Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 61

I've always thought that it would be helpful to have the English translation of the languages in their table (the one near every article, with the links to other Wikipedia versions). I'm NOT suggesting to replace the native names with Enlish translations, but to make them pop out when you move your pointer over it, something similar to what happens in the front page of Wikipedia for languages written in non-Latin scripts (in that case what shows up is a translitteration of the native pronunciation).
I think it would be very useful expecially for languages using Cyrillic/Arabic/Greek/bizzarre alphabets (العربية, ܐܪܡܝܐ, فارسی, مصرى, مازِرونی, پنجابی, اردو), ideographic languages (for example: 中文, 日本語, 粵語, 吴语, 文言, 贛語), languages with similar names (Gàidhlig, Gaelg, Gaeilge and Galego, Deutsch and Deitsch, Slovenčina and Slovenščina), counterintuitive names (Euskara, Hrvatski, Magyar, Nederlands, Shqip)... The only languages to retain their name in English would be: Esperanto, Volapük, Tegalog, Occitan, Ido, Afrikaans, Võro, Pangasinan, Scots, Zazaki, Novial, Arpitan, Wolof, Tok Pisin, Papiamentu, Igbo, Picard, Bislama, Twi, Sesotho, Kirundi, Choctaw, Afar, Kuonyama, Hiri Motu, Kanuri (27 over 271 wikilanguages).
Is it possible? --151.51.45.45 (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

What would it be helpful for? How often will people want toi look at a Wikipedia in a language they don't understand? For the few cases where they might it seems hardly very useful to me and not worth the bandwidth to send it to everybody who accesses a page.

Dmcq (talk

) 22:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Another question: would it be too technically difficult to implement this function? --151.51.45.45 (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This exact suggestion actually came up fairly recently. I forget which pump it was on. I fully agree though, it'd be great to have a tool-tip with the English translation. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If you wanted this it sounds like you'd want to invoke a translator at the same time. Just clicking on such a link for a language you don't understand just sounds too low a requirement to cut down everybody else's bandwidth for. This sounds to me more like something that a special add-on would be for people who feel they want to do this sort of thing.

Dmcq (talk

) 18:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

To translate the interwiki links to English, add this to Special:MyPage/skin.js:

importScript('User:Tra/sidebartranslate.js'); //[[User:Tra/sidebartranslate.js]]

You could propose this as a feature. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've got a slightly better script which uses Tra's script (screenshot to the right), but adds little blue (t)'s next to each link which links to a Google Translated version of the page. (The red t's mean that the page can't be translated). I had it proposed as a gadget, but I got no response (Ok, there was a response from Svick, but no definite 'yes' or 'no')

importScript('User:Manishearth/sidebartranslinks.js'); //[[User:Manishearth/sidebartranslinks.js]]

ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 11:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That looks like a quite a useful feature. I have sometimes gone to other language wikis to see what they say about something and having it translated like that makes it generally much more generally useful.

Dmcq (talk

) 20:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

70.29.208.247 (talk) 07:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Again with the pointless namespace alias proposals... FYI, "msg" is the ISO 639-3 code for the Moraid language, and thus the "MSG:" prefix is reserved for possible interwiki links if the Moraid Wikipedia is ever created. This proposal is technically impossible. --Yair rand (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

We have "MOS" for the Manual of Style, but it's an ISO 639 code, for Mossi. What about those things then? 70.29.208.247 (talk) 07:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I support replacing all MOS:{TITLE} shortcuts with WP:MOS{TITLE} (only an extra two characters). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of criteria which can be used to evaluate the usefulness of a particular namespace alias, including:

1. Would it conflict with a ISO 639-3 code? ("No" is preferred)
2. Would it conflict with any existing articles or redirects? ("No" is preferred)
3. Would it save time with linking and searching? ("Yes" is preferred)
4. Is the alias an intuitive shortcut for its target namespace? ("Yes" is preferred)
5. Are pages in the target namespace frequently linked or searched? ("Yes" is preferred)

For this proposal:

1. Yes, "msg" is the ISO 639-3 code for the Moraid language.
2. No, there are no pages with titles that begin with MSG:.
3. Not really. For linking, it is one less character to type {{tl|Title}} than [[MSG:Title]]. For searching, the difference between Template: and MSG: is only 5 characters.
4. No. MSG could stand for message, yet many templates are not messages or notices.
5. Not really. There are a few templates which are highly-used and -searched, but the majority are not.

Based on this, I do not think that MSG: should become an alias for the Template namespace. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

{{tl|Title}} - that's not right. Since if you type "MSG:xxx" that's three fewer characters, plus an edit & preview less than {{tl|Title}}, and four fewer characters than "TEMPLATE:xxx". Further, if you type "MST:xxx" that's nine fewer characters than "Template talk:xxx".

I wasn't proposing this as a shortcut for in-wiki text, it is a shortcut for the purposes of users actually accessing the templates directly.

I chose "MSG" because that is what Wikipedia named templates itself in the beginning. If Wikipedia/MediaWiki people thought it was an appropriate name to use, seems pretty good to me.

70.29.208.247 (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting with a language code is pretty much a fatal blow. Plus there's a reason why MediaWiki no longer refers to templates as "messages", and stopped doing so many years ago. If anything, "msg" would be more suited as an alias for "MediaWiki:". However, there are also complications with {{msg:Foo}} which would also render it unusable. Happy‑melon 21:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible to change the Random Article function so that it ignores stubs and disambiguation pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.78.244 (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a notice at the village pump for technical issues directing editors to this section. I don't think that Special:Random should ignore stubs and disambiguation pages by default, but a modified version (or perhaps an optional script) could be useful. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This has been asked many times before I believe, and I think the argument against it is that it would be too taxing on the servers to find a page that isn't a stub or a disambiguation page every time a user randomly chooses a page to make it not worth it.

talk

) 06:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

See bugzilla:14451 and bugzilla:7937 (also related is bugzilla:2170). The general dev response is "Make a toolserver tool or javascript." Here is an opposite implementation, for example. --Splarka (rant) 08:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

There is User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage. I do think we should try and make a lot more use of randomness, to help guide people into corners of Wikipedia they otherwise wouldn't go. But for that to work well the randomness needs to be limited: not a random page from the entirety of Wikipedia, but a random page from WikiProject X, needing cleanup of type Y. Rd232 ^talk 15:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

And there's also {{Random page in category}}. Svick (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

And purge

talk

) 17:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not create a boolean field in the page table that is set to true if the article is of a type that should appear in

Here is how a stub notice looks now: "This on a South Korean institution of tertiary education article is a stub. ..." This is a mauling of the English language. Can some-one please re-word it to some-thing like: "This article on... is a stub." Kdammers (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed [1]. –xeno^talk 01:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#List of suggested audits.—NMajdan•talk 19:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I propose that you remove or rename the Skin in the Appearance tab in My Preferences area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences). The name of the Skin in question is "Chick" - it is the first one on the list; (if this is referring to baby birds, please just let me know and I will withdraw my proposal). Otherwise, the term Chick as you will see in the Dictionary is considered offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barb9 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 19 April 2010

It's an ambiguous term, who knows what it refers to? As it can refer to baby birds or even be a name I'm happy to assume that it isn't intended to be offensive. Fences&Windows 19:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Are there any statistics available on skin usage? I couldn't find any mention in a few searches, but might not be using the right keywords... -- Quiddity (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The name is somewhat odd. Is there any chance that it was just an unnoticed misspelling of chic? Or an abbreviation or initialism of something? Or just something not English? --Yair rand (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It was very frustrating to see that this discussion ended up with only a bot caring enough to archive it, instead of someone implementing it or offering constructive criticism.

This is, to summarise, changes to existing templates to direct people to write news articles where they belong - on Wikinews.

Impacted templates are:

• {{Recent death}}
• {{Current}}
• {{Current related}}
• {{Obituary}}
• {{Recentism}}

Examples of the changed templates

• Where Wikinews has an article (embedded titles link to nonexistent pages)

This article is about a person who has recently died or has recently been reported dead. Some information, such as that pertaining to the circumstances of the person's death and surrounding events, may change as more facts become known. Obituaries are not appropriate for Wikipedia; please consider contributing to the obituary on Wikinews.

This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. Wikipedia is not a news site; please consider expanding Wikinews coverage, or writing a follow-up.

This article is related to a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. Wikipedia is not a news site; please consider expanding Wikinews coverage, or writing a follow-up.

This article reads like an obituary. Wikipedia is not a memorial site and articles should have a neutral point of view. Please help edit it to help achieve a neutral point of view, or discuss changes on the talk page. Wikipedia is not a news site; please consider expanding Wikinews coverage, or writing a follow-up.

This article or section may be slanted towards recent events. Please try to keep recent events in historical perspective. Wikipedia is not a news site; please consider expanding Wikinews coverage, or writing a follow-up.

• Where Wikinews does not have an article:

This article is about a person who has recently died or has recently been reported dead. Some information, such as that pertaining to the circumstances of the person's death and surrounding events, may change as more facts become known. Obituaries are not appropriate for Wikipedia; an obituary would be more appropriate on Wikinews, see here.

This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. Wikipedia is not a news site; in-depth news coverage is more appropriate on Wikinews.

This article is related to a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. Wikipedia is not a news site; in-depth news coverage is more appropriate on Wikinews.

This article reads like an obituary. Wikipedia is not a memorial site and articles should have a neutral point of view. Please help edit it to help achieve a neutral point of view, or discuss changes on the talk page. Wikipedia is not a news site; in-depth news coverage is more appropriate on Wikinews.

This article or section may be slanted towards recent events. Please try to keep recent events in historical perspective. Wikipedia is not a news site; in-depth news coverage is more appropriate on Wikinews.

I see absolutely no points in the prior discussion that, to me, appear to make this an unreasonable request. Can this please be implemented? --Brian McNeil /^talk 03:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a very good idea. Strong support. --Yair rand (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Strong supportCamelbinky (talk)

Support also per something among the same lines as Yair rand. --

moral♪♫

04:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose current proposed wording. Some directing to Wikinews seems like a good idea, but some of that language seems to send a confusing message, as if the subsequent content on tagged pages is being criticized for being on the wrong wiki. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:40, 8 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like that to me. Do you have a better wording? --Yair rand (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm certainly happy to try and improve the wording - if I can have specific actionable points. I think the proposed changes to {{Recentism}} is the only case where there may be 'active' criticism of Wikipedia content where the template is in use. ---Brian McNeil /^talk 10:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with concerns about the wording. We don't want the template to send the message "don't add anything about recent events to this article," but rather "the article should reflect a long-term view of the subject." Dcoetzee 10:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• • I agree, the current phrasing might be interpreted to "don't add anything recent". Instead of the current comment, "Wikipedia is not a news site; please consider contributing to the obituary/article", perhaps something along the lines of "Although Wikipedia permits content regarding recent events, it should have a historical perspetive, as this is not a news site. In-depth news-style coverage is more appropriate on Wikinews", with a link to
    WP:NOTNEWS? But I don't have any real objections to the current phrasing either. Tempodivalse [talk]
    14:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The existance of Wikinews has no bearing on Wikipedia content. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  This is a baffling view, to me. It's not as though we'll be creating links to Google news, or even something like the NYT with this. Wikinews is a fellow WMF project, so the statement that it has no bering on us is simply silly, to me. I'd be very interested in hearing a reasonable explaination, though.
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 22:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  Per

  WP:NOTNEWS it does. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)}

  20:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  Wikipedia should be the best encyclopedia possible. That a sister project also covers similar content does not matter. I you think Wikipedia should limit the content about recent events, then just say that instead of referring to Wikinews. These additions seems to imply that recent events should not be mentioned on Wikipedia because of Wikinews. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

  We can only really agree to disagree here, I suspect. I have stated below that I believe this helps creates recruit better contributors to WP as well as WN. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

  I think that we can do better then agreeing to disagree here though, which is specifically why I challenged this oppose. There's a bit of a disconnect between differing viewpoints here, and their not mutually exclusive (meaning that both the opposition to the proposal and the willingness to disagree are somewhat misplaced). The main issue here is exactly what you said yourself Apoc: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a news source. On the other hand, Wikinews is not an encyclopedia. It's generally a good thing to define goals and structure for participants, especially in a collaborative, "headless" environment such as our WikiMedia Foundation projects. What I'm really curious about is this: what is it about the proposed changes that makes you believe that the proposal is attempting to convey that "Wikipedia should limit the content about recent events"? I don't see that assertion being made myself (at least, not so bluntly), but as an advocate I'm perfectly willing to admit that my own bias may be affecting my judgment.
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 19:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support  The existence of Wikipedia policy does have bearing on Wikipedia content. (In case this isn't blatant enough: When content is inappropriate for Wikipedia according to Wikipedia policy, it is then appropriate to direct prospective constributors to the project where that content would be appropriate.) --Pi zero (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Brian McNeil and
  WP:NOTNEWS. The existence of Wikinews has direct bearing on Wikipedia and its content. Although I think articles on recent events are okay on Wikipedia, they should have a long-term view over the topic, and people should know that there is a more suitable venue if they want to add certain things, such as obituaries (if someone very famous dies, for instance). One suggestion - don't italicise "Wikinews", I think that looks a bit out of place. considering "Wikipedia" is never italicised. Tempodivalse [talk]
  14:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support as a strong believer in decentralisation and promoting the sister projects :) --Skenmy^(t•c•n) 17:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose; just seems to make the templates more obtrusive without offering any concrete advice for reader or editor. Any relevant Wikinews content should already be linked as a sister project link. None of the new links do much to explain how to write content in a manner appropriate for Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  Perhaps a link to

  WP:NOTNEWS would solve that problem? Also, I'm not sure how adding a single small, barely visible line to the template makes it much more obtrusive than it already is. *shrugs* Tempodivalse [talk]

  21:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  I think you miss the point of the templates in the first place Christopher; to tell people certain content is inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition is one line, one small line, suggesting where the content may be more appropriate. --Brian McNeil /^talk 21:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support A fairly logical way forward with
  WP:NOTNEWS. It helps keep WP's content from spiraling into recentism without making contributors feel discouraged that their contributions are unwanted. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)}
  20:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support - This is good for Wikipedia, and good for Wikinews. We already tell people when content is inappropriate for Wikipedia; we should continue to do so. While we're at it, it's a good thing to tell them where the content really should go.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support It stikes a good balance between letting contributors know that their contributions are valued and finding the correct project for those contributions. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support - the logical extension of WP:NOTNEWS. - Philippe 00:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support with an improved wording so people don't think that all information about recent events is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Reach Out to the Truth 14:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

