Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive AF

I'd like to propose the removal of episode summaries from Wikipedia. By this, I mean articles created specifically to summarize one single episode of a TV show-- Wikipedia is not a TV guide.

The only reason particular episodes of anything should be mentioned, in my opinion, is if they are particularly noteable. Jtrainor 05:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, we have TONS of episode articles (by TONS, i mean well into the thousands. And i'm not exxaggerating here). There are some series that have pretty good episode articles, a lot of work has gone into them, and i think you're going to be met by a lot of opposition if you suggest we just delete it all (simply because people don't want to see their hard work deleted). Even for episode articles that are really just raw summaries (stuff that blatantly violates

WP:NOT

), you'll have a hard time trying to get it deleted. I tried running a few dozen episode articles for a certain TV series through AfD late last year, and it got closed as no-consensus. And those episode articles where clearly just summarizes - unlike some episode articles which do have some context and commentary.

I agree with you that we have a problem with episode articles. But you're not going to get anywhere by suggesting we delete them all. --`/aksha 08:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I propose the following: fairly basic articles, such as

Legacies (Babylon 5) should be merged into episode lists. When section on particular episode is expanded at least to state of a good stub, it can be splitted to its own page. MaxSem

09:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That is in fact what our current guidelines say to do - start with episode lists for entire seasons/series, and when there's enough to say about each episode, split to episode articles. Sadly, that's not what people do. And very often, efforts to merge stubbed episode articles into larger season articles are met with a lot of resistance. --`/aksha 09:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't resistance rather irrelevant if it has no basis in policy, though? Jtrainor 20:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's a rather naive stance - you will always be outgunned and outnumbered by "fanboys" (and there really is no other term for it) who will argue on mass that the pages are a) vital for wikipedia b) in fact need to be expanded to include details about which socks each character was wearing in each episode and that c) you are an evil elitist. Cyncial I know - I'd suggest you stick to factual articles and just pretend that the cruffy site of wikipedia does not exist - it's better for your blood pressure. --Fredrick day 20:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you cynical devil, Fredrick day :) That apart: Jtrainor certainly has a point: I'm damned if I can see how

WP:N. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?}

20:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm too scared to look at simpsons pages - do they still have quote lists that actually just seem to a dump of the whole script? --Fredrick day 20:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So, who's going to actually start doing the merges, and catch hell for it? (Also, I would bring up the related subject of articles on fictional characters, places, etc., which are probably not notable in their own right, even if their parent work or series is.) I'm currently working on a proposal to transwiki all the stuff on a fictional series to some specific wiki on that work of fiction (just about every work of fiction has a Wikia or similar, if it's at all popular), and then merge into the parent fictional work. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 20:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Why limit it to just television episodes? Has anyone seen the amount of songs that have articles here? I'm not talking about songs that actually made it on the radio and had some success, I'm talking about the thousands of articles on b-sides and releases by local bands that didn't even have local success.--Bobblehead 20:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) I wrote

WP:EPISODE guideline. I look forward to reading more of this discussion. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits

) 02:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm strongly in favor of this. Many of these episode pages end up looking like IMDB entries filled with trivia and quotes and way more original research than any one article should be capable of having. "Significant" episodes that themselves satisfy notability criteria (independent sources and the like) may be an exception, but just because a show has a high viewership isn't notable at all. I'll be interested in hearing suggestions on how to deal with AfDs in this area as well. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 03:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Episode summaries often act as valid stubs. There's nothing wrong with that, and I strongly oppose any attempts to change that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That's presupposing that there's actually a fracking reason for an encyclopedia to have an article on every episode of every television show in the first place. --Cyde Weys 04:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

if something is going to stay a stub forever, then it's not valid to keep it that way when a perfectly acceptable merge can be performed. most episode articles WILL stay as permanent stubs if we followed

WP:NOT always ends up being washed away by the ton of "Strong keep - the episode is really important" (even if it often is not notable at all) and "Strong keep - it's useful and good information". --`/aksha

07:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A major problem with Wikipedia is that all too often, many editors (and admins!) mistake AfDs for a vote instead of a debate, with predictable consequences. Jtrainor 06:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the problem we have when people try to get episode articles deleted (or merged) through AfDs. --`/aksha 07:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So when an AfD is incorrectly handled, why not kick it upstairs to a higher level? Squeaky wheel gets the grease. Jtrainor 20:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The right way
as I understand it is how it's done now. List of episodes, expand like any other topic once a given episode has enough content per policy. Is the section starter, jtrainor, saying we just shouldn't have episode articles in general? I am confused. A TV show episode, a person, a recipe, a fish called Ralph (or Wanda)--if its notable, ATT, etc., it's entitled a fair shake at an article. Also, for the above question, is Lisa's Rival the episode notable? Multiple non-trivial sources. Could probably find way more with a proper news search, that was 120 seconds on Google. - Denny 21:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is, there is no reason to list every episode of anything ever. Only particularly noteable episodes should have articles. Jtrainor 23:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh... I think we're all on the same page then. If a given article on a given episode isn't notable, then delete that one. I think the concern is that there are tens of thousands of possible, and a mass AfD would be completely inappropriate--people would have to rush 24/7 to source dozens, hundreds, or thousands of articles immediately. While it could be easy--I sourced/asserted notability on that Lisa Simpson episode easily--it would be a tremendous volume of work to push down someone's throat immediately and with a <5 day deadline for the mass AfD. If a given episode seems unnotable, go for it, afd it. But dropping a nuke wouldn't be completely appropriate, since from what I've learned massive, sweeping changes like that only will go through without pissing off half the editors if done right and collaboratively. Maybe start on the

WP:FICT policy pages and work down from that? - Denny

23:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The only problem with taking episode articles to AfD one at a time is that then an editor points to the tens or hundreds of other similar articles and asks, "Why are you singling this one episode out?" or "It doesn't make sense to delete this one when every other episode has an article." even though the vast majority of those articles are equally non-notable and just plot summary. In that case, I support merging into an episode list article, if one isn't already created. However, when I tried to do a bundled AfD, there was already such an article, so the individual episode articles were completely unnecessary, but it appeared as though AfD would not consent to a delete all, partially due to the

Pokemon test. I wrote an essay about my experience. There has to be a better way, but I haven't found it yet. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits

) 06:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You could make the same argument about a lot of Wikipedia article, including most of the articles about movies, porn movies, and the articles for every single Pokemon character. The notability bar, rightly IMO, is set pretty low, and I imagine most TV episode articles would meet it if they came up for AfD. And to answer the question about Simpsons quotes above, some of us Simpsons watchers above the age of 14 have been trying to hold the line on those damn quote sections. An episode capsule may be one thing, but few people want to read a complete script. Natalie 22:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think some episodes are like album-stubs. They're just a tracklisting to start, but it's a framework to come in and hang more information on, like reviews, sales data, etc. For an episode of star trek: voyager, for example, it might start with a basic plot summary, than add mention of the fan response (citing sites that show it) who guest starred, its relevance to the larger series or outside the series (based on other books, director's first break) and a general level of detail that's not just plot. If there's no sign that's going to happen (your average episode of the price is right doesn't have much worth writing about) then it should be merged or deleted. articles need to be more than just plot summary though. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh, we list every book or movie in a series separately. TV shows are just very long series. Owlofcreamcheese

At the moment there are plenty of protection templates, and they are not standardized in any way, both in naming and parameter usage. So I propose that we does some standardization on them.

Here are my proposal:

Prefix

all protection templates should have a unique prefix, alternatives could be pp-, protect-, protection-, protected- etc...

Naming

Including the prefix, they all should have consistent naming scheme. only lowercase letters, and avoid abbreviations. Example high visible template.

Semi-protection

For semi-protection templates, add a string after the prefix, for example semi- or s-.

Parameters

expire=, to define when the template should be expired. reason= optional reason if there is in need of extra reason.

Style

of course all templates should have the same look.

Minis

all templates should/could have a mini-variant, the one with only a keylock-icon, should then have a title on hover to specify type of protection.

Example naming of template could be:

{{protected-semi-high visible template}} {{pp-s-high visible template}}

_→AzaToth 17:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• As (more or less) an information neat freak, I like this idea.
  Gracenotes^T
  § 20:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  I'm not an admin, but I think that some more abbreviations would be more convienient. bibliomaniac15 23:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• You are welcome to {{sofixit}}. >Radiant< 12:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • saying {{sofixit}} in such context is the same as saying RTFM _→AzaToth 14:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. I've been thinking we need a

Seems logical Radiant!. (→Netscott) 16:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It even says that it is based on CSD, I would definitely support this. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 16:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see your evil plan policy/guideline-combining plan Radiant, but I shall play along anyway :) Frankly, though, I would support a merge, so long as the deletion criterion is expanded somewhat (so that we don't lose anything), which should be brought up

Gracenotes^T

§ 21:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

An attack page is a problem,

WP:CSD is a solution. Think about it, the main reason for any editor to look up a problem is because he does not know what the solution is. If you start filing all the problems under their solutions, nobody will ever be able to find any policy or guideline. --Zeraeph

14:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the content is small enough to merit merging somewhere, though I don't think WP:CSD is the right place. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 08:04Z

Most of you are aware of the work that was done over the previous 6 months by the user warnings project

10:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Butcher's rules

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia talk:Butcher's rules

I created an essay on how to respectfully point out an obvious error to a user. I'd like some feedback. bibliomaniac15 01:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Good job. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 07:57Z

When searching through some article histories, it would be extremely helpful if edits identified as vandalism would have a bold v beside them, as is the case of minor (m) edits; or bot (b) edits and new (N) pages in the Watchlist. Combined with an optional History filter which would allow me to hide Vandal edits, it would make researching an article's history far simpler. For example, the article Nothing has been a frequent target of vandals; and over the course of the month of February, large portions of the article have been changed. It is difficult to identify if they were removed by vandals (as some large portions indeed were) or if they were removed for well-explained reasons. As for identifying vandal edits: therein probably lies the tricky part. My first thought it to restrict it to admins-only, but that may create a heavy burden upon them. AntiVandalBot does a great job at catching a large volume of them, so it would be nice if special permissions could be provided for users/bots such as that. Or if it is to be a tool available to mainstream users, its use should be restricted such that only established users can mark an edit as a vandal edit. I hope the above makes sense! Sláinte! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 23:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My problem with the idea is not that some vandal edits would not be marked, but that some edits that are not vandal edits would be marked. If you're a new user that tries to correct a grammatical error but accidentally blanks a paragraph, do you

Gracenotes^T

§ 19:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a previous proposal for tagging reversions as such to allow them to be hidden in the history if desired. I think that would take care of everything this intends to. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The potential for false-positives was what I was getting at with the 2nd half of my proposal. Just as the notation could be turned on, there would of course be some mechanism for it to be turned off. Each manner could be handled separately: perhaps only established editors can turn on and admins can turn off (I'm sure they'll love that burden); or perhaps established users can do both. I'd be curious to know what AntiVandalBot's false-positive rate is -- perhaps it's something which would be manageable if items are mislabeled. We catch a good amount of true vandals already, so provided it is a simple process to denote a vandal edit (perhaps a checkbox to the right of the "Watch this page" box, appearing only on Undo edits) then I could see that a good chunk of vandal edits would be caught. An add-on might be needed to behavior policies, particularly with regards to edit-warring and vandals (vandal-notation vandals... how ironic!).

Or provided the Wikipedia mechanics would allow, perhaps allow each of us individually to denote vandal articles for our own reference: we can set any edit as vandal, but no one else would see our notations. I suppose this could be expanded to allow users to add their own notations of any sort: perhaps notate an edit with a v for vandal and filter them out, A for an acceptable edit (e.g. an edit which correctly changes a number, so that you don't see it the next day and recheck its source), or perhaps an M for a major rewrite. These notations would be personal to your username and would be remembered after logging off. Better idea? Is it possible? --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 23:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Data is not information. if you have multiple tags beside each edit, you won't be able to pick out the primary edits. My own suggestion has been to allow a user to flag a revert as being due to vandalism, permitting the intervening edits to be flagged as being due to vandalism. Note that this is something that should also come to immediate administrator attention so that

1. The vandal can be dealt with quickly, and
2. So that anyone abusing this ability can be dealt with quickly.

Using that as a way to track the real hsitory of a page is to me an added bonus. --EMS | Talk 17:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I am a bit confused about your response. What do you mean by a "primary edit"? If you are referring to locating useful edits within the history, you could activate your filter to hide some or all of your tags. Or in the case of my second paragraph's idea, the tags would be local to your username, therefore other users would not see your mass of tags; and other users can therefore create as few or as many tags as they wish and apply them to any articles they choose -- everything is local to each username. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 22:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying to produce a new search page for when there is an error. My prototype is available here tell me what you think. Click on the search box and make a search. It is pretty good. I know a few people @ ms. I will see if they will make a version where there are no advertisements. A few strings might be able to be pulled. Give me any feedback, errors or objections you have, I would really like to build on it. Sorry about the loading time, the background image is kinda biggish but i wanted it to look realistic.

thanx

symode09 14:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added this proposal again because nof the lack of response

symode09 04:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There are already other search options:

• Google and other search engines; using "site:en.wikipedia.org" as part of the search keeps results to English Wikipedia pages
• Firefox: using Wikipedia for the search box provides an autocomplete feature
• Wikiseek -
• Query Wikipedia (semantic)
• Semantic MediaWiki

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Are there any plans to have wikipedias in sign languageas, such as American Sign Language (ASL) or British Sign Language (BSL)?

stevo

(email removed, to protect you from spam harvesters)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.22.72 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 9 March 2007

I really can't see much of a reason. Sign language is for the hearing impaired, but they have to be able to see to see the signs so they can probably read. Also, as far as I know, there is no keyboard or font that gives sign language letters and words, so writing articles could be very tedious. Wikipedias are generally only written in written language. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 20:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect; sign languages are completely unrelated to spoken languages and can be written. See meta:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia American Sign Language 2 for a current proposal.--Pharos 21:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I am all for Wiki to have sign languages. For many Deaf people sign language is their only language. If Wiki went ahead and articles were converted into ASL, BSL etc, it would open up a whole new community of Wikipedians, who otherwise would not be involved in Wiki.--NeilEvans 23:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, most deaf people can read at least one spoken language. Koweja 01:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the right venue. Take this to the meta discussion. 142.157.19.40 22:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Editors: I am emailing about the Jewellery category. I personally have no issue with the fact that we have 2 different spelllings on WP - both English and American - as I am aware there are 2 different spellings and for me, it is not a problem. However, I do feel we are having a siginifcant issue here on WP about the English VS. American spelling and I feel I have a good case to revert to the American Spelling. So - here it is. I am a graduate student at Bard here in US. I have read and researched literally hundreds of published titles on this topic. To that aim, I am endeavoring to beef up this category and help WP. However, in the act of reading many titles over many years, I have come to conclude that the American spelling is more dominent in published works on this topic. I don't have a reasoning behind why, I just know that it is so. Because of this, I feel it is neccesary to switch back to the American spelling. Even though in OED, it is jewellery, in every major book on this topic with the exception a few published in UK, it is spelled jewelry. For example - see what is known as "the bible on jewelry," the title is: Jewelry Concepts & Technology by Oppi Untracht. The spelling used is jewelry. Another example: On Amazon, you type in both. For jewelry there are 83,868 Results, for Jewellery, there are 61,300,000 Results - that is a significant difference in published works. I am more than happy to provide a complete bibliography if need be, but in the interest of being user friendly, I ask that you consider this and let me know what you think. Thanks, Archie, archimartinArchiemartin

Common practice here is, when it's purely a Commonwealth vs US English thing - we go with the original intent of the original editor, who in this case appears to have preferred "jewellery." --Golbez 19:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that WP would cater to one author as opposed to being user friendly. Also - after reading the spelling guidelines it actually looks like the intent to be consistant would trump any original author.

archie, archiemartinArchiemartin

Golbez is right, and we have a guideline on this, in fact. Read

WP:ENGVAR. Specifically, in this case, since there is no cultural tie to one spelling or the other, you need to Stay with established spelling and Follow the dialect of the first contributor. In an article about Jewelry in the United States, use the US spelling, in Jewellery in the United Kingdom, use the UK spelling. In all general articles, leave it alone and use the spelling that's already established for that article. — coelacan talk

— 19:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys - and I am leaving it alone in the sense that I am not editing anyone's writing to reflect my ideas. However, I am not leaving it alone in the sense that I think it needs to be changed. If it were not a problem we would not have this major discussion going on usage of style to have the spellings automatically transfer to the common use of the surfer, (see usage of style). I also did contact the original contributor to see what he she thinks. I truly believe there are some serious inconcistancies with not only the desire of WP to be consistant but also with trumping one contributor over the needs of the millions of users. At the end of the day - it just makes good sense - particularly with a noun. archie, archiemartinArchiemartin

It doesn't make any good sense to me. I use American English but I recognize that neither is "wrong". There is no particular reason to standardize to either spelling. Both are "right", and most contributors speak and write in only one or the other dialect naturally. Neither should be forced to adopt the other's dialect across the entire wiki. The best compromise so far has been to leave well enough alone. I see no compelling reason to change that. I would strongly oppose any attempt to get all of Wikipedia to use either US or UK English, and I can assure you that any such attempt that you may be proposing is already a lost cause. — coelacan talk — 20:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi - First off - the spelling is not a dialect. Second, I have no issue myself with the two spellings as I said, it is WP that clearly states in the usage area that the spelling and usage should be consistant. If they, or WP does not want that because as they state, "It makes WP look unprofessional" then they should change that. I don't care for myself but you have to admit that usage, and how people surf WP is important. This is not a personal debate - this is about serving the needs of the many and not the few.

Last - there is no such thing as a lost cause. archie, archiemartinArchiemartin

• So, to sum up your original argument, the books you have researched use "jewelry", but Google makes it clear that far more people use the spelling "jewellery" online. Because of that, you want to change it to "jewelry" to make it more user-friendly? I don't follow the logic of that at all. If more people online use the Commonwealth spelling, then surely it is more userrfriendly for us to use it here. Perhaps - just perhaps - being a student of the subject in the US means that most of the publications you have seen have either originated in the US or been translated by American translators. Up until now I did not know that there was a spelling "jewelry". It looks wrong (and is counterintuitive when you consider the pronunciation of the word, too), but now that I know it is an acceptable alternative I'm quite happy to see it in articles - though not for the category. I'm not happy to see it there both for the reason that it appears to be the more user-friendly spelling and - more importantly - for the reasons Golbez and Coelacan outline. Grutness...wha? 22:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• I don't see how "needs" come into this, to be honest. Americans can read English spellings and vice versa. Yes, we could have debates on thousands of articles about which is the dominant spelling, or which is most widely used in publications, but we don't. Why? Because there are far better ways to spend time. So we keep it simple: if it's obviously tied to a country, use their spelling; if it's not, use the original one. You say "in every major book on this topic with the exception a few published in UK, it is spelled jewelry", which just proves the point - the ones in the UK spell it jewellery. It's simply a difference in spelling, and there's no compelling reason to change. Trebor 22:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

To address both of your arguments - there are more uses on both Amazon and Google for the American spelling indicating that the searchability is there for the American spelling. This is not an "alternative" spelling but another one. Again - I think many of you are taking this as a personal cause or argument when it has more to do with usability as well as the WP rules and manual of style. Believe me when I say that if WP did not state that they want consistency I would not be wasting my time. As for needs - I think it is obvious that we would like to have as much consistency and fact finding as we can so, I don't see how you can ignore the fact that many people, (like myself) originally went to "jewelry" and found zip. Also - if consistency is not important then why are we allowing an editor to make a recent chnage within that article to make the entire spelling to that of jewellery, the English one.

Last, no one has addressed the real argument here which is that the one spelling is obviously more used. Go on Amazon and Google. See for yourself. Thanks, Archie, archiemartinArchiemartin

If you go to

jewelry, you get redirected to jewellery, so what's the problem? We aim for consistency where possible, but spelling is never going to be agreed on so we just used what was previously used. In this case, the title suggests that it is British English spelling, so editors are justified in changing everything in the article to British English. We don't decide these things by which is more used (which you are justifying using the Internet which is dominated by Americans); we just pick one and run with it. It is not a big deal - people have no trouble reading other variants of English - so time spent discussing it would be better spent elsewhere. Trebor

12:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Trebor - just to be clear for the third time - I have no problem myself with the two spellings as I use them all the time. When you ask what the problem is, I thought I outlined it, but here goes again. If WP says that consistency of style is one of its tenants, then this is not consistent. If the posters here say that one must stay with the original poster's spelling then, that is not consistent with policy - so then you say that the original poster trumps the WP manual of style. Ok, fine I can understand that. But - then, when one looks at one of the latest revisions, one editor basically tells anyone working on it to revise using "jewellery", which according to one of these posts is only because the original poster used it. Ok - fine again, but then again - we are going back to inconsistency because that would mean that the original poster does NOT always have the right of way because the current revisions indicate that no matter who created what section of this category, their contribution was changed to the original posters spelling. So, once again, I point out that not because I have a personal mission statement or preference - but only because of the dominant use, (I did not justify use by Americans, only pointed out the dominant search) in print and on the internet, I ask - where does the buck stop and with which rule? If this were a non -issue, as I also mentioned before, there would not be a heated debate going on about re-directing. I am seeking answers and to make WP better - not a waste of time here either, but no one seems to be coming up with an argument that holds up and makes sense in a consistent manner. Once again, I ask if you could please be a little more respectful and address what I am asking you to address. Thanks, Archie, archiemartinArchiemartin

I think there is a valid argument here - not along the lines you mentioned, but the problem being that no matter which spelling the majority of contributors use, the "first" is given some special status. Spelling issues seem to be an exception to

WP:OWN. --Random832

12:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The first is given special status to prevent edit wars. Go look at

WP:OWN. You can't own spelling. When we're all speaking Chinese none of this will matter anyway. ;)Steve block Talk

20:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we do say that consistency of style is one of our tenets. I thought we were consistent in our inconsistency. Spelling in an article has to be consistent. Spelling across articles does not. Steve block Talk 20:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree. As long as we set up appropriate redirects, it's not something worth arguing over. It's caused a lot of bad blood in the past, absolutely ridiculous edit wars, move wars, blocking sprees, accusations of vandalism, people leaving the project in a huff. The solution currently applied is "find something more important to argue over," as I read it. We have a decision rule to prevent arguments -- if a change can be made without an argument, then sure, do your thing, but if attempting the change does start an argument, that's why we have the decision rule. My opinion. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I found some of Grutnes' arguments funny (22:33, 23 February). He finds the "jewellery" spelling closer to the pronunciation, but I just as surely find the "jewelry" spelling closer to the way I pronounce the word. How old is that song, "You say potayto and I say potahto ... Let's call the whole thing off"? Seriously, when I look at Google results, I count 53 million "jewellery" listings and over 300 million for "jewelry", so the user-friendly argument would seem to favor the shorter version.

The venerable rule that the first user to plant his spelling flag on a new article gets to claim that article for his country's spelling is a useful way of calling the whole thing off, but we pay a price if readers are confused OR if we are left with constantly having to create redirect pages. As a minor practical matter, we probably ought to have some kind of process for surgically removing some of those flags that the brave Wikipedia explorers used to stake out spelling territory. It would probably involve first asking the originator to reconsider, a good reason to switch spelling, conformity with a reliable dictionary, proof from Google or somewhere else that one spelling is dominant, at least on the Web.

(And I assume America currently dominates the English-language Web in a way that may change as poorer nations, such as India, become richer, increasing Commonwealth spelling in Google hits.) Ultimately, it's not the end of the world to create redirect pages, just annoying. (Incidentally, when the Potayto/Potahto song was recorded in the U.S., the lyrics were sent to England, where they were recorded locally. The English had no idea from the written lyrics how the words in the song were pronounced. Much embarassment ensued when the American recordings were eventually imported. Moral of story: Never assume, certainly not about pronunciation.) Noroton 21:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sidenote: I'm not sure if this is directly related, or just coincidental, but people have been very slowly warring on Tongue piercing about this and some other, um, more unusual elements of wording. - RedWordSmith 18:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Bearing heavily in mind that nearly everyone speaking a particular dialect of English believes strongly that theirs is the "correct" one, I really think it is unreasonable to favour either type of spelling. Because we have the facility of redirect pages for alternate spellings of words, there is absolutely no "user-friendliness" issue - either spelling works, almost interchangably, and nothing other than a linguistic superiority complex could make the article less useful due to its use of a certain spelling. However, an even more important arguement arises: when you force an editor to use one spelling or the other, you are playing with the very potent force of nationalism. This will naturally drive a great deal of editors away from a particular page because they feel it is an affront that someone is dictating which dialect ought to be used, or even because they simply do not want to type in a language other than that which they natively speak. Thus, I really think it best to turn a blind eye to the whole issue, considering that it is irrelevant for all practical intents and purposes. Wikipedia cannot afford to be governed by the principles of nationalism or pride, not only because of the conflicts those invariably cause, but because the primary focus must be verified. Falcon 02:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I always spell jewellery with a double L. I honestly didn't know there was anywhere in the world where it was spelled differently. 138.217.252.28 08:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC) If you go with the "but the American spelling is more common" argument on a case by case basis, the result will be pretty much the same as banning British English from Wikipedia. That would not be a nice way to respond to all the contributions made to wikipedia by British people. Dominictimms 02:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place for this, but here goes. Are there any restrictions on off-site links - and if not, should there be? Many editors have probably seen the practical joke imitation "new message" banners that redirect to the Wiki article on practical jokes, or something similar. However, yesterday I came across one that redirected off-site to a blog page. I asked the editor to reconsider the setup, since there was no indication to a casual user that such a jump would occur. He appreciated my concerns, and reworked his pages accordingly. However, at the same time, he pointed out another user's "joke" nm banner, advising me to "Make sure your anti-virus is up to date." I didn't actually click the link, but found that it linked off-site to a CGI titled "brain.cgi" - which apparently has some reports of virus activity connected to it. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Malicious links have no place on wikipedia. (even articles like shock site need to make it explicitly clear what lies on the other side.) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I'd ban every single one of those silly immature new message joke banners. It isn't funny, the joke wore thin ages ago and they are just plain annoying. But, it isn't up to me. pschemp | talk 09:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Let's get rid of them. There is a page somewhere saying that userpages are for the purpose of writing the encyclopedia (not an exact quote). I always took this to mean that anything off-topic can be brought up for discussion and possible removal. Along with userboxes, this seems to be a prime example. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've disabled the external link in question [1]. I didn't dare look at the link in question but a peek at it through on online web checking tool confirms the presence of a script. Very naughty. Megapixie 10:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hah he reverted it back. On closer inspection it is harmless - but it's very naughty disguising an external link as an internal one. Megapixie 10:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

So everyone agrees that it is acceptable to delete fake "you have new messages" boxes? CMummert · talk 12:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think all we need to do is adopt wording in policy somewhere that spoofing the MediaWiki UI is not allowed and it will be open season on the little buggers. —Doug Bell ^talk 13:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a paragraph at

here) and pointed discussion this way. CMummert · talk

13:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have never supported a change more than this one. Said elements are annoying. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also agree with disallowing this sort of practical joke. I think there was a situation in which one of the

userbox migration bots kept stopping because it came across fake new-messages banners and thought they were real, so this is more important than just the annoyance value. (It's kind of ironic that users sporting such banners had their userboxes gradually degrade due to the bots not being able to replace them, but this interfered with other users too.) --ais523 15:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC

)

Yes, the fake 'You have new messages' banners should be banned. However, with the bots, if they come across a false-positive new-messages banner, they can always check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php?what=userinfo&uihasmsg to see if they really do have messages.

(Talk)

15:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The annoyance factor certainly high, but I didn't think about the potential for username phishing and other fraud before this morning. Since these fake messages have no positive function, the easiest thing is just to make them deletable on sight. CMummert · talk 16:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Not all UI changes are disruptive or confusing. This wording needs to be rethought. Take a look at User:Coelacan, where I have a username overlay. Nothing wrong with that. — coelacan talk — 21:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course not everything is disruptive. The sort of page the wording is intended to cover is User:Drahcir (this version). It isn't going to be possible to define "disruptive" objectively, so some common sense will be required in applying the policy. I don't expect an automated "user page bot" to go around scanning for unsuitable user pages. CMummert · talk 22:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Faking the UI is intentionally creating confusion where something looks like clicking on it will give you one thing when it gives you another, or producing a page that looks like something it isn't (like creating a user page the looks like the page you get when there is no user page by that name). Decorative changes that don't impact how someone interacts with the UI wouldn't meet this criteria. As CMummert points out, however, trying to define this too narrowly leaves the definition open to abuse. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Lone voice of dissent here. I think declaring open season on a harmless joke (I'm only talking about the harmless versions, like the one that was just removed from User:Certified.Gangsta's userpage) is unkind and petty. It sorts oddly with the next sentence, which has been there for a long time, and which I really like: "As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit." The new suggestion also fits badly with all the other matters under the heading "What can I not have on my user page?", because those all have very good reasons. For instance, putting extensive personal information, or fair use images, on userpages is readily seen to be actually harmful. The fake New Messages box thing is the only single one that's merely based on irritation. I ask people to please reconsider. What happened to "The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant"? Also, it seems illogical to bother to say "please", if the jokes are actually going to be vigilantly removed and "should" not be put back. That's not "please", that's an order. If y'all want to include advice against joke messageboxes in this guideline, OK, but could we please at least leave it as advice, rather than encourage other users to go on removal rampages? Because that's going to upset people. Bishonen | talk 01:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree, as annoying as I think they are, I think it's better to mention it as advice not order. It's not THAT annoying. If they are disruptive (linking to a virus/script) yes, then obviously they have to go. Garion96 (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

We tolerate silly user page content up to the point at which it becomes harmful. Deliberately misleading people in this manner impedes their efforts to build an encyclopedia. These pranks are flagrantly harmful, and I would have attempted to outlaw them long ago if I'd realized that so many others agreed. —

David Levy

16:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Bishonen here. I find the fake messages stupid and annoying but I don't see much gain in outlawing them. I do however see one serious concern- there are occasional new editors who don't click on new message links since they think that the links are some sort of spam. This may be more likely if they were to click on one of the fake links before getting any new messages. However, this circumstance seems unlikely. JoshuaZ 01:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are the two reasons the reason that I support the change in the User page guideline.

1. Suppose that user A makes a fake UI that points to external site X. Then the person who controls external site X can, without the help of user A, turn site X into a phishing attack by making it a copy of the "You are not logged in" page.
2. There is no positive, or even good-faith, reason to put fake UI on your page. Its only purpose is to harass other users. Given that it is also a potential security risk, we might as well say that it "may" be removed.

It is true that there is great lenience about user pages, but it seems reasonable that the guideline can ask users not to engage in behavior that is broadly offensive to the community. This is underlined by the potential phishing risk of fake UI - it should not benecessary to doubt every UI link when editing a user's talk page. CMummert · talk 01:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I realized the issue is already covered by

WP:DICK. CMummert · talk

02:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Gee, it's hard to think of things much worse to put on your user page than things that undermine the trust we expect people to have in the UI of the site. Much more disruptive than a nasty statement on their user page that we wouldn't allow. Why oh why we want to tiptoe around letting people spoof the UI so that we don't cut into the freedom of expression allowed on their user page I don't get. It's a small curtailment of what people are allowed with a better reason than much of what is on the current policy. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Last night I removed this very fake-banner suggestion from the 'motto of the day' project. That would have added the fake banner to dozens(hundreds?) of user pages. Ick. Barring it altogether gets my support. It's a bad meme, and should be snuffed out. However, I think the section currently at
  WP:BEANS...? --Quiddity
  02:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BEANS is always a Catch-22: if there is no written guideline, then it is much harder to argue in favor of removing things, but every guideline in oppositon of some behavior violates WP:BEANS. Still, when I wrote the current wording, I made it as vague as possible because I respect the idea behind WP:BEANS. Can you rewrite it to be even more vague while still being comprehensible to the average editor? CMummert · talk

03:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point; struck. (I guess I was hoping there was a solution to that, which I just hadn't thought of. ah well) --Quiddity 06:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There is one useful benefit to the practical joke you have messages. It lets the reader know that the user whose page they're looking at is, more than likely, a dick. I don't think they're worth banning on that ground alone, there are plenty of other cases of things that are rude and stupid but legal. And so there should be, because creating thou-shall-nots all the way to the border of good behaviour will inevitably mean that we overshoot sometimes, and ban some good behaviours. But given that the messages will cause some bots to stop, I agree with the prohibition, at least until there is another equally simple way for bots to know that they really have message. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a simple way for bots to find out if they have new messages. In fact, it's even simpler than screen scraping as it's an api. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php?what=userinfo&uihasmsg will show if the bot has messages and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php will document this function. However, a down side of this is that an extra server request must be made every time the banner appears to check if it's legitimate.

(Talk)

11:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that a fake new-messages bar is worth complicating bot programming for. I also don't think that there's a query.php uihasmsg check built in to the popular bot frameworks, so it would mean changes to existing bot code (which can be a bad idea; imagine if a new-messages banner was confusing an adminbot, it would have to go through a new RfA so that the uihasmsg check could be implemented!). By the way, Tra, you probably want to change the output format of that query.php check from the human-readable xmlfm, which has to be screen-scraped, into something more useful for bots. --ais523 11:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

you probably want to change the output format Yes, I know it would need to be changed; I just left it as xmlfm for this discussion, which is being read by humans, and not bots.

(Talk)

12:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still amazed by all the angst this proposal is creating in the name of freedom on user pages. We're not "creating thou-shall-nots all the way to the border of good behaviour"—we're talking about a very specific, practical and non-content-based prohibition on spoofing the UI. There's not lots of gray area here or some dangerous slippery slope. Even without the bot issue I would think this is a no-brainer; with the bot issue this should be a slam dunk. —Doug Bell ^talk 12:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Bots, slam-dunk. Off-wiki links of any sort, slam-dunk. On-wiki practical joke type links, I don't like them. But it feels heavy handed to ban them just because they're childish and annoying. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent idea to finally ban those stupid new message boxes (by which, of course, I do not mean banning the users that create them). >Radiant< 12:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

DOWN with fake MