free-form without using a template. The catch is that it's up to the person who uploads the image to provide that information.
4. Titling an image is trickier. The software that runs Wikipedia is coded to display the filename at the top of any media page, and I think most of the folks here would prefer it that way because it makes linking the image easier. Plus, a properly constructed filename is almost as useful as a title. Take, for example, one of my own images: Image:Rochester Midtown Plaza - Interior.jpg. It would be redundant to have a title on another line that just said "Rochester Midtown Plaza - Interior".

Your proposal is not a bad one, and most of what you suggest can be done now -- but it would have to be done by the person who uploaded the image. The titling proposal is a technical issue that could be addressed if there was a strong consensus for it. Thanks again for bringing your concerns here and helping to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia!

-- Powers ^T 12:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The stub template currently has two links, one to "wp:stub", the other to "edit this page". See the proposal at Wikipedia talk:Stub#Proposal to change the second link to a short tutorial on how to add to an article, like on the French wikipedia. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[Note: I take no credit for this idea, I am just the messenger.]

To clarify — I don't actually intend to replace the other templates, as they are extremely useful for categorization and succinct standard explanations. I might, howver, like to see them change their wording over time. ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Lenoxus " * " 20:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

But surely if the categories and explanations were incorporated into the meta-template, as they can be, then it makes the others redundant?

Ɣ ɸ

20:23, May 18, 2008 (UTC)

Aha, now we're having a conversation! What I believe makes a templates-based system best is that it allows for shortcuts in a way categories don't. A redirect category and its associated templates can have as long a name as they like, but only templates can be properly redirected, so that, for example, one could enter dab or r dab into the template instead of Redirects to disambiguation pages, the current category.

Additionally, in the preview of the entered text, using templates allows for uniform explanations of why a page of type X should redirect to Y. If editors had to enter the information by hand every time, there would certainly be typos and other errors. Of course, I'm secretly assuming that MediaWiki will eventually be able to properly display all the text on a redirect page… is there a possible technical limit to that?

Oh, and I just realized that you may have pictured this template containing some basic explanations itself (such as abbreviations, plural forms, etc). My problem with that is that I don't want to limit the creative power of template creation for new kinds of redirects. If the meta-template had to be locked, for example, I wouldn't want editors to have to propose a change in order to be able to have the redirect page say whatever they have in mind.${\displaystyle \sim }$ Lenoxus " * " 21:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have with keeping the template-based system is that every single template would need to be modified to have the line removed, and the explanations standardised. Have a look at my example and play around with it. It does include an 'other' option so that people can include a custom reason.

Even if the template was locked, a quick proposal at

WT:RE

could get things approved and added by an admin, and it is probably not a good idea to have people creating new redirect categories willy-nilly anyway.

The template does have uniform explanations, using the 'abbrev' parameter generates the reason concerning abbreviations, which would be the same on any redirect the template is used on. [I'm the one who said 'comment at WT:RE', and here I am yakking on!. Oh, well, que sera sera!]

Ɣ ɸ

21:45, May 18, 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, if you were thinking that the template-based system would be easier, then don't worry. The options can be abbreviated, and full documentation can be written, with a guide at

Ɣ ɸ

21:49, May 18, 2008 (UTC)

This is, I believe, impossible at present. You could file a feature request at Bugzilla, but don't hold your breath. Algebraist 22:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(follow up to Algebraist's response), not currently possible per the first bullet in Wikipedia:Changing username#Notes. --Gwguffey (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(Duped from