  At the risk of repeating myself, what are the proposals for an improved wording? I was, in crafting these changes, very concerned to keep the size increase on these templates to an absolute minimum. The proposed change by Tempodivalse above is really overly verbose; are there changes to the existing wording which I've not touched which might address this and keep the Wikinews-related small line a single line? --Brian McNeil /^talk 15:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

  The Wikinews line seems OK. I think that people are mostly complaining about (our own) text above that. People don't seem to realize that these templates already exist, and the only addition that you're proposing is the addition of one line, in small font, with a link to Wikinews in it.
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 18:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Though I do fear that most people simple don't understand that they are writing an obituary into the Wikipedia article. I'd be interested to see if this would drive any measurable amount of traffic to Wikinews. It can never hurt to a least run an experiment with something like this. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose First, {{Obituary}} and {{Recentism}} are not only used on articles on recent events, so wikinews is irrelevant. Second, we shouldn't use our articles as proxy for wikinews per our policy of neutral point of view. We already grant enough leeway to post relevant sister links, but prominently linking to wikinews on articles related to recent events, which gamer lots of views, would be way over the top. Third, the first three templates are principally directed for readers, not editors; they're some sort of disclaimer to alert people that the information can change; so saying that 'Wikipedia is not a news site' out of the blue is totally inappropriate. It gives the impression that the article may somehow content inappropriate 'news content' while it may not be the case at all; and Wikipedia sometimes contain completely appropriate in-depth coverage of recent events, much more developed than wikinews (such as sport events, elections and so on), so linking to wikinews would be a disservice to readers, and unhelpful and confusing to editors.
  Finally, there seems to have been some inappropriate
  canvassing, see Wikinews:wn:Water_cooler/miscellaneous#Wikipedia.2C_again, which explains why several wikinews admins, Jimbo Wales and Philippe came here to support the proposal. Cenarium (talk
  ) 18:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Please provide examples where {{Obituary}} or {{Recentism}} are not used on articles related to recent events.
2. As you apparently seem to be wilfully ignoring, Wikinews is a Wikimedia Foundation project and all projects are subject to a Neutral Point of View policy (see n:Wikinews:NPOV).
3. I strongly object to your characterisation of the solicitation of input from people who care about projects other than Wikipedia as "inappropriate canvassing". I would ask you to retract that accusation, and the implication that Wikimedians who are not primarily active on Wikipedia are not acting in good faith; all have justified their reasons for supporting this proposal and you are suggesting that such votes, including that of Jimmy Wales, be discounted on your say-so alone. --Brian McNeil /^talk 20:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to explain in what way WP:CANVASS is violated? Cross-project co-operation is a cross-project issue. That's like notifying a WikiProject of an AfD. It is in each project's interests to know how they are used by each other. As for Jimbo, he had already expressed an opinion and hence an interest. Does my opinion cease to count because I contribute somewhere this affects? I have edited here since 2006; I am a long-serving WP admin. I am also a WN admin and Arbcom. Do you really view these as incompatible where interlinking and

WP:NOTNEWS is discussed? Surely contributors to both projects are best suited to appreciating the intricate differences - and overlaps - in their respective missions. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)}

21:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have no problem with letting know wikinews editor of this, if it were done in a more neutral manner (cf the diagram or the section 'campaigning' from the guideline) and not be emphasizing Jimbo's opinion (sought off-wiki). I's been some time since those changes are proposed (cf Wikinews:Wikinews_talk:Obituary_from_Wikipedia#Promotion_on_Wikipedia) and it's not this way that you'll make a difference (nor by calling naysayers those who disagree). The way it's carried out just doesn't inspire confidence or look like collaboration, but rather like campaigning. I point this out so that consensus can be appropriately weighted, it has no other implication. I'm not 'against' sister projects or whatever (I use and add links to wiktionary quite regularly for example).

1. See
   example
   from a 1998's death). So for those two templates, mentioning that wikipedia is not a news site or wikinews wouldn't make sense.
2. I've argued this point a bit quickly. We've extended NPOV far beyond its original intent, for example
   Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a mean of promotion. Of course we have a special relationship with other wmf projects, but we should keep the former in mind nonetheless. In my opinion, we should not use our articles (and templates therein) as a mean to promote sister projects. Promotion is not the intent of sister links (though in effect it does..). Linking at the top of articles or sections on recent events to a particular news source doesn't go well with our policy of neutrality. For another example, if the Wikimedia foundation were to advocate for some issues (see strategy:Task force/Advocacy Agenda
   ), then Wikipedia should remain neutral on those issues nevertheless; in any case we would as a community. I appreciate that those proposed changes are primarily aimed to direct editors to more 'appropriate' places and wouldn't mind to stop arguing in this sense to appease the debate, but my first and third points remain.
3. You didn't address my third point, which is similar to what said other commentators in prior discussions: the recent events templates are disclaimers for readers, they're not there to remember policy; they are applied to pages where the content can be in full conformity to the policies and guidelines on recent events. Suggesting that there is a problem where there is none is bad; for our readers who are confused, and even more for our editors. It may even discourage editing. Cenarium (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

   Just out of curiosity, do you also object to notices in articles that say things like "Please help improve this article by expanding it.", "This page is a candidate to be copied to Wikibooks", or "This article contains instructions, advice, or how-to content. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to train. Please help improve this article either by rewriting the how-to content or by moving it to Wikiversity or Wikibooks."? Do you see these as "promotion" and a violation of NPOV? --Yair rand (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

   (Disclaimer, for what it's worth: I am an arbcom member and bureaucrat at en.wikinews) Indeed. I fail to see how this proposed template is any more "promotional" than is {{transwiki}}. By the same reasoning, we should not promote ourselves either, or even encourage people to edit our articles such as in the templates {{cleanup}}, {{expand}}, etc. Also, I understand and agree with your argument that certain templates like {{recentism}} doesn't always refer to events that have happened within the last few days (and perhaps we shouldn't add the wikinews notice to them), but there are many others, such as {{current}} and {{recent death}}, that do. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

   FYI: the criticism with respect to {{recentism}} (and elsewhere, for that matter) is easily addressed with the addition of a named parameter which could turn off the Wikinews message anyway. This whole line of criticism is really a completely irrelevant red herring, although it at least brought the subject up now so that we could talk about the issue prior to implementation. I don't think much of the other criticisms either, personally, but I found the point about the message possibly being irrelevant to be particularly artificial.
   — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 04:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

   Yair rand: I don't 'object', I say that we should consider the issue of promotion, intended or implied. I think that the cleanup templates asking to edit wikipedia, or to transwikify, are in their current state not overly self-promoting and appropriate for our projects which rely on user participation. However, I would have a problem if it were overly promotional (e.g. "Wikipedia is the number 4 site on the web, you should edit it too!" and such). I think this is an aspect to consider in fund-raising campaigns too: not being overly self-promotional, and there's actually been much criticism on those grounds in the latest campaign. We should apply policies with due diligence and not indiscriminately, but it doesn't mean we should completely disregard them in some instances when it comes to us (for another example,

   undue weight

   given to some events where wikipedia is involved comes to my mind).

   Tempodivalse: By the same reasoning, we should consider (self-)promotion in regard to those templates, which is very reasonable, and as I said above, I would have a problem with such templates if they were overly self-promoting; but in their current state, they're OK to me. Policies should be applied on a case by case basis, neither indiscriminately, neither wholly ignored, and never on their sole basis.

   Ohms law: Not addressed like this, see unindented comment.

   Overall, in the present case, I do not believe that we should use recent events templates for promotion of wikinews, as too opportunist; however this is a reason among others for me to object, and the least - no need to make a big deal out of this. Cenarium (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see the problem. The Wikinews discussion has been done from a Wikinews viewpoint, and it has been agreed that WN would easily benefit from receiving such unwanted contributions from Wikipedia. With that out of the way, I come here to consider an entirely different question: What is right for Wikipedia? Had I honestly believed this was not in WP's best interests then with my WP hat on I would have opposed what I supported on Wikinews. Naysayers has no negative connotations; I am proud to be a naysayer on many subjects. I have, in fact, carefuly steered clear of the benefits to WN in this thread; they are irrelevant here. Obviously, since the idea initiated in The Other Place the benefits to WP were of relevence on loose terms over there ('is there any reason they require this?' - otherwise developing further would have been pointless).

1. Is constructive. I have no further comment on that, other than that some slight reword may be required on the appropriate templates.
2. That is largely already responded to earlier in this reply; although I again draw attention to
   WP:NOTNEWS
   in combination, noting my previous description of how these apply.
3. Wikipedia aims to attract new contributors. That is fundamental to WP - and to all the projects. How discouraging is it to someone who sees 'may change rapidly' and thinks "wow cool!" and races to update with the latest, only to see
   WP:NOTNEWS chop it out? That is very sad, and means someone who would be interested in both projects would be end up a member of neither. I can't see this 'poaching' editors; rather, I see this as forming more users who are able to do as I do, and straddle accross both projects, trying to help them compliment each other the way they are supposed to. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)}
   21:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This is still not a way to attract people to support one's position that I found legitimate, but I have no wish to argue on this now. Reply to the other points in my 'unindented' comment. Cenarium (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as Cenarium is concerned, I will debate no more on the points Xe raised; I feel others have cast reasonable doubt on Xe's interpretation of the purpose of the templates I propose modifying. Incidentally, good luck getting Flagged Revisions on Wikipedia – if you look into my background on Wikinews you'll see I've been involved for over five years; I was the driving force in getting FlaggedRevs implemented there, as well as a project 'crat, Arbcom member, checkuser, Wikimania 2008 attendee, press corps member & speaker. And, I recently resigned from the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee rather than play politics and toe a partei line (just since this seems the section for willy-waving). I'm not out to discourage people from contributing to Wikipedia, quite the contrary. Wikinews and Wikipedia are meant to be complimentary projects – as, in fact, are all WMF projects. I feel I am entitled to be proud of my contributions to Wikinews, which include several featured articles. Over the years I would estimate I've spent well over $1,000 of my own money supporting Wikinews - not including donations to the Wikimedia Foundation's general fund; I'm the first member of Wikimedia UK based in Scotland, and every single person in WMUK knows full-well where I stand and what I think. Too young to 'technically' qualify for the moniker curmudgeon; too old to still qualify for the once-applied label of "angry young man". Yes, I am impatient, I am unreasonable; to quote George Bernard Shaw, "[t]he reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." --Brian McNeil /^talk 23:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, I'll tell you something of my experience too (I'm just a sysop here, fwiw). When you bring up some proposal, of course you'd like that everyone support it right away and that it gets implemented as soon as possible. But in most cases, there's going to be problems and such after the implementation, it's going to need some fixing, and it may well end up in complete failure; because you needed an outside point of view, that some other people made a real, serious review of your proposal, find potential problems, possible improvements and so. From my experience, criticism is good. I'm probably the only one commenting here who made an in-depth review, I actually spent hours on this by now. I've decided to oppose those proposed changes, I've given my justifications, this is fair and helpful. I've pointed out some pretty obvious flaws that would have gone unnoticed otherwise. Interestingly, sometimes when someone reviews an issue for real, rather than taking a cursory look and giving some nice but useless comments, their intentions (or more) are attacked.

Re unrelated FlaggedRevs: My proposal (

WP:FPPR) is quite different from 'classic' flaggedrevs; there's consensus for a two-month trial but we're still waiting for the implementation. Cenarium (talk

) 03:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

1. (unindent for clarity) I've checked all of the transclusions of {{obituary}}, here, and there is not a single one used on an article on a person who died in the latest few months, most of them died years or decades ago. So it is totally irrelevant that wikipedia is not a news site or that people can contribute to wikinews.
2. I've checked all uses of {{Recentism}} in the recent months to see if it had been applied because of recent related news. The vast majority of uses are for articles or sections which put too much emphasis on the 2000s or latest decades. When it's been applied because of recent news, it's mostly trivial things like sport performances which then tend to accumulate, that's insufficient for a wikinews article. And in all cases, wikinews can be relevant only for the time just after the events, so you'd need a separate template to subst (like prods) so that it's hidden after some time. However, I'm still to find an example where it would be relevant. Incidentally, Wikinews is mentioned at Wikipedia:Recentism.
3. In the situation Blood Red Sandman describes, then I'd better see him/her editing, being bold is actively encouraged. There's only going to be a small minority of cases where
   WP:BOLD, and because our policies are non-prescriptive. Cenarium (talk
   ) 03:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

   What about instances where these templates are applied, then the article is edited and the tag is removed? I think that it'd be a fairly obvious sample bias to use currently in use template instances as being completely representative here. Regardless, {{Current}} doesn't seem to suffer from any of the criticisms that you're bringing up, which begs the question: is your opposition centered on adding it to only a few of the templates, or is it a general objection? Do you criticize adding a link to Wikinews (or any other sister project) in general? How do you feel about the use of {{Wikinews}}, {{wiktionary}}, and similar templates? (Incidentally, User:Blood Red Sandman does plenty of content editing, from what I've seen. It'd be nice if we could avoid the personal stuff here).
   — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

   If you read more carefully what I said you'll see that I was referring to the hypothetical person in the situation which Blood Red Sandman described (otherwise it wouldn't make any sense..). My objections are specific: my first point was about {{

   Template:Wi. Really, I've no issue with sister projects... Cenarium (talk

   ) 04:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

   Lies! Seriously though, I'll re-read through the above tomorrow. It would be interesting to hear a counter-proposal and/or a suggestion to make this more acceptable, though.
   — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

   The results are comforted by a very simple analysis of the situation: there are many articles about dead persons, and among those where {{obituary}} is applicable at a given time, a very small minority will be dead recently (in the last few days). Actually it's much more likely for such an article to be created in the form of an obituary initially, and much after the death, rather than existing prior to the death and being transformed to the point of reading like an obituary thereafter (this can be 'statistically' verified, :). For recentism, it's very similar: there are many articles covering content which can be subject to recentism (which can go from the latest hours to the latest decades or more), and at a given time, only a small minority will be about events from the last few days (so be relevant to wikinews).

   For the recent events templates, a possibility to make this more acceptable would be to create an option to enable the warning about NOTNEWS and wikinews (default not shown), which was the initial proposal, and would be much less problematic, however it should be enabled only when the content is found to be in violation of that policy (cf my objection that warning about policy should be done only when presently justified). Although in such cases, a template like recentism would probably fit, so there's no real need for this.

   Thus my suggestion would be to use an option in recentism which can be enabled to show the message about wikinews, but only for, say, 5 days after the given timestamp (which is supposed to be the date of the event), since after a few days wikinews is no longer relevant. A secondary template could be substed, so that we can quickly enter the current time as timestamp (like we do with

   template:prod). Cenarium (talk

   ) 06:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(Unident) So, can we all be in agreement that it is essentially a good idea, but there may be issues with ensuring the text appears only when relevant? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support. Very sensible. Wikinews exists for a reason. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 16:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support - I can't see why anyone would oppose the general principle of this, to be honest. Wikipedia and Wikinews are sister projects, with the same fundamental goal - to spread knowledge freely. If we don't want content on one Wikimedia project, then why not direct that attention to a project that does want that content? We can haggle over the details as problems emerge, but let's give this a go and see what comes out of it. Mike Peel (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

  I am fundamentally opposed to templates which take the default position that there is something wrong in writing about recent events, and mentioning wikinews while most of the time, it will be irrelevant because the event was days ago. However, I have nothing against collaborating with Wikinews. Cenarium (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Srong oppose. This is a solution looking for a problem. If people are worried about recentism, we should add
  inappropriate tone}}; but let's not forget that obituaries are often useful sources of information for biographies, and that includes obituaries written fifty years ago. There appears to be some idea that an item cannot have a Wikipedia article just because it happens to be in the news, which is, frankly, ridiculous: it is ignoring our readers for the sake of an artificial criterion. Physchim62 (talk)
  10:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Unless you're saying that no recent news should be in articles, which I consider absurd, the new text is inappropriate for most of the templates. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• I must ask both the users above to avoid creating strawmen. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly support the principle even if language may need to be adjusted. Speaking with my Wikipedia hat on (before someone brings up the fact that I am indeed an admin on Wikinews), policy is very clear that Wikipedia is not a news site. There is nothing wrong—quite the contrary—in having the most recent information available on Wikipedia; however as an editor I am aware of the huge difference in writing styles between an encyclopaedia and a news site. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Directing people to the right Wikimedia project is a good thing, and the other projects do need more advertising exposure. But the wording should probably be tweaked, since the main purpose of the current events templates is to inform readers that those articles might be rapidly updated at the moment. We don't want to discourage people to edit those articles. --David Göthberg (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose These warnings, pointless as I think they are, are for readers not editors. To also show editors a link to wikinews is overkill. If there is a wikinews article on the subject, there already will be a link in the article anyway. No need to duplicate that. Garion96 (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, per David Göthberg. Sensible addition to better direct readers and interested editors to a more relevant project. Blurpeace 22:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Little adverts for our sister project Wikinews helps to advance Wikimedia-wide goals by cross pollination . --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support, and precise wording for the template can be discussed elsewhere. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

News belongs on Wikinews, section break

• Comment This template is, once again, not intended to discourage people from adding information about recent events. It is about *how* the information is presented. On Wikipedia, things can be written on things that have happened, heck, several minutes ago, but should be written from a historical perspective, whereas on Wikinews, they are written from a very recent perspective, like what one would find in a newspaper. The latter style is inappropriate for Wikipedia, according to
  current event}}, that always do; imho that negates that argument. Tempodivalse [talk]
  15:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  That last argument was specific to recentism and obituary.

  The big difference is that

  WP:BOLD

  and the nature of our policies which are not prescriptive. The policy message of your proposed rewording is strikingly similar to that of recentism, so it would be akin to put a recentism template with mention of wikinews after all recent events templates. Again, this assumes that there's something wrong while there's not in most cases. Only when justified we should make prominent mention of policy, and never suggest that there is a problem where there is none.

  It may not be intended to discourage people from editing, but in effect, it will do it. As I said, I wouldn't object to mentioning wikinews in the template recentism, but only when relevant, not days or more after the event; now that would be in line with what we do with other sister projects. It only just require some template magic similar to

  template:dated prod so that the message about wikinews is displayed only for a few days after the event (if we simply put it in option, then people would forget and it would remain there). Cenarium (talk

  ) 16:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  I have to say, the one thing that this has started me thinking about is the possibility that we should probably TFD {{

  WP:BOLD, or that it would somehow discourage people from editing, strikes me as a preposterous argument. The wording could certainly be tweaked, and the templates that the statement would be used on could definitely be changed, but to take those criticisms in order to use them for panning the entire proposal is unnecessarily dramatizing the issue. The idea is simply to provide a link and a nudge, saying: "if you want to, we have a content space over here for news items".
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs

  ) 18:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  user:Ohms law pretty much sums up my position on it, although he phrased it much better than I could have. I just *don't* see how the inconspicuous link, quitetly informing readers that certain styles of writing are inappropriate for Wikipedia, can be that harmful. I still think the proposed wording in my above posts solves any concerns with "discouraging editing" that some people perceive. It seems that it would be a good thing, and easier on us, not to have to bother with perpetually reverting newbies' obituary-style additions to our articles regarding recently deceased people (which I've seen quite frequently) by instead pointing them to a sister project where said additions are appropriate. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

  I'm not opposed to any link in any form, in fact I have proposed an alternative. To say it differently, I think the policy message driven by the proposed wordings is uncalled for in general. Making pre-emptive mention of policy, such as by alluding that something is more appropriate at some other place that on Wikipedia, will deter some editing, some of which could be bad, but some of which could be good too. That's why we make mention of policy only when justified and not indiscriminately, and why we have specific templates like recentism, obituary and so on instead of a list of things to do and not to do that all editors must read prior to editing. Bringing up

  WP:NOTNEWS for all articles on recent events seems indiscriminate, and I fail to see a wording which could be appropriate. For example 'in-depth' can be misleading: for 'news' events, Wikipedia often serves as a source for 'background' information, and presents a wider view of the topic, which could be considered 'in-depth' (and Wikipedia is often applauded for this), while news reports are more superficial, on the moment. Well that's the difference between encyclopedic style and news style which you try to point out, but it's not really feasible in a one-line sentence, and can give impressions that were not intended, that can be wrong or contradictory, especially when used indiscriminately. Instead, I propose to continue using {{recentism}}, when justified; with an option for temporarily mentioning wikinews. Cenarium (talk

  ) 00:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Yesterday we added a line about Wikinews in the system message that is shown when creating a new article: MediaWiki:Newarticletext. (Note, that message looks very different in different namespaces.) See the discussion on its talkpage. --David Göthberg (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support
  WP:SELF), rather than merely linked. I agree that promoting Wikinews on an editorial level (not on a content level) would help their cause and reduce recentism here.--Ipatrol (talk
  ) 21:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

  This is an important distinction, but we've extended our pledge for neutrality beyond the content level. For a recent case, see

  Template talk:Refimprove#RFC: Should a link to a commercial search engine be included in the template Refimprove. The issue is on whether it's actually useful, it may be good to let people know of wikinews but not at the expense of discouraging editing. Cenarium (talk

  ) 00:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

  Does it matter? NPOV has no real bearing except to the actual wording should we decide to implement.

  WP:SISTER is pretty clear; where appropriate, do it. If you interpreted NPOV in that way, WP:SISTER would have to be nominated for deletion. While the link is interesting (thanks!), I do think the distinction is big enough that it probably has no direct bearing. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)}

  Yes, it has no direct bearing. Neutrality would matter more if promotion were the only or major intent, but this is not the case. Here it's to point readers to more appropriate venue for some content, and for sister links, it's to provide related content. Cenarium (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Unless I'm mistaken (which is a significant possibility), there seems to be pretty clear consensus at the moment to have some kind of Wikinews link in at least some articles with these templates. There are some concerns that the wording could have unwanted effects and that an option to show the extra note with the default being the current version would be better than having the extra note shown by default, but there's pretty clear consensus that something like this should be done. Would it make sense to temporarily change the templates to have a switch-on version of the added note for now, until someone can think of a better wording and we can figure out whether having a switch-on or switch-off addition is better? --Yair rand (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

  I say yes, that would make perfect sense, but then I'm a partisan here...
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

  I too say consensus seems pretty clear. I attempted to clarify that above, but I think people missed it in the midst of the long discussion. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 09:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

  I think the reasons for not adding it on obituary and recentism (without time option) have now been agreed upon. If we add an option to the recent templates, then we should think of when it should be used. I'd say when the adding editor feels that the article contravenes

  WP:NOTNEWS, similarly to when we add cleanup templates. Cenarium (talk

  ) 13:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

  So... any news (pun completely intentional)
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

  Yeah, this discussion has stalled; any chance we can work on getting this implemented in some form, as consensus generally seems to be to do so? Tempodivalse [talk] 03:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think the template(s) should be used in this manner on any event that is still unfolding and where it is already suitable to have the template(s) in the present form. There could be a date set and this could be reset whenever there were upadates; at such time as we reached 2-3 days from that date the Wikinews section of the template would 'expire' and disappear. This is why we are having the wording issue; doing it only where there may be a
  WP:NOTNEWS vio substantially changes the proposal. However, I do like where you're going with that; perhaps a better idea would be to create a brand-new {{Notnews
  }}, which would be a tag for when there was a perceived problem and would read something like:

Again, the Wikinews bit would expire 2-3 days after whatever date was given. How does that proposal strike everyone? To be clear, this idea is not intended as an alternative to the above - which consensus is generally for, with a nod to wording - but to compliment it. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• I really tend to agree with Blood Red Sandman here; yes, I do have a somewhat 'selfish' issue of trying to promote contribution to Wikinews. It strikes me as a good compromise to have a Wikinews-specific message be time related. If there is an "added=<date>" parameter then, addition of such cautions can appear for a limited time. I'd wonder about having an alternative parameter "reported=<date>", and possibly even a "wikinews=suppressed". The contexts within which such templates may be used would merit all three of these options. For example, labelling someone's hagiographic bio as an obiturary may have no relevance to Wikinews if the death was decades ago; however, it could be as a result of a new report into the circumstances of someone's death decades ago, and be news - meriting a "reported=" parameter.

My template-fu is not at expert level, I'd be delighted to see someone take the copies of these templates I've created and work in solutions for more complex situations. I do, based on many of the above comments, think there's a need for those contributing significantly on Wikipedia to go back to the original templates and think through the wording they have. It's frustrating to me how slowly some things work on Wikipedia, but I'm happy to see that hashed about and sooner (please, rather than later) some proposal that has a reasonably wide consensus be put forward.

WP:NOTNEWS->Wikinews Break

As I say, take copies of the templates and, well,

be bold!. --Brian McNeil /^talk

19:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Having a timer automatically eliminate the message after a certain time limit is not possible because of the way pages are cached; the template will only be re-processed when the page is edited. A wikinews=suppressed option could be done by putting {{#ifeq:{{{wikinews}}}|suppressed||Wikipedia is not a news site; in-depth...}} in the template. --Yair rand (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

We manage it somehow on

Prod}}, which only works when substed unless I'm very much mistaken (I rarely use PROD, prefering AfD since low-traffic articles can just vanish under PROD without anyone realising). Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)}

12:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what those templates do, but I'm pretty sure that #if,# ifeq, and #switch functions are only recalculated when the page is edited. To have a specific message go away after a certain amount of time (which is what I'm assuming Brian McNeil was suggesting) the page would have to be edited or purged after the set time for the timer to update the message. (There's a decent possibility that I'm wrong about this, though.) --Yair rand (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• An awful lot is done by bots following recent changes. In such a way it is possible to have a log of pages to recheck, do a null edit, and expire the template - or section thereof - as required. --Brian McNeil /^talk 19:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, using a bot to update the templates is a possibility. --Yair rand (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So... Who might be willing to operate such a bot? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Bump thread to avoid being archived. This needs to be implemented ... Tempodivalse [talk] 20:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone just add the stuff to the templates and then put in a request at WP:Bot requests? --Yair rand (talk) 05:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Another bump. I might put a bot request in, but I'm about as good with templates as your granny, so I won't be doing that bit. I don't even trust myself to copypaste into them. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added the text to {{Current related}} and {{Recent death}} with the wikinews=suppressed option, as those are both not protected. {{Obituary}} seems not to be being used for recent deaths at all, from what I can see of Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Obituary, so I did not add it to that template. {{Current}} and {{Recentism}}, the most widely used of the recent-events templates, are full protected, so I was not able to change those. --Yair rand (talk) 05:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

A few concerns, mostly gathered from the discussion above but also one or two of my own:

1. It looks to me like most users strongly supporting this are active on Wikinews and Wikipedia, while most users strongly opposing it are active primarily or exclusively on Wikipedia. Make of that what you will.
2. Several of those templates -- such as {{recentism}} and especially {{obituary}} -- are rarely or never used on pages with actual "breaking news". It might be unwise to link to Wikinews as a default position, in those templates. That said, I particularly think that {{current}} and its sibling templates could benefit.
3. A number of people have expressed concern with the proposed wording. In particular, it's editor-oriented language in a template that is otherwise aimed at readers. It also discourages editing and/or contributing to Wikipedia, which a number of our "natives" have expressed strong concern over. Since nobody much seems keen to propose new wording, here goes: "For more in-depth news coverage, see [link] on Wikinews." or possibly "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia covering topics in a summary style. For in-depth news coverage, see [link] on Wikinews."
4. I'd rather link to Wikinews only if there is something to link to. Using the wording above, something like this:

{{#if: {{{wikinews|}}} | For more in-depth news coverage, see {{{wikinews}}} on [[n:Main Page|Wikinews]]. }}

(In this example, you'll have to provide your own brackets and formatting for the Wikinews article link, but this allows more freedom for, say, multiple links or extra text.)

Bear in mind, generally, that the vast majority of people viewing these will be readers, not editors. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the additions should not be placed on {{recentism}} or {{obituary}}. As for being editor-centric, most templates are like that. ("You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.", "Please improve this article if you can.", "Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view.", "Please help improve this article", etc.) I'd prefer if the templates link to Wikinews even if there isn't an article on the subject there. Is the proposed wording assumed to be after the "Wikipedia is not a news site" bit (i.e. "Wikipedia is not a news site. For more in-depth news coverage, see X on Wikinews")? --Yair rand (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "For more in-depth news coverage, see Wikinews": the "in-depth" material belongs on Wikipedia, raw news belongs on Wikinews. There is obviously some (healthy) overlap, but there is no reason why stories shouldn't run on both sites. Indeed, a link to Wikinews articles on an

ITN story (median view 20k/day) is a worthy advert for Wikinews. Physchim62 (talk)

23:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Er, not exactly. Wikipedia gives a historical perspective, and gives in-depth coverage of a broad subject, Wikinews gives a recent perspective, and gives in-depth coverage of a news event. Rather than leave contributors trying to add in-depth coverage of a non-notable event that violates

WP:NOTNEWS, it would make sense to show them to the correct place to add in-depth news coverage. --Yair rand (talk

) 00:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If Wikinews has an article, I'm fine linking to it; if they don't, I'm disinclined to hand out freebies. Content worth linking to is a prerequisite of linking, in my opinion. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean that it needs an already published article? Wouldn't that somewhat ruin the point of the invitation to contribute, which was kind of the point of the link, to direct people to the correct place to add news articles and content that isn't appropriate for Wikipedia? --Yair rand (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

But those additions make people think that writing about recent events on Wikipedia is inappropriate, and we definitely don't want people to think this, and stop short of editing. We want to encourage people to edit Wikipedia, not turn them away. I'm pretty sure most users would read this as 'don't edit Wikipedia, edit Wikinews instead'. Further, recent events templates are destined to readers, and those additions seem to imply that there is a problem in the article or with editing this article while there's not necessarily one (only a minority of articles edited because of recent events actually have NOTNEWS problems). We shouldn't imply there's a problem where there's not, there are cleanup templates like recentism or obituary which can be applied when an editor thinks there is an actual problem. Overall, I'm in agreement with Luna Santin that only in the case where the wikinews article exists we should link to it, but {{wikinews}} does this already in a better way, so there's no need for it.

Consider my suggestion to add an optional time-limited addition of wikinews to obituary and recentism, in those cases it seems justified (similarly to

template:prod does. Cenarium (talk

) 14:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

So, now we're on to deprecating

Wikipedia:Linking? I'll say this much, at least the criticism is consistent.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs

) 02:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

? Cenarium (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If it is possible to add a timer to the template, it could be helpful. Perhaps something like having the message be hidden after 36 hours or so? --Yair rand (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support The purpose of the proposed templates is to flag news-only articles erroneously posted in WP. For example, if Jane Doe, who has no WP article because, say, she's not notable enough, dies, then an obituary could be posted to WN. The user may not know about WN and may erroneously post it in WP. These templates can be used to mark the article, its Talk page, and/or the user's talk page. If Jane Doe has an article in WP, then the death information is added to that article and the proposed templates are not used. Another example would be an announcement that daylight saving time has just started in England: belongs in WN, not WP. Yes, the wording isn't perfect, but anyone can edit a template. One reason for opposing would be that there are too many templates already--I don't find that argument compelling. David Spector 16:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

  No, that's not the purpose of those templates. If you want, you can create a template for the purpose you mention. Cenarium (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

  Please note that those templates already exist and have a specific purpose, the initial proposal was to modify them. Cenarium (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Conditional Support if the wording is changed to something more like the above suggested "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia covering topics in a summary style. For in-depth news coverage, see [link] on Wikinews." The current "Wikipedia is not a news site" strikes me as overly harsh and defensive.--Danaman5 (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so here's what we want the template to do:

1. Tell readers that while Wikipedia does include information about recent events, it is not a news source, and all content must have a historical perspective.
2. Tell readers that one of Wikipedia's sister projects, Wikinews, is a news source that covers recent events in depth, and invite readers to contribute to it. As Jimbo said above, "While we're at it, it's a good thing to tell them where the content really should go."
3. Not give readers the impression that all information related to recent events is not allowed.
4. And of course, we want the extra message to fit in the little space without looking ridiculous.

The original suggestion "Wikipedia is not a news site; in-depth news coverage is more appropriate on Wikinews./Wikipedia is not a news site; please consider expanding Wikinews coverage, or writing a follow-up." do the 1st, 3rd, and 4th of these quite nicely, but there are some worries that it might give readers the impression that recent events are inappropriate on Wikipedia. which strikes me as being a little long. Luna Santin suggested "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia covering topics in a summary style. For in-depth news coverage, see [link] on Wikinews." This loses the aspect of inviting readers to add coverage to Wikinews, which was a major point. Tempodivalse suggested "Although Wikipedia permits content regarding recent events, it should have a historical perspetive, as this is not a news site. In-depth news-style coverage is more appropriate on Wikinews." which is rather long, though it does get the point across clearly.

Anyone have any other possibilities? And what do people think about using Tempodivalse's suggestion? --Yair rand (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think my suggestion was excessively long, although we could omit the "In-depth" and just start the sentence with "news-style" (because wikipedia does do in-depth, detailed stuff). Danaman5, I'm not sure what the issue is with "Wikipedia is not a news site", because isn't the project indeed that, per

WP:NOTNEWS

), and "Wikipedia permits content regarding recent events" should not discourage people from adding recent information. So, I have:

Although Wikipedia permits content regarding recent events, it should have a historical perspective, as it is not a news site. News-style coverage is more appropriate on Wikinews.

Which does not seem particularly longer than some other templates. Thoughts? Tempodivalse [talk] 13:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS

is not that sweeping, it doesn't support stating that Wikipedia is not a new site (which has different meanings and so is ambiguous and so shouldn't be used in any case). Wikipedia is widely considered as a news site, in a broad sense, that is, a site of information on recent events (and their background), especially in some occasions; but it's not the purpose of this template to make a point on this issue.

It seems several commentators thought it was a proposal for new templates, not modifying existing ones with other purposes. In addition, the objections to modify the purpose of the current events and recent death templates have not been addressed, therefore I believe there is no consensus for specific modifications of those three templates.

I suggest we modify {{

howto}} for example, and can be added immediately. There's a date parameter so we can very easily show this for no more than two months after tagging but if someone finds a finer way to implement this (it's possible, similar to prod), then we can switch to it. Cenarium (talk

) 17:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure

current-related}} templates from articles after a certain amount of time. --Yair rand (talk

) 17:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Advertising Wikinews via a current template is ineffective and inappropriate for multiple reasons.
  • The {{current}} templete, and some of its related cousins are monitored and promptly removed from articles that have few editors and few edits. The typical count for {{current}} is often less than ten, and sometimes zero.
  • The number of readers vs editors is a couple or orders of magnitude in difference.
  • Editors of wikinews are a couple of orders of magnitude less than the number of editors.
  • I further object to making the current template more complicated, or in any way advertising increasing use of the template.
  • The present template text of {{current}} at present is poorly aligned with its actual monitored use, and the proposed addition would make the alignment worse.
  Yellowdesk (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how the number of Wikinews editors is relevant, the template isn't aimed at them; it's aimed at Wikipedia readers and editors. The short amount of time on articles isn't really relevant either, it's on articles which are about recent events, which are the only articles that matter for this. --Yair rand (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

A very common request at the help desk is asking where to find the move button by a new editor. There are instructions telling them how to use the move button, but if they are not yet confirmed, they don't see it, and (reasonably) assuming they are just looking in the wrong place. It would be a better user experience if the move button existed, but was grayed. An even better solution would be to show the button, but have it link to a page explaining that it will not become operational until they are confirmed, but that change may be more difficult - I'm guessing showing it as a non-operational gray button might be relatively easy.--SPhilbrickT 13:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Providing a button with an explanatory message seems like a good idea. A grayed-out button might be frustrating - "why can't I move it?". Rd232 ^talk 20:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's not a difficult build (being more work than worth).Having the button an off color and pointing to a page explaining that it will not become operational until they are confirmed. I think it's a great idea and there's nothing wrong in adding to the incentive for an Editor with

MESSAGE

21:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The button need not be grayed out. It can point to

WP:RM. PleaseStand ^(talk)

22:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

In the Vector skin (supposed to be made the default soon), the move function is hidden under the down arrow, where many might not see it either. Perhaps a message should be on the edit screen for logged-in users instead: "If you want to rename this page," and then "please use the move function" or "please ask for assistance at requested moves", depending on whether the user is autoconfirmed or not. The standard response at RM when an autoconfirmed user asks for assistance (currently 4 days, 10 edits) could be to move the page for the user and then leave a note at the user's talk page. Also, the help page should be made much more concise and should include screenshots. It is too hard to follow for a newbie and includes no visuals whatsoever. PleaseStand ^(talk) 22:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree: point here

MESSAGE

23:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi please join in the thread at here. Falling rain was compiled in 1995-1996 and lists false population estimated within a 7 km radius and altitude data which reliable government sources and google earth and consistently proved wrong, often dramatically so and oftne lists settlements or draws railway lines which no longer exist. Unfortunately many editors believe this data to be reliable and have used it or linked to it in over 9000 of our encyclopedia articles, presenting the read with false information or directing them to false information through external links. This site has recently been used as a source for the mass creating of generic stubs about Kenyan village. The creator is now aware of the problem and thanks to a Xenobot has now been dealt with but we still have 9000 articles using this as a source/link. I and other well trsuted experienced editors/admins such as

Admins are not babysitters.

People should behave themselves even if no one is watching. Maurreen (talk) 06:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

probably true, but beside the point. the question was whether or not this would help keep ANI a bit clearer. people are going to whine no matter what. --Ludwigs2 15:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if the wording were changed, it seems inefficient. Yes, ANI would be cleared up. But admins would need to go to different pages instead of having any salient points centralized. Maurreen (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

But keeping the discussion on the content-focussed page might keep temperatures lower by making it easier to focus on the content and smooth over other problems, rather than foregrounding them. Rd232 ^talk 15:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That was part of my thinking as well - rather than exporting the problem to a new arena at ANI (where people usually start to vent at length), keep it contained where the problem already is and highlight basic civility and talk page rules. it's like adding flame retardant, rather than giving them a whole new box of kindling. --Ludwigs2 16:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Idea of keeping it "all local" seems helpful in reguards to, keeping the discussion where the problem is and help to keep the discussion "On Point"

I wonder if it is at all possible for the Foundation to provide us all with free access to JSTOR; according to JSTOR#Usage and contents "Licensee institutions can make JSTOR available to their members free of charge through the Internet." It might not be feasible and JSTOR might not go for it, but it would be worth the try. JSTOR I know comes in handy just about any grad student I know of couldnt possibly get through certain courses without it. It could help invaluably in our scientific and humanities articles by giving us indisputable reliable sources.Camelbinky (talk) 03:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Might be worth a try but the problem would be that WP is the "encyclopedia that anybody can edit". If anybody can create a free WP account and access JSTOR then there would be no point in anybody buying a license. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

JSTOR often makes abstracts of their papers viewable without charge. If you want to read a specific paper, it can be requested at

WP:REX and someone can often get it for you. EdJohnston (talk

) 03:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Or you can ask directly someone from Category:Wikipedians who have access to JSTOR.—Emil J. 11:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

We have an icon for http:/ hyperlink to HTML file type (e.g. [3]). We have another for a link to ftp:/ protocol (e.g. [4]). And another one for http:/ hyperlink to PDF file type (e.g. [5]). How about one for http:/ hyperlink to Microsoft Office Excel file type (e.g. [6]), and one for http:/ hyperlink to Microsoft Office Word file type ??? The scientific community is publishing supplemental tables on Microsoft Office Excel file type, nowadays. If you do not have access to Microsoft Office, it does not interest you. Microsoft Office files might contain dangerous macros, you might want to see an icon as warning. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't most scientific publication in PDF? Regards SoWhy 18:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty trivial to add icons to filetypes. As far as I know, however, Wikimedia wikis ban upload of .doc, .xls, etc. The only files of this type are historical files that pre-date tighter uploading restrictions. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think he means external links to files of those types, not internal links to our uploads. I seem to remember a script that adds file type icons to external links; or maybe it was a Firefox extension. In either case a script shouldn't be too difficult. I'm not sure that it's necessary as a universal feature. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:14, 21 Apr 2010 (UTC)

The files are PDF right, but there are hyperlinks to the supplemental tables. They are important, the reference is incomplete otherwise. Sometimes you use the supplemental material and not the main article. I'm using the External links option in the articles.

What icon would you use? Microsoft Excel uses different icons for Windows and Mac, but they are non-free images, so we can't use them anyway. There has been a stuck discussion on the PDF icon as to non-free status. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought of that too. I assumed the original are non-free. But, it seems ok now the PDF icon. How about the same as PDF, without the red image in it of course, "Excel green" X for Excel, "Word blue" W for Word? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The MS office range of products are not the only ones that support these file extensions (Example: OpenOffice)... Even wordpad can open some .doc documents, So i would be recommending against that.

Talk Page · Contribs

) 04:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Which programm happens to open a file does not matter. Each file type is identified in order to allow its openning by the operating system. Another possibility would be to give an icon showing it is neither ftp:/ protocol, nor HTML file type, nor PDF file type. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Please participate in the discussion here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

In 2007,

I may be comparing apples to oranges, but I saw on my own wiki that one of my users applied for adminship and, after he got it, posted a message on Facebook bragging about how he was the youngest administrator on the site; he then proceeded to abuse his tools and when it was suggested he give up his post, he protested on the grounds that he already told all his friends he was a Libertapedia administrator. I don't think he would have viewed adminship the same way if it had been called "janitorship," which is why the name was changed.

• Oppose I cannot see how this would be an improvement. Besides, the terms "sysop" and "administrator" are already very well established in Wikipedians minds. Immunize (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• I get the reasoning behind it, but I think it would cause a lot more problems than it fixes, a hell of a lot of WP pages have administrator in the title, not to mention categories, templates and user scripts. For example there's ANI, with over 600 subpages, all of which will have many permament links to discussions on them. Its just not worth it--Jac16888^Talk 18:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment As I said in my Admin acceptance speech, drying tears from eyes
  WP:RFA does well enough on en.wiki at weeding out those who want it as a trophy. This may not be true on other sites, including other language Wikipedias. But everyone else already can and in some cases does do their own thing. Rd232 ^talk
  18:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• How uncool ... and un-PC ... wikipedia article on
  NVO (talk
  ) 21:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'd be in favor of this if I thought "janitor" wouldn't actually become a prized position here over time, despite its connotation elsewhere. In my opinion the position itself will always be prized in people's minds, no matter what we call it. Janitor or not, they're still "granted" additional "rights" and "privileges" over other users. Make people feel like the position is actually that of added responsibilities, work, and subservience to others, and then you might have something; but merely changing the name of the group wouldn't really do it, IMO. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:57, 10 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion hit the nail on the head, it isnt the title that is the problem, though I believe the title does help feed into the problem. The problem starts with administrators not being told REPEATEDLY and FORCEFULLY that they serve us to perform extra duties and have special responsibilities in order that ALL of us can edit more effectively and efficiently; that being an Administrator is NOT a title that gives higher authority, insight, or greater voice in decisions. The arrogance of the group as a whole in their repeated inability to hold the very small minority of bad apples accountable to higher standards of civility is appalling; they should allow us "mere editors" oversight and allow us to hold them accountable instead of "policing" themselves, including allowing us to strip easily admins we find abusing their powers or for rude behavior (and yes with stricter standards and enforcement than what we expect from regular editors, including zero-tolerance policy for rudeness and newbie biting).Camelbinky (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Only if I get to go by Jan Itor. But seriously, as has been stated eloquently above - the title is fairly irrelevant. There will be those who abuse the position regardless of whether you call them "Sacred and High Executor of the Wikipedia" or "Scumbucket". Shereth 22:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Did they actually think that bureaucrat will not sound prestigious? Well, it does. Anyway, this is an existing problem indeed, but yeah I don't think that changing the name alone will do any good. But, I do feel that there is need to address this issue. On a related note, there was a section called "no big deal" referring to the significance of being an admin and it was chopped away. That says a lot about the mentality of some/the admins. I think WP needs to return to its roots in this aspect. --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, if only I wouldnt find myself blocked for calling admins "scumbuckets"....I have and will continue to refer to them as janitors however, I refuse to use the word administrator unless absolutely necessary. But I'm sure eventually we'll see admins begin to push for such use of the word janitor as being a personal attack and uncivil behavior and start censoring us from using the term. Watch, it'll happen.Camelbinky (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per above. ~
  NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes
  ) 23:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - janitor is not commonly used outside the USA - in australia I think we only knew what the word was as kids thanks to sesame street. I think of admin as secretarial staff where I work, so it is not a status thing where I am. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:HAVENTWEGOTMOREIMPORTANTTHINGSTODO. – ukexpat (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • No, that's why we are Wikipedia editors. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:39, 11 Apr 2010 (UTC)
    • Exactly! Lol :P --JokerXtreme (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. For the reason I'll just quote what I said in the original 2007 Wikien thread...

In the computer world, "System Administrators" and "System Operators" (sysops) are those with special privileges on a multi user system. They can do things that ordinary users can't do. Read/delete any file, restrict user accounts. On some Unix type systems, they are members of the "wheel" group thus the term "wheel war". Wikipedia is a multi user system and Admins/sysops on Wikipedia have some of these same powers. They can delete any article, restrict any user. They need these powers and they are a necessary evil.

If a user tries to edit a page and can't because he is blocked, whether he deserved it or not it's an insult to his intelligence to tell him it was "cleanup" by a "janitor". I came to this list a few years ago because I was blocked for a month, my whole ISP was because of one vandal with an army of sock puppets and a slew of throwaway ISP accounts. You are not going to get me to believe that drastic action was done by the guy who mops the server room floor.

I say continue to call them what they are, "Administrators".

--Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Who cares what their "official" title is? I shall continue to call them ... well perhaps you can guess.
  Fatuorum
  02:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Name should reflect reality not wishful thinking, they have authority and they run the place. Sole Soul (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia was made upon wishful thinking. I oppose the renaming as well; it doesn't address the real problem at hand. The only power admins have is the ability to enforce the will of the community. That is the whole essence of being an admin and that is not an actual power if it is not abused. It should be considered a burden, not a trophy. --JokerXtreme (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Firstly, they're officially called 'sysops'. 'admin' is more of a jargonned term. Secondly, Admins don't clean up WP as much as they run it ('Crats do basically admin stuff anyways, and stewards are off visiting other wikis). The ones who clean up WP are those who use Huggle, Twinkl,e and AWB. Thirdly, Renaming them to 'janitor' will degrade the value of the position. Admins have to go thru RfAs, and they shouldn't come out with a name like 'janitor'. It's like being 'promoted' from a journalist to a janitor. Fourthly, we could rename all groups, then. Rename 'rollbacker' to 'reverter' or 'undoer' (The term 'rollback' mystified me at first). Rename 'bureaucrats' (Also completely confusing) to '!votecounters' or 'decisionmakers', 'stewards' to 'Global trustees', 'founder' to 'God', 'autoreviewers' to 'autoreviewed'. Fifthly, this probably won't succeed anyways, judging by the failure of renaming 'Users' to 'Editors' (We had that discussion a while ago). ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 11:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Good reasons have been give against. Many people wouldn't even understand the word janitor. And the equivalent term for administrator is used in other language wikipedias and most of wmf sites, it's well established; it would be destabilizing if we changed. Cenarium (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as reflecting somebody's wishful thinking rather than reality; in the real world, janitors don't have the power to ban people like admins do here, nor do the janitors of an office building go rummaging through other workers' desks looking for papers that they think ought to be thrown out, instead of just emptying the trash of things others have decided to discard. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I could easily refute every point given by each oppose !vote here, but what is the point of doing so, again this proposal will lose based on votes and not as it should be decided- based on the strength of the argument, in which case the anti-admins would win. I will point out to the last post that janitors (sorry, I mean admins) arent and shouldnt go around banning people, they should ban or block ONLY those that the Community has decided have done wrong, admins should not be using their own decision of "oh, I saw someone be uncivil, I will block them", neither should they be going through "other workers' desks", if something is brought to their attention and a consensus has been made by the Community THEN it is the admin's responsibility to close the discussion based on the consensus and "carry out the trash", whether that trash is an editor that needs to be blocked or an article that needs deleting. That is where admins get their arrogance and why we normal editors really get pissed off, admins see things and use their own discretion on enforcing policy as they interpret it, instead they need to simply do what we tell them and enforce policy as WE see fit. We are ALL EQUAL, they are not our "betters", not our "police", not our "judges", not our "parents", not our "teachers"; they are our servants. If they continue on their arrogant path it will lead to class-warfare in Wikipedia; and they will lose.Camelbinky (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider myself anti-admin, nor I have any complains from any admin (yet). Admins are indeed a "necessary evil". Yet, it is true that admins do not possess (or shouldn't) any real power. They don't posess any special decision making authority anyway, and their power is strictly executive, that is to enforce the will of the community. And that is how adminship should be treated to avoid "nasty" behavior on admins' part and frictions within the community. Once again, I'm not supporting the specific proposal about the name change, but measures must be taken to ensure that a harmful mentality about adminship is not being cultivated. --JokerXtreme (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think the truth (?) is more complex: I wish admins would be much stricter on vandals than they are other editors; some admins abuse their power; and too many other admins passively backup the power abusers. Naming admins as "janitors" will have no effect - there are already enough alternative names for admins :-) --Philcha (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment—I think would actually prefer the label 'custodian', as in a caretaker. That's a role I often think of myself as performing whenever I review my watch list.—RJH (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Very Strong Oppose: Administrators have power over ordinary wikipedians, while it may be used to clean up messes, it is still a power that the ordinary wikipedian dosen't have, however with janitors, anyone can pick up their own rubbish and put it in the bin, or avoid making a mess in the first place, meaning a janitor dosen't have any special abilities the the average person dosen't. In conclusion: keep it as admins and sysops, any change is unneccessary and wrong (for want of a stonger word that is still applicable).

Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 05:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• How about renaming it to janitors with the ability to kick your ass if you don't behave. --JokerXtreme (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose—
  pointless waste of time. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State
  ─╢ 08:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
• They're administrators. Anyone can grab a mop and pitch in. But administrators have privileges, and they're a necessary evil on this project. We lose clarity when a "janitor" warns someone not to do something. Again, they're administrators. They administrate. Arskwad (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose To me it seems like it would be only a cosmetic change. Those who want to be admins so they can abuse the tools will likely see through the euphemism, while newbies will have no clue what purpose the janitors serve. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 01:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as it would seem to give support to the incorrect and misleading claim that they are just "ordinary editors with mops". "Magistrates for Life" would be more appropriate. DuncanHill (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Mop out this proposal right now. Don't call the admins janitors,admins are called as such because they are exactly like that. Also, while janitors can be anyone, not anyone can be admins. So, oppose.
  csdnew
  11:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I notice that you do not lose ur editing here if u get in a edit conflict. Is it a big hassle to get this really very nice feature everywhere? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by “here” and “everywhere”? This feature should work in all MediaWikis, which includes the whole Wikipedia. Svick (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I noticed here (Village pump (proposals)), I read one hour ago that Jimbo Wales got on his PC, I lost sometimes my edition because of edit conflict, so I assumed it was just on here. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I recently discovered the articles

Computer Science, Physics, Chemistry, and Biology (etc.) are big enough and each one has a talk page for merge discussions. --Chris.urs-o (talk

) 06:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought this type of redirect was the norm. Rd232 ^talk 08:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge not necessary. I have not examined the articles but they could certainly be maintained as separate articles if the content of the "people who do it" articles is restricted to training, daily activities, employment circumstances, stats, major societies, famous examples, etc rather than the content of the field of study. alteripse (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

To me they look like good candidates for expansion rather than for a merge.

Dmcq (talk

) 12:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• See large examples to get a better idea of the intended direction. E.g. Architect vs Architecture.
• Expansion preferred. Some stubs might warrant a temporary merge, until such time as their subsection becomes large enough to re-split. (depending on your personal approach to m:mergism vs. m:separatism...)
• 2 incomplete lists of the articles we have:
  List of occupations
  .
• Use
  Template:Infobox Occupation in the lead, and probably Occupational Outlook Handbook (Occupational Outlook Handbook
  ) for core (US-centered) sourcing.

Hope that helps. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess it works as long as people are careful to keep the content more or less separate. — Ilyanep (Talk) 20:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

So I'm not sure how the technical end of things would work, but what about providing information like, say (I'm familiar with MLA as its used at my school), location of publication, etc. in addition to what we already have.

Then, we could have a link to a dynamically/on the fly generated citation line for all the most common bibliography information, e.g.

Kolbert, Elizabeth. Field Notes from a Catastrophe. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing Co., 2006. Print.

I mean, this really needs to be something that is provided by a book database, such as google books, but we can do it too - it would be a great service to our users doing research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.91.54 (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2010

1) For books with an ISBN, there is the wonderful tool http://www.ottobib.com/ which will generate a citation on the fly. If you click on an ISBN link in Wikipedia, you'll get taken to Special:BookSources (eg ISBN 1596911255) which contains links to ottobib (and other sites).

2) Template:Infobox book already provides fields for all those parameters, except for City. (Some editors seem to add the City name to the Publisher field, eg The Metamorphosis)

3) I think there was discussion elsewhere about creating a comprehensive "bibliography citation database" for reducing redundancy&error in our article's references, but I'm not up-to-date on it. Hopefully someone else can cover that.

I'm not sure if that answers your question, but hope it helps. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's basically what I am looking for, so muchos gracias. =) -76.241.91.54 (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It is proposed that

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Picture of the day photo credits --MZMcBride (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Editing javascript files is intimidating for some. Folks who hang out around WP:Proposals maybe forget how intimidating this can be for some people. I've been on WP for more than a year and I still freak out whenever I'm told to edit my .JS ...

You can always open the article in a new browser tab and then use the "unwatch" "button" at the top. But yeah, it could be smoother. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If you know of an already-existing script (i.e. that can be added to your JS) that should have a checkbox under the "Gadgets" sections of preferences, you can suggest the addition at WP:Gadget/proposals. Adding the "unwatch" links is one of them that has been proposed in the past but not acted on by an admin. PleaseStand ^(talk) 05:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, PleaseStand. I re-posted this proposal over there.
• I also took the opportunity to post a new proposal at
  WP:Hornbook
  05:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Many templates are permanently protected without {{documentation}}. Users can't do minor maintenance like adding inter-wiki links, and as a result, after some time the inter-wiki links are not up-to-date. I would like to suggest that every permanently protected article should have {{documentation}}. --Quest for Truth (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a bot (or someone using AWB) could make a list from Category:Wikipedia protected templates of protected templates not using {{documentation}}. Rd232 ^talk 15:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Or use Cat Scan: [7] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

or easier, if you want to do minor maintenance like that on a locked page, leave an {{

editprotected}} tag on the page asking to have the {{documentation}} template added and the current documentation and links moved into it. then come back later when it's done. --Ludwigs2

14:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the Cat Scan link above, it seems permanently protected templates typically have a note on the talk page about {{

editprotected}}. More documentation for many of these templates would be nice, but {{documentation}} may not be as necessary as it sounded. Rd232 ^talk

18:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It is true that one can always use {{

editprotected}} for these templates. However, such minor maintenance does not really need to bother an admin. {{documentation}} can make it simpler and more efficient for users to update the interwiki links and write some description for the templates. --Quest for Truth (talk

) 10:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree. But my impression is that this substantively affects fewer templates than you'd think. In any case, an editprotected request can be made to include a documentation tag, where needed (you can use the catscan link above to do that yourself). And admins should be encouraged to consider including the tag for pages that don't have them, when they respond to an editprotected request. Rd232 ^talk 11:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

According to the Cat Scan, the number of affected templates is only 440. The problem is that in the long run, it is quite bothering. One day you need to add an inter-wiki link to the French version. The next time may be the Chinese version. And then ... Spend a little time to do one more step when admins lock the template can save their time as well as provide convenience to other users in the future. --Quest for Truth (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a lot less than that - the category for Catscan in the link above is all protected templates, not just permanently protected ones. So if you go through and make a list of those you want the tag adding to, I'm sure someone will do it - and the list may not be all that long (dozens maybe, rather than hundreds). Rd232 ^talk 22:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I can tell you that most of the protected templates are permanently protected. I'm now making a list by filtering them one by one. --Quest for Truth (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is the list: User:Quest for Truth/list of permanently protected templates without documentation. 395 permanently protected templates need documentation. Please add documentation to them. --Quest for Truth (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Well that's going to take a while... I did the portal links on the list. Rd232 ^talk 16:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for

WP:BOTREQ. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits

17:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite a number of those templates have already contained some description. A bot may not do well if the script for the bot is not written carefully. I think doing it manually is better. --Quest for Truth (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest:

• Don't bother with any subtemplates. These rarely require separate documentation or interwiki links.
• I'll try and develop a centralised documentation for the Lang-XX templates. As with other such systems (e.g. Template:Flag template documentation), this can automatically transclude a /doc page (if it exists).

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Some subtemplates contain description and interwiki links, like Template:Chinese calendar/cycle, Template:Conservative Party (UK)/meta/color and Template:Party shading/Independent. They should have their documenatation.
• It seems a good idea to have a centralised documentation like Template:Flag template documentation. I'm looking forward to the centralised one. --Quest for Truth (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this template would be useful, some users may find some article images offensive .. what do you guys think ? Dwayne was here! ^talk 22:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose
  NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes
  ) 22:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
• I have deleted the template per CSD T2: Templates that are unambiguous misrepresentations of established policy. This includes "speedy deletion" templates for issues that are not speedy deletion criteria and disclaimer templates intended to be used in articles. For the purposes of this discussion, I will paste its contents here shortly. --Taelus (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
• As
  Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles says While ideas like this have been continually proposed, the consensus is that they should not be used. In fact, all articles already have a disclaimer, linked at the bottom of this page and every page on Wikipedia. Additional disclaimers in encyclopedia articles should generally be removed, and disclaimer templates should be removed and deleted. Although that is a guideline, I see no reason why we would need a disclaimer such as that proposed by Dwayne. As NSD says, Wikipedia is not censored, and this disclaimer would be a form of censorship - who are we to decide if text or an image may be disturbing to some people? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs
  \ 23:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
• Additionally, it's impossible to find a neutral way to determine what's considered "offensive", especially since we're a worldwide cross-cultural encyclopedia. Are pics of gay kissing "offensive"? Which culture(s)'(s) taboos would we acknowledge? Why Culture X and not Culture Y? --Cybercobra (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Honestly, why do we need another one of these discussions? Didn't we learn anything after all those goatse discussions? • ɔ ∫ → 01:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is not censored, and disclaimers are not allowed in articles. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 01:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted template

The template appeared as the following:

This article contains text or images which may be disturbing to some.

I have deleted it from the template space to prevent accidental misuse/misinterpretation of policy for now. Regards, --Taelus (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• We already have {{Censor}}, which is for the talk pages of articles. That's the appropriate place to remind people that articles are not censored, so offensive images or text should not be removed from the article just on the nature of their offensiveness. There's no need for any disclaimer on the face of the article—and for reference, I looked at Muhammad, which is probably one of the biggest flashpoints for an article with an offensive image. —C.Fred (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at the preferences and I can't see an easy way to set up a profile with all images disabled. I certainly think it would improve the acceptability of wikipedia if we could tag articles and pictures so people can self-censor if they want to. If creationmists, muslim, and prudes of various sorts want to self censor then why not let them is my feeling. We'd need controls on such tags so they didn't get out of hand as there are a lot of weird beliefs out there.

Dmcq (talk

) 09:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Which of these images (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) would you mark with the template? What distinguishes between a belief that you think is acceptable, and one which you think is "wierd"?? Why should any one of those images (or any other for that matter) be identified as different to all the others? Happy‑melon 09:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the tour.
  WP:Hornbook

I believe you have misread what I said. It would be up to editors to put on tags as they thought fit and it would be up to readers to self censor themselves as they wish. I am not setting myself up as an arbiter on all the worlds weird beliefs. The only restriction I was saying is that the tags would probably have to be controlled to some extent to reduce the number otherwise it would be hard for people who self censor to pick the appropriate tags for themselves and there may be logistic or vandalism problems if the number becomes too large. It would not be any different in essence from sticking a category on a page except you could apply it to images as well. I guess there would be arguments about some images whether they are reasonable to censor for a particular group but I don't see that would be of much interest to most people. As to vandalism some people might want to for instance show pictures of Mohamed to people who think thay should not see them or images of penises to anyone who doesn't want that sort of thing. Personally I can only interpret your sticking a whole lot of images which you think people might have problems with as expressing some sort of strong feeling about the subject but I'm not certain what can be behind it or what you think you are trying to accomplish.

Dmcq (talk

) 16:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Does an extract from a porn film qualify for a "nudity" tag? What about a painting of a nude figure? A glazing on a pot? A bas relief? Where does the line fall? My point is that you are an editor, and therefore have - whether or not you choose to assert them - opinions on which of the images I linked, or of the many others on Wikimedia, would merit inclusion in such a system as you propose. As a fellow editor, I have my own opinions, as does every person here. You are right to not consider yourself the sole arbitor of this issue, but the fact remains that someone, or rather a consensus of someones, would have to be. And those editors are no different from you or me; they have their own beliefs and opinions which fundamentally cannot be made to agree, because there is no objective line beyond which an image is universally 'questionable', and before which is is universally not. My challenge was not to you as an overall arbitor, but to you as a member of the consensus which would be needed to manage such a system, as a demonstration that such a consensus cannot be found which is not hopelessly biased towards some particular view of what constitutes acceptability. Happy‑melon 22:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

We already have a perfectly acceptable "self censor"ing system: if you're likely to be offended by an article, don't read it. Adding images to inappropriate articles for sheer shock value is vandalism, and those images will be removed. However, legitimate images (of Muhammad in said article, or of genitalia in articles about said body parts) should remain, and there's nothing gained by adding a disclaimer to those articles. —C.Fred (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a bad idea. The reason censoring on the basis of potential offensiveness wouldn't be viable for Wikipedia is the same reason this kind of tagging wouldn't be viable for Wikipedia. People would just fight over whether the tag belongs, based on their personal standards for offensiveness, rather than fighting over the placement of the content itself. It's just shifting the problem over to a template. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:01, 22 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Even more, it's a template with

talk

) 01:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm definitely against disclaimers like the one shown. However I would be in favour of a facility to self censor. Then people who believe they will be corrupted or commit a sin or whatever if they read or see something in a particular class can set their preferences so they are warned in advance or the information or image is hidden for them. I'd leave a marker so they can click through. Otherwise such people are barred from using wikipedia. I believe in serving the widest audience not driving them to things like conservapedia.

Dmcq (talk

) 12:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As I have stated before, I would not be adverse to external censoring or to self censoring by selecting preferences. One possible method would be to tag images and articles so preferences or external applications can detect the type. Even this would require careful consideration. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with tagging like that, is that in my opinion, if we offer self censoring facilities for one group of people, we should offer the same to others. So that means that we would have to allow people to tag images of mohammed or of gay people or the word fuck, or whatever they want to censor away. That's one big floodgate to open. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

We wouldn't necessarily be opening such a floodgate. There is a rather far-reaching bar for 99% of the internet community over which things are considered "naughty".

gays or fuck or Almond Joy. Equazcion ^(talk)

13:35, 24 Apr 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose we could ever fully cater for people who hold up a crucifix if a liberal or atheist (or god-forbid the two in one) walks by but I believe wikipedia could cater for people who are just a little bit blinkered.

Dmcq (talk

) 13:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no objective way to determine that. What is considered mainstream or extreme varies depending on your own views and your surroundings. Mr.Z-man 18:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If I have more than one "new messages" waiting, the orange bar only catches the first, but does not keep appearing until I have read those that remain. Does anybody else suffer from this glitch? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It obviously doesn't know which individual messages you've physically read off the screen, it just knows if you've visited your talkpage since the notification was displayed. So, yes, but it's not a glitch. --Cybercobra (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_58#Change_in_manner_in_which_we_are_told_we_have_new_messages might be relevant. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I missed that during the search. I'll give it a read. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed quite a few talk pages have a warning about missings <references /> where people have stuch a bit from an article with references into a discussion. I think it would be helpful if instead talk pages automatically assumed a references tag at the end. This would enable people to see what the refeences actually look like.

Better still would be adding said tag manually at the end of the discussion. That way, the references are in proximity to the discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No talk page should be showing any Cite error messages. Namespace detection is implemented through {{broken ref}} and errors should show only on main (article), template, category, help and file pages. Please list any talk pages where you see a cite error.

{{Reflist-talk}} was designed for talk pages. It was designed for multiple uses on a page and explicitly closes the reference list. And yes, it should be added immediately after the associated references. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

We have to be realistic about this, it's all very well saying people should stick it in but they don't. I think it is only reasonable to expect that article pages should be always properly formatted.

Dmcq (talk

) 17:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

A proposal to simplify portal's template and make portals more visited. See discussion here. --

Hi there. I'm looking for some community input on SagaCookBot's request for approval. The bot will be copying content from a revamped version of www.sagacook.com. Please join in the discussion at the BRfA page. Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey there wikipedia! I wrote a bot to find images on wikipedia that also exist on

How would it determine that the transfer was done properly, including proper attribution? You also need to consider that {{

need to be an admin to run an adminbot. PleaseStand ^(talk)

18:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As having processed many of the deletions of recently bot tagged images, I have to advice against an adminbot. Mistakes are common and many of the transfers require significant additional verification of a human. I can only ask that more admins to help going trough all the CSD nominations. (over 10000 are left). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Bot could flag any hash mismatches at least, and maybe tag hash matches as checked. Could the bot assist with other verification time-saving? Rd232 ^talk 23:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There are already 13000 images tagged by bots for being on commons or being transferred to commons. But you still have to double check for everything, since bot and usernominations are all mixed up, so you don't know what work has gone into the various nomination. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

In which case, there's a possible improvement there, no? As part of the tagging, provide whatever info the bot came up with. Rd232 ^talk 15:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is it possible to somehow get the SHA1 hash of a file on Wikipedia without downloading the whole file? If not, why would you compare hashes instead of just directly comparing the file contents? —Bkell (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It is possible to retrieve the SHA1 hash of an image using Wikipedia's API. PleaseStand ^(talk) 22:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Please, no adminbot for this. Just because {{
  NowCommons}} is on them, doesn't necessarily mean they should be deleted. Some transfers aren't correct and by deleting the file pages, it makes it harder to check it. Thus, admins should check them first and take care of problematic files. A bot is too stupid to deal with this. --The Evil IP address (talk
  ) 22:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

As I described here, I want to activate my bot to add the syntax {{Portal|Portalname}} in all the pages that is related to the related portal. In this manner more readers will visit portals. This would apply to multiple categories and portals.

• Do you agree?
• I have to write "Portalname" in lower case or upper case?
• Except to have bot flag, write code, and reach consensus here, what I have to do?

--

• Tentatively agree, but automatically finding relevant pages might be problematic.
• Currently the case matters, but this should be changed shortly.
• You will need to follow the instructions at
  WP:BRFA to get your bot approved. — Martin (MSGJ · talk
  ) 13:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Portals vary, the links to them are often crufty. Take a look a Louisiana Purchase is has a link to every US State portal that is part of the purchase (including, until recently, one that didn't exist), your proposal would add Portal:France to all the communes? Why? Unless you mean Portal:XXX gets added to article XXX? In which case, it is probably already done.

Also Portals are slip-sliding between The Project (i.e. being part of the encyclopedia) and Wikiprojects - look at Portal:Physics "Things you can do" "Fix a stub" etc. That makes the portal a selfref. Rich Farmbrough, 14:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC).

I feel that this criterion for speedy deletion should be eliminated, and instead, all pages that would have fell under the criterion should be immediately converted to

Why? The criterion specifically states that the title must not be a plausible title for a redirect. Mr.Z-man 16:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• For the articles that are eligible for criterion A10, if they were converted to redirects, they would then be eligible for speedy deletion under criterion R3. Having an article criterion makes it easier to just delete the title in one step, instead of having to make and tag a redirect. It's also a lot more transparent to delete the article instead of deleting the subsequent redirect. Accordingly, criterion A10 is useful and makes the whole cleanup process easier for all involved. —C.Fred (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

And any article that would otherwise fall under A10 can be (and should be) made into a keepable redirect by any editor. Although I do agree that much stuff is deleted which should be made into redirects, merged or kept, that is not the fault of A10. Adn loads more trash is thrown out than good stuff. Rich Farmbrough, 14:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC).

The problem there is that A10 specifically states that it only applies to articles with titles that would not make a plasuable redirect. If the title was a keepable redirect A10 would not apply in the first place meaning that converting a valid A10 speedy in a redirect would be pointless because by this critera's very nature all of the newly created redirect would already be deleateable under R3. In short there is no reason to convert valid A10s into redircts since they will be deleted anyway.--76.66.191.208 (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

R3 does not apply to articles that have been converted into redirects. I don't see any problem here. A10 says where the title is not a plausible redirect delete - otherwise create a redirect. Simple, does what everyone wants, status quo. Rich Farmbrough, 19:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC).

Immunize, can you provide an example of an article deleted under A10 that shouldn't have been?

talk

) 04:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Much more users would think that wikipediais very comfortable if you could make a button in the top of the article, which turns off all links and tags<a href="...> </a> in the content. I think it is need, because when you're copying the text from article (with linking to wikipedia, of corse) you usually have to remove hyperlinks from words (but in MS Word it's quite inconvenient).

Best regards, Mr. Artem Ushakov, Qantas.

Use Paste Special... text only Lambanog (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You can also paste it at the notepad, and then copy and move it elsewhere

talk

) 15:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Same thing into the address bar also works. --Cybercobra (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

More to the point, every page has on the lefthand side toolbox "print/export" options including "Printable version", which has wikilinks removed and URLs revealed. Try it. Rd232 ^talk 16:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The "Printable version" does not remove wikilinks, although it changes the formatting to be less obtrusive. The text is still linked. —C.Fred (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Oops. Well that leaves the "Keep text only" option when pasting into Word, besides other suggestions. Rd232 ^talk 20:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Use Open Office. Not saying it solves the problem, just ... use Open Office. Rich Farmbrough, 19:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC).

There is also ?action=raw, but that is just the raw wikitext. Tim1357 ^talk 02:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the above hasn't been implemented at en-wp, but has at commons-wiki? When an upload's license has not been specified, the image is automatically tagged for lacking proper information (i.e.,

Total support, makes new file patrolling a whole lot easier. • ɔ ʃ → 23:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sure it is tagged for deletion if no licence is specified. Rich Farmbrough, 14:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC).

Not by default here, though. • ɔ ʃ → 01:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on "automatic" - I think tweaking the upload templates might be easy enough. Rich Farmbrough, 19:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC).

I'm not sure how it works on Commons (I assume either something in the upload form or some parser looking for copyright tags), but if a new file is uploaded without a copyright tag, what is the equivalent of {{

db-f4}} shows up on the image page. This does not apply, I believe, for file pages whose tags are manually removed later, perhaps by a vandal. • ɔ ʃ →

20:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think a few different bots check new uploads for any templates other than {{own}} and {{Information}} (or any of its equivalents) and tags it as missing a license if there are no others. I've noticed that the bots don't get all of them, but they do get quite a lot. Killiondude (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey there Wikipedia, I am here to ask for consensus to run my

The proposed bot task, right now, is to resize images where (height×width)≥600×600 into images that are the same proportion, only where height×width = 400×400. (trial example). And then tagg with {{

Can bots do it? I thought that the only way to modify the images was to actually download them, open with an image editor, and upload the result as a new version of the file.

talk

) 13:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

A bot could just use ImageMagick for batch rescaling, the same way that Mediawiki does it, though with different settings. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If there is consensus to do this task by bot, can the bot ensure that both the height and width are at or exceed the minimum number that is chosen (e.g., if 400px is the minimum, then the trial example should be 400x534)? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

One number that I've seen floated around is that images at 0.1MP (megapixels) or less tend to not cause problems, so maybe that's a better measure (to go along with BF's commment). That is, assuredly if 0.1MP is less an issue, 0.3MP or higher (about 550x550px square) will definitely be too high.

However, I strongly suggest you need to offer an opt-out keyword for some images, as through some template that users can add to a page, to assert the reasoning why they are above low resolution. Your bot can skip those images, but we can then use "what links here" of the template to find those images and review the rationales on a case-by-case basis for the larger size. Thus, if you are going to enact this bot, give people a 2 week period or more to place this tag on their images they need to keep at the higher resolution. --MASEM (t) 17:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

0.1MP (megapixels) has been aired in the past and never accepted as definitive. It is even less appropriate now that higher screen resolutions have seen the upping of the thumbnail default size. 550 x 550 pixels at the standard print resolution of 300 dpi would result in a printed image 1.8" square, so hardly something to cause any significant commercial jeopardy. An image which is reduced to a size that loses key detail will weaken a fair use claim for educational purposes, as it won't be educational if you can't see what's in it properly. Ty 17:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

First, again, 0.1MP would not be the limit for the bot, this is just a rough point where more NFC (let's avoid calling it "fair use" as that's not the standard on WP) would not be considered to be too big (though again, there are exceptional cases). Also, remember that most NFC is further scaled within articles due to being a thumb or other size.

Obviously, the question to ask is what is the initial material available in in terms of resolution. A 3000x3000 image reduced to 500x500 is likely low resolution, and the point you brought up - if fundamental details are lost in that - is still a consideration if that's too low. That's why I'm suggesting a tag to detail when this type of case exists, which effectively is a part of FUR to explain why that resolution was used. However, I will still contend that there is a lot of FUR (mostly of covers and screenshots from copyrighted works) where a resolution of ~0.1MP (which would allow for images of 320x240 for most 4:3 aspect ratios works) is sufficient to show what details are needed, particularly for live-action screenshots where fuzziness is ok. Obviously, when you get to less common types of FUR this is where the exceptions are needed. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. There is no accepted definition of low-res, and there shouldn't be, since some things (e.g. maps / charts / other things with fine detail or embedded text) have to be relatively larger to serve their encyclopedic purpose. There is no crisis of external fair use complaints, so I don't see the need to impose arbitrary limits. A human uploaded the image, and assuming it is tagged correctly then a human already wrote a fair use rationale. Proposals like this assume that an arbitrary limit is better than the existing human judgment about what size is appropriate, and I don't see a good case for that in general. Even though there are undoubtedly some images that should be shrunk, this should be dealt with by human judgment not machine logic. If one wants to create lists / categories / tags for unusually large fair use images, then I don't see a problem with that, but I'd say bulk resizing is not okay. Dragons flight (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. I've also never been a particularly big fan of the (somewhat arbitrary) limit on Fair Use images; when we get an image straight from the copyright holder, I don't see why we should have to shrink it (versus stuff from scans, where the final size is determined by the person uploading it). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Remember, WP's bound by non-free content, not fair use; it is purposely more restrictive to try to maintain a free content encyclopedia. To that end, we use the best resolution that still serves the reason to allow for non-free use (that it is critical to understanding the article it is in) while minimize its size. Where that point is is an arbitrary thing for each image, certainly, but clearly something that is huge (well well above this 0.1MP consideration) needs to be really justified to be that large resolution. That doesn't make it wrong, just that we need clear evidence that it's needed; thus, as I've pointed out, we simply need to allow for image uploaded to tag images that are above this critical size as being necessary at that resolution. That rationale can be challeged, for sure, but the bot won't touch it. I'm also thinking that the bot should be smart enough to recongize specific license tags, and make certain changes based on that. With the more regular tags (screenshots, etc.) we can be certain they should be able a given size, compared with copyrighted promotional material. --MASEM (t) 18:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The uploader could have already written an explanation of why a large size is necessary / appropriate, but only a human would be able to read it. And even if they didn't, the required size still might be obvious if text or details become illegible when shrunk. Since a bot can't evaluate such factors, it shouldn't try to resize images. Again, tagging large images might be okay, but you need human judgment to determine sizes. Dragons flight (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that all is reasonable. But I also think that there is a point where if an image (and, if possible, an image of a certain license) is well above a given size, there's a potential problem. It could be a perfectly valid use, no question; at worse, we could simply have the bot note and log these, and then sent to human review to determine the appropriateness of each in question.

What may be useful to determine if such a bot is needed is to have a read-only bot simply parse through all NFC, and generate historgrams of image sizes, possibly broken down by license, and determine if there is really a large number of overly larger images to necessitate a bot for resizing or not. --MASEM (t) 19:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, largely per Dragons flight. The term "low resolution", particularly as it applies to something like the fair use criteria, is highly subjective. Let us not forget that all images are not created equal; while one image may pass the criteria easily at an arbitrary resolution of, say, 300x300 pixels, another image of a different nature may still run afoul of policy. I could see some utility in a bot/script to create a list of images that go above an arbitrary resolution for review, but the decision on whether or not an image needs to actually be resized should be left to the discretion of human editors. Shereth 20:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sorry, but the last thing we need is another copyright-police bot blundering around and messing things up. 86.136.26.144 (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC).

• Oppose. As noted above, I have issues with the bot trying to make a call on whether an image is "too big." However, if there is some measure (0.33 MP, 600×600, etc.) that is an indicator of being too big, it would be reasonable for a bot to identify and tag those images for humans to evaluate. —C.Fred (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

  The main problem with this is that a human has to download the image, open it in an editor, rescale and re-upload, which is pretty slow and an annoying amount of work. A much better solution is for humans to tag images for resizing, then a bot can come along and do all the tedious hard work. Possibly this can be the same template as the one you describe, and a human just comes along and adds |checked=true or similar. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 11:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Before we could even discuss a bot sensibly, we'd still need a list of images to look at. Tim, could you start by making a list of the images you are thinking of? The number and size of such images would be important factors in evaluating a bot job. — Carl (

• Oppose. Another drastic solution anxiously seeking a real-world problem. Catch the violations at the gate or challenge them individually when you run across them. No one-size-fits-all ex post facto destructive "fixing" via bots!!! Carrite (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

List of large non-free images

I put a list at User:CBM/Sandbox2 with images that are non-free and have either width or height over 1000px. It's slow but it does load. Browsing that, I see at least a few things right away:

• Extremely large logos, like File:Woolworth (horizontal).svg, that should be reduced (New example: File:Logofinal print.jpg)
• Some musical scores that, although "high resolution", don't actually need to be reduced. E.g. File:Hindemith,_Flute_Sonata,_II_quartal_harmony.png
• Ironic: TV screenshots like File:RTÉ Winning Streak Dream Ticket Cash Cubes €5,700 winner.jpg that are at much higher resolution than the original media was
• Some maps that may need to be high-resolution to be legible.
• Other general non-free photographs and art that should be reduced, e.g. File:100_Bishopsgate_London.jpg and File:Sjl poster.jpg

Having a bot that would do the reduction upon demand would be nice. I could certainly write one, but maybe it's a project for someone who is still cutting their teeth. — Carl (

The Woolworth image is an SVG. It doesn't have a pixel size. Ongoing consensus has been that SVG's are okay, so long as they don't contain more detail than is needed for the article, or for the size of a PNG that would be acceptable. The issue here is that we should be able to set per-image a preferred render size, or per-image a maximum render size, for the image pages for non-free SVGs. But that might need a software patch. Jheald (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There were about 200 svgs on the list. I removed them, leaving the other ~6000. A different example of an excessively large logo is

CBM · talk

) 19:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Why the obsession with reducing things after the fact? Graphic uploads are already, and I say this without a shadow of a doubt, the most hyper-analyzed, micro-managed aspect of Wikipedia. Images have run the gauntlet already, and now we're supposed to be all concerned because somebody has the technology to do this or that and is itching to use it?!?! LEAVE THINGS ALONE. DON'T FIX WHAT AIN'T BROKEN. A 1200 dpi 9 inch by 5 inch scan of a newspaper halftone photo is "low resolution" relative to the original photograph, even if the file size is as big as the moon. There is no one-size-fits-all magical threshold, particularly one that needs to be unilaterally and retroactively implemented by a bot. Carrite (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but a 1200dpi 9x5 image is obviously not "low resolution": it's 10,800 pixels wide. My current thought is to reduce the worst ones manually. If we did have a general rule, then a bot could be run. But even without a general rule, it's obvious that

CBM · talk

) 16:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

A high resolution scan of a low resolution image would indeed be low resolution relative to the original image — that's my point. There is no magical file size at which point "low resolution" becomes "high resolution." There is no problem that needs fixing here, or rather, this is a matter where someone thinks they see a bug next to the house and wants to build an effective flamethrower to kill it because they like fire. No offense, but just because one has programing skills and the capacity to do something doesn't mean one should be making mass DESTRUCTIVE edits of already approved files... Carrite (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "approved"? There is no approval process for files; problematic ones are just cleaned up as people find them. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 15:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Which bot is that? — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 17:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

< Rather than agreeing on a standard size for a bot to reduce the size of non-free images, we could create a template where people need to specify {{large-non-free|bot=yes|widthnewpercent=60}} or something – manually specify that the width needs to be x% smaller? This would be better than nothing. Just a thought... ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 15:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's the idea. To make a bot that does the resizing on demand, based on some sort of template. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 15:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I go back to my original suggestion, and emphasis it more: it is not that high resolution (a total pixel count greater than "some number") images are necessary bad, and in some cases are necessary to prevent degradation of the image. But, that said, one of the points that we ask in NFC rationales is to address if the image is low resolution - both with respect to the original image with respect to conveying the information. When I look at some of these "large" images, the "low resolution" rationale is a joke (the TV show one above says "yes" to the FUR template "low resolution?" question.) The thing is, I bet that 90% of our NFC content can be classified into a limited number of media types - things like covers and screenshots - which we can ensure what the original size is, and more importantly, what it shouldn't be.

I would like to see a three step process. In the Correction phase, wiki-wide announcements would inform uses that in x weeks (2?) a bot will run through and tag images that are outside certain size parameters (left to be determined for now), but that if you do have an image that needs to be that size, it can be tagged with a template that begs for more information about the high resolution aspect, and that if present the bot will ignore tagging. After this period, the second phase would let the bot tag images and inform their uploaders of the large size and that either they should reduce it themselves, add the high resolution template, or it will be reduced (by a human) in x weeks. After that, all images tagged by the bot that haven't been resized or tagged with the template will be resized by editors to what they feel is the right size. There would also be a period to review all images that use the high resolution template to verify that someone isn't BS'ing it, sending questionable uses to a non-free content review if the resizing issue can't be resolved. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Rather than doing everything at once, looking at specific categories might be productive. For example, just album covers, or just magazine covers. For example, this image

CBM · talk

) 15:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd still would start with one that uses a rather high level (say, more than 1 megapixels) to go through all images - which I suspect would only number in the 100s or less. A second round can focus on images from specific image categories like album covers which possible exceed, for example, 0.3 megapixels (eg greater than 500x500) for album covers. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

According to a quick toolserver query, there are over 3000 non-free images over 1 megapixel. Of course not all of those need to be reduced. But there are 584 album covers, 363 logos, 279 book covers, 172 "publicity photographs", and 70 video game screenshots. Presumably most of those do not need to be a megapixel in size. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 19:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly that ~1/3rd of the >1MP images are highly likely to be out of whack and we probably can fix those, but I think it's completely fair to check the other 2/3rds of those >1MP images and simply double check if they need to be that large. And we still have to consider things like album covers that exceed 0.3MP (again, this is not saying no album cover can be over 0.3MP, but that's the exceptional case). So I still think either a two-pass or a two-pronged approach (tackling both tasks at the same time) is doable once we set limits on what is reasonably expected for the more common image styles. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to propose a feature to allow, for a limited period (say five minutes), the user or IP address who created an edit summary to edit that summary. It's really annoying when one has some finger trouble and writes something nonsensical and then can do nothing about it (other than make a dummy edit with a "what I really meant to say was..." summary). 86.136.26.144 (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC).

It may work with smaller Wikis, but it won't work on Wikipedia - the rate of

Talk page instead. --Sigma 7 (talk

) 00:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand. What does the rate of edits have to do with anything? And what do you mean by "leaving only one attempt to get your edit summary correct for those doing quick patrols"? 86.136.26.144 (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC).

It's not a bad idea, although we'd have to wait for someone to comment on it's technical feasibility. Prodego ^talk 01:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I see where Sigma 7 is going: one of the restrictions on changing your edit summary should be that it's the most recent edit. One, that's probably more easily implemented than a five-minute limit, and two, it avoids a situation where a user changes an edit summary when there's been an intervening edit. —C.Fred (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I see the appeal - but what about the risk? Vandals can play around with edit summaries... Rd232 ^talk 01:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As I stated, I'm proposing that only the original editor can change the edit summary. The only loophole might be if it's extended to IP users. Someone with a dynamic IP wanting to cause trouble could keep reconnecting (thereby getting a new IP address each time) and keep looking for recent edits by someone who had previously had the same IP. If they were still within the five-minute window that I suggested then they could change someone else's edit summary. My feeling is that this is low risk, but not impossible. 86.136.26.144 (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC).

I hadn't even thought of that - just being able to edit your own edit summary could be troublesome enough. Hence previous discussions of this have always ended up "not going to happen". Rd232 ^talk 08:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Why would editing one's own summary be troublesome? 86.142.110.239 (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC).

Just a thought, keeping in mind my opinion of this proposal in general below, the dynamic IP problem could be solved by restricting the 5-minute editing window only to the current session. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:36, 30 Apr 2010 (UTC)

See bugzilla:10105 (WONTFIX in 2007) and a 2008 discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 30#Being able to edit your edit summaries. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Although that refers to the ability to edit other's edit summaries. Prodego ^talk 13:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a perfectly valid and feasible request. The details of how it could work have already been worked out, please see bugzilla:13937 for details. The discussion had already moved on to implementation details and patches, but has been inactive for a while now. But maybe it will continue now? Essentially, this should work (1) if it is your own edit (2) and if it is the last edit (3) during a short time span. Cacycle (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

For information, another similar but distinct request is located at WP:Village pump (technical)#Claiming edits. PleaseStand ^(talk) 19:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate having the ability to correct edit summaries. Every now and again I make a mistake there, and there's no way to correct it -- all one can do it make a dummy edit with "the previous edit summary should have been...." It's in a very small subset of things I can do on Wikipedia but can't undo. Useight (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I oppose this feature. I see no point in putting in such a feature and I do not like people sticking in things which confer no great benefit, it is feature creep and only helps vandals. The past is the past. You can always put in a dummy edit to explain if you really feel you must. The only ones I can see worth editing are ones that are offensive or give out editors details or other reasons where the originator can't be expected to show much sense if they were given the facility. If you mess up an edit you do another edit, you can't change the old edit and that's the right way to do things.

Dmcq (talk

) 13:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no way this could help vandals if implemented as discussed (own edit, last edit, during a short time). Cacycle (talk) 06:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Editing your own summaries would be nice, but I can't imagine that the benefit of being able to would be worth the effort to enable it. It can remain one of those things we just get over not having. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with EVula. Sometimes I wish I could fix an edit summary, (like when I accidentally type "rere" instead of "re") but it strikes me as more trouble than it's worth. –xeno^talk 15:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support It would be very useful feature to correct spelling errors in an edit summary. However, I would support it being allowed only to Autoconfirmed users. Immunize (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose—would cause so much trouble, people changing the past. Should we leave edit-summaries when editing the edit-summary? Can we edit those? (And do spelling errors in edit-summaries really matter?!) ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 15:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support own edit, last edit, during a short time, IPs excluded. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel it should be not only IP's excluded but also non-autoconfirmed users (users who have not made more than 10 edits and have been registered less than 4 days). Immunize (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support being able for autoconfirmed users to edit their own edit summary if it's the last edit of the page. A notice such as (edit summary edited at 19:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)) should be displayed at the end. ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 19:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment It's not that I oppose this, I just see very little benefit to it's implementation.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
• Weakish support - within 120 seconds, last edit, only (top) edits. Developers have far more pressing concerns. –xeno^talk 19:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support - For a short period of time on your own edits this would be helpful. - EdoDodo ^talk 15:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment This has come up a few times. The conclusion is generally that it's more trouble than it's worth, as has already been expressed above, and that I concur with. It wouldn't just be a significant technical effort, but there would be lots of logistics to work out. If you leave a particularly troublesome edit summary you can always use a
  null edit to display a correction. Equazcion ^(talk)
  15:56, 30 Apr 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This would only work if we then also had records of the edit summary history, which is extremely unlikely to happen. Otherwise editors would start putting the worst insults against other editors, threats of legal action or violence, etc., in their edit summaries when they know that their opponent is likely to see it, and undo it immediately afterwards. Or perhaps they wouldn't – but then others would swear that it happened anyway. Possibly even in good faith. I don't think anybody wants to sort out such disputes. Hans Adler 15:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Is this really anything that a null edit and a "Oops, sorry, I meant diet COKE" wouldn't solve? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support. This is a good idea. In a related idea, I'd like to see a way for us to tag edits and collapse them out of the history to make it easier to see how a page has changed. I frequently want to filter out all the vandalism/revert, minor edits, and wikignome edits to see the substantive changes. I'd like like my watchlist to refer to the most recent substantive edit and ignore wikignome, minor, ect. edits. II | (t - c) 18:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

  Echo that. If I could mark specific edits "ignore" or "reviewed - don't need to see again", I'd wet myself. Rd232 ^talk 18:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

  From Special:Watchlist, you can click "Hide minor edits". That covers rollback edits, wikignomery, and, obviously, minor edits. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

  Though I should point out that many vandals mark their edits as minor.

  Dmcq (talk

  ) 19:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

  Yeah, the only may to make it really work is for each editor be able to tag other people's edits, with those tags completely private for them, i.e. solely affecting their own recent changes/history. Rd232 ^talk 19:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

People's tags could be made public, and I could assign 'trust' to certain people. So if someone I trusts tags an edit not initially marked minor as minor, I would automatically accept that it is minor, and filter it as such from the history or watchlist. I could also set my filter up so that if enough people mark an edit as minor (say 4), I accept that the tag is valid and can filter such edits from my history. The history should show when a series of edits has been collapsed, and should be easily expandable. II | (t - c) 00:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I know, that would be lovely; but I seem to remember this has been brought up before (possibly by me), and it was said that it would be very very difficult to implement. Maybe it's worth spinning off from this edit summary discussion and revisiting... perhaps at

WP:VPD. It might be high cost, but it would be very useful, especially for editing the high-traffic pages which are often relatively poor quality. Rd232 ^talk

08:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Considering the fact that ImperfectlyInformed specifically wanted to hide vandalism from their watchlist as well, I fail to see how my suggestion doesn't address their needs. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If I hide minor edits, then if there is a substantive edit that happened on the same day as that minor edit, the substantive edit is not displayed for that day. So it doesn't work. Ideally when a person reverts a vandalism edit, their revert is minor and the vandalism edit would be tagged as vandalism, so I wouldn't have to see either edit on the watchlist, but rather the prior non-minor non-vandalism edit which occurred on that day (if applicable). The other problem is that enforcement of the minor tag under

WP:MINOR is lax. If my above idea were implemented, I would want stricter enforcement. Many wikignomes don't mark their minor edits as minor, and under this idea we wouldn't have to pressure them, although they might get the point as people tag their minor edits. II | (t - c

) 00:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - it's annoying when it happens, but the implications of making that data editable are far more serious, and are sufficiently problematic to make it absolutely not worth considering. That edit summary is an inseparable part of what happened at that point in history. Use a null edit. PL290 (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• This would be a useful feature as long as the ability exists only for: (1) one's own edits; (2) the last edit to a page; and (3) edits made no more than about 5 minutes ago. Under these restrictions, I do not think that there would be significant negative consequences. On the question of whether this feature request is important enough for the developers to spend their time on it ... well, that's really up to them—if they decide that their time should be spent on other things, then they're probably right. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

  The dynamic IP problem could be solved by enabling the feature only for registered users. If there is still concern about misuse, the feature could (on a trial basis) be restricted to autoconfirmed users only . -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

  As I said further up, the dynamic IP problem could also be solved by restricting the editing window to the current session only. So for instance, logging out, or logging in again from another location or browser, would not allow the user/IP to edit a summary posted in a previous login. I'm not really in favor of this anyway, for the reasons I stated already above. It's not just a matter of programmer time, but of adding logistical complications for all of us that just aren't worth it to basically save people some embarrassment. Null edits are enough, IMO. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:51, 30 Apr 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks, I'd not seen your most recent comment. I see your point about the added complications, but I don't think that they will be too significant (updating instructions on a few pages and occasional, minor confusion in those who are not aware of the feature and notice an edit summary change).

  Overall, my perception of the idea is that it involves a small improvement (i.e., a feature that is useful in some cases, even if the usefulness is minor) at a cost of a small amount of added logicistical complication and an unknown amount of programmer time. In light of this, I support the idea in principle, but will not be disappointed if it is not implemented. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

  What I think would be really useful would be the ability to edit (or at least preview) deletion summaries. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

  Might as well make that all log summaries, then. Block summaries, protection summaries, etc. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:11, 30 Apr 2010 (UTC)

  Good point. I started a thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Previewing or editing log summaries. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Let's implement it as an optional feature in the software and once we see exactly how this will work, then decide. It might not be a bad thing, but we should probably keep a readily-accessible record somewhere of what the original edit comment was. If we do that, we might not even need to limit it to 5 minutes, or require it to only be the most recent edit.
  talk
  ) 20:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - besides the huge amount of complexity for such a trivial feature as well as the possible abuse vectors, revisions should be considered immutable. If you want to change something in a revision, submit a new one. Mr.Z-man 21:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

While revisions should be immutable, I think in principle allowing a third-party to describe the edit which the editor failed to describe appropriately is a worthwhile idea. I can see the mess it would make on Wikipedia although I can also see as highly efficient in smaller and more tightly integrated wikis. II | (t - c) 00:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too much lack of transparency for too little gain. "Show preview" also shows preview of edit-summary, so catching mistakes in edit-summaries is already no harder and is visible at the same time as you're catching mistakes in the edit itself. DMacks (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - This will only serve to create unnecessary confusion among editors working on same page as well as page patrollers. Having incorrect edit summaries is considerably rare if you pay attention to what you are doing. There doesn't seem to be a pressing need, and things will become too complicated when edits overlap. Deagle_AP (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Provide safeguards so that risk of abuse is minimized, but it seems odd to have Wiki which is built on trust of its users, refuse a user-friendly fix because of fears of rampant abuse. Allow only edits of OWN edit summaries by auto-confirmed editors, for limited period (I would say something like 24 hours). Add rules. A record of the original summary can be kept for historical integirty. As has been pointed out, other systems seem to allow self-corrections and this doesn't seem to have caused mass problems. I think the requests for this functionality are genuine from people like myself who have made very minor spelling or other duh type mistakes and not caught them on review, and that this far outweighs the fears of some broad untapped avenue of vandalism. (Even the suggestions that the function could help reduce bad behavior make sense to me, but I haven't had to confront that myself.) Thanks. DBK (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

I just added details of a forthcoming event, to be held on on 16 July 2010, to David Lack#Honours. It would be good if I could add a template, say {{Update pending|2010-07-17}} and/ or category, say "Category: Articles requiring update on 17 July 2010"; so that interested editors could watch for updates due on the given date, and make the necessary tense or other changes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Update after might be what you are looking for. Using the template will make an "update me"-box appear on an article on a given date. --Conti|✉ 11:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Just the job; thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Would it be good to add brief descriptions of ways to make certain chemicals in the List of commonly available chemicals, such as is added to muriatic acid? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a chemistry wikiproject, which might have a better audience for your question. Maurreen (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have to make them, they are they really commonly available? As it is, that "article" is really more of a how-to guide, and not really suitable for an encyclopaedia. An issue that has been raised before, with nothing apparently done to address the problem. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey there. I have written a bot (currently pending

1. Scans an article for dead links (that are used between <ref> tags)
2. Comes back 5 days later to see if they are still dead.
3. If yes, the bot looks for corresponding |accessdates. If none can be found, the bot uses wikiblame.
4. The bot then looks in the internet archive for the closest copy to the access-date (within 6 months).
5. The bot updates the |archiveurl and |archivedate parameters where available. Otherwise it uses the {{Wayback}} template.
6. All links that are dead that did not get archived get tagged with {{Dead link}}.

I did an example edit, under my own account, to show what a bot's edit would look like. The bot, of course, obeys {{

What about looking at

WebCitation to see if an archive exists there as well?—NMajdan•talk

13:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. In fact, their archives generally reflect the archived page better. I have emailed them to ask for permission to use my bot with their service. Tim1357 ^talk 01:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand the logic for finding the closest internet archive copy, but why limit it to 6 months? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be some limit to the age difference of the archives. This is because web pages change and archives need to reflect the content that was used in sourcing the article. Tim1357 ^talk 01:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles#Should GA and A-class articles be recognisable through a symbol on the article page? –xeno^talk 13:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed here: commons:Commons:Village_pump#Temporary_shutdown_of_activity to temporarily shut down edit activity at Commons, because the wheel warring is damaging that community and the communities that depend on Wikimedia Commons. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

From the next software update (see

Yes. For the all-too-frequent self-block, we have the magic {{unblock-stupid}} template. Hipocrite (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Out of interest, does the revision allow for admins to unblock themselves having mistakenly self-blocked? Otherwise it could cause a lot of hassle... ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 19:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(

AGK

19:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Of the 11 self-unblocks this year, 8 were after mistakes. 1 was a test. Only 2 were admins lifting actual blocks of their own accounts. –xeno^talk 20:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

As long as we're improving the blocking aspect of the software, why not just disable the ability to block one's own account? That seems like a superfluous ability anyway, and is only either done as a joke or by accident, as far as I know. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No, sometimes an admin is the only one willing to step up and block themselves for doing something daft. –xeno^talk 20:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you're joking, but I'm oddly unsure :) Equazcion ^(talk) 20:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

=\ –xeno^talk 20:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Since blocks are supposed to preventative, blocking oneself seems rather paradoxical. If you have the forethought to block yourself then you apparently have already realized the inappropriateness of your behavior and resolved not to continue. So again the ability to self-block seems superfluous. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If one can't block oneself in the first place, then there's no need to be able to unblock oneself. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Or a "screw it, burn the bridges" kind of thing - fullprotect/selfblock then m:SRP the bit. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but if those 8/9 were forced to get unblocked by another sysop, they'd only be slightly inconvenienced, and everyone else would get a proportionally larger laugh. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

IF blocked-by == current-user THEN
   unblock
ELSE
   give warning message: "You can only unblock yourself if someone else blocked you."
ENDIF