No one? ;) Mdiamante (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

:) I think this is thinking more in terms of helping the regular editors than the casual reader, such as say the kind who arrives here via a google search etc. Different-colored links will be confusing and need to be explained. I think this proposal might be helpful but only as a user script or gadget (the kinds of extra tools we have in preferences under the "gadgets" tab). FYI there's already a gadget that colors article page titles according to their class -- green for good, blue for featured, etc. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Aye, I saw that gadget, but unless I'm wrong, it doesn't apply to links, which is what I'm getting at. I grant that there may be an element of confusion at first, but there could always be one of those hide-able "things you may not know/greenlinks" captions at the top of the article itself. And would one different link color (aside from the pretty self-explanatory red) really be so vague? Cheers, Mdiamante (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I struggle to see how this could be technically feasible without putting massive strain on the servers. -Halo (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The server already looks ahead at page links to see if pages exist for them, so it knows what to turn into red links. It probably wouldn't be any more of a strain to have it check a new assessment flag and color the links accordingly. I don't think it's unfeasible, but I also don't really see the necessity. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Its not feasible because the servers know nothing of "FA." Article classification occurs at the "presentation" level; it is not a database thing. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hence the "new assessment flag" portion of my comment. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is possible with FlaggedRevs, i.e. create a "featured" level of assessment that is the highest and that list would be available through some special page. As for the different color links, that's an issue for Bugzilla. MER-C 06:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

We've had considerable discussion, and we're considering putting A below GA, and adding a C-Class between Start and B. Please choose your favourite option

I have a suggestion. Why don't you include a tab listing birthdays of all notable people for the specific day? The tab could be right next to the "recent deaths" tab. In that way, you can read up on notable people. It should not be too difficult to manage. I find the "recent deaths" very informative, the same will apply here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cozinsky (talk • contribs) 07:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This is already available from the main page, by clicking on the current date at the bottom of the 'On this day...' box. I agree this isn't as obvious as it might be. Algebraist 09:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be a button I can click that lets me save my favorite pages for viewing later like on youtube. Did anyone already think of this yet, it seems pretty obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcutler (talk • contribs) 08:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You could bookmark them in your browser, or make a list on your userpage (or subpage). Algebraist 09:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Add said pages to your watchlist, then they can be viewed via "my watchlist" then "View and edit watchlist". -Halo (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

List them on your userpage. bibliomaniac15 02:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, When you type something into wikipedia and mispell it slighty the relavent page does not come up. But if you do the same on google it says " Did you mean.....". I was wondering how hard it would be to integrate a similar feature onto wikipedia. Could you plesae reply on my talk page or notify me on my talk page if you have replied. Thanks

This has been proposed before (by me, among other people), and the response is usually that such a feature would be too much of a performance burden. I've disagreed with that response repeatedly, and wish we could try out something like this. Wikipedia is way behind in the site searching technology department. Nearly every other prominent site that features a site search function is light-years ahead of us. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't we introduce this on a small trial basis on Wikitionary or something? Can we put this to a vote? If theres enough Consensus then they will find it hard to turn down. What do you think?

Bit Lordy (talk

) 21:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we can decide things regarding Wiktionary from here. And I don't think a vote would be beneficial here. This should be a discussion by people who know about the technology and can offer educated guesses as to how it would work and what the performance cost would be. I do think a new discussion on this would be a good idea though. Welcoming any comments. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not just a performance burden, it's also a difficult thing to do if you want it to give decent suggestions. --Carnildo (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think redirects and disambiguation pages work just fine for this purpose. If a redirect doesn't exist for a specific phrase, make one. If a redirect doesn't exist for a typo, learn how to type. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny how for some reason all those other sites don't tell their users to "learn how to type". We must know something they all don't. Or maybe we're just better than them, or expect more from our users. Perhaps we're just very choosy about just who we want to accommodate here -- we wouldn't want just any idiot to be able to use the site. People who don't know how to spell something should really go and check the proper spelling using some other tool prior to searching here. Who needs user-friendliness? That's not our responsibility. Users should just get smarter. This is all sarcasm of course, cause "learn to type" was a ridiculous response. Again, other sites have this feature for a reason. It makes the site easier to use. That's reason enough to want it for ourselves. And if it isn't purely the performance issue that's keeping us from doing it, but rather that the feature is a challenge to construct, then let's roll up our sleeves and rise to it. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Users should get smarter. That is the purpose of Wikipedia (or of any encyclopedia), right? Let's take our bold goal of free education a step further: let's couple the vast amount of information available on Wikipedia with some classical conditioning. When you type poorly, you don't get what you want. When you type well, you do get what you want. This forces the user to get better at typing. Sounds like a nice educational program to me. That's not to say we would expect users to already know how to spell everything. That's what redirects are for. User-friendliness is only valuable up to a point. Pass that point, and you're training people to be stupid. I think user-friendliness is at a good level right now. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to submit a patch for this feature. It will be reviewed for its performance impact on the site, code quality, and so on. See How to become a MediaWiki hacker for details. — Werdna talk 13:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but this is a proposed change to the site for discussion. Even if I were a developer capable of creating this feature on my own, I wouldn't even start putting in the effort until the proposal gained consensus here. And, we have developers for that sort of thing, so if consensus here is that it would be a benefit to the site, they could take over from there and implement it, as is usually the case for such proposed features. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of technical changes are implemented without any sort of community consensus or announcement. If you plan on waiting for the few paid developers we have to do this because people ask for it (most of the developers are volunteers, who work on whatever they feel like) you may be waiting for a while. Mr.Z-man 17:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of SUL. I created persistent proposals because of it. That's neither here nor there. As with any proposal, we should first decide whether or not it should be done, then worry about actually doing it. That's what this page is for -- proposing and discussing changes. We don't tell people who post here "Well go and make it yourself, then get back to us", so I'm not sure where the sudden attitude problem is coming from. Let's have an actual discussion, thanks much. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess what I was trying to say was, I really don't see this as a controversial change in any way. If someone can code something that won't have a significant impact on performance, I don't see it as being the type of thing that the sysadmins would require a community consensus on every project to turn on, like the AJAX based search suggestions that were just added recently. Mr.Z-man 17:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

When it's been brought up before it was controversial. Also, the point of this page is also to demonstrate interest in a proposed feature. If there is enough demonstrated interest, that would serve as motivation for people (designated developers and others alike) to try and create the feature. A discussion of the feature, its possible benefits, and a simple demonstrated interest by as many people as possible is instrumental in getting a change implemented. At least three people here have so far expressed the feeling that this would be a beneficial addition to the site. Great. Keep them coming. If I could write something myself and bring it to the table I would, but I just don't have the programming ability. Hopefully with enough demonstrated interest, someone who does will take notice.

In other words, you seem to be saying this is a non-controversial change. If it's just a matter of getting someone to create it, then let's do whatever we can towards that end. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. Can someone please implement this???? It would save so much time correcting little typos.Numpty454 (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for anything that will improve Wikipedia's terrible search function. I too have mispelled things by one letter or something and it comes up with some other results at the bottom which are completely unrelated, but it doesn't come up with the thing I might have mispelled. In fact, sometimes you can have better luck looking up Wikipedia pages on Google than on Wikipedia itself! Please, please, PLEASE do something to drastically improve Wikipedia's search tool.

:.

18:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

See

WP:PEREN. This feature exists but is disabled on English Wikipedia for performance reasons - it's not that this would be fundamentally impractical, but that the current implementation does not scale to a wiki this large. Dcoetzee

21:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That's all very well but can't we find a solution to implement it to a large Wiki? I mean if Google the largest serach engine in the world can do it surely the largest Wiki can too :)

Bit Lordy (talk

) 21:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm not sure why this should be given up on just because the existing feature wasn't made for a site this large. If IMDb and especially Google can do it, I think we should be able to find a way, and what's more I think it should be a priority. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree - it's a matter of finding someone who knows Mediawiki and the approximate query research to do an implementation. I could do this myself, actually, but need to find a bit of time first. Dcoetzee 06:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think one of the biggest flaws in wikipedia is it has articles on pretty much every subject but it doesn't take into account human error. For example if you spell a word incorrectly it doesnt recognise it as a mistake and come up with a "did you mean"? message like google does; the best you can hope for is a re-direct which in 9 out of 10 cases don't come up. I propose we implement a did you mean thing when displaying search results with obvious spelling errors --Hadseys 12:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Support this change - it is becoming more and more common on other sites, and is very useful to users. I have repeatedly noticed its absence (due to my own poor typing!) Dhollm (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• What's wrong with redirects and DAB pages?
  talk
  ) 01:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There's nothing wrong with them per se. But it's not possible to have a DAB page or redirect for everything.
    Bit Lordy (talk
    ) 13:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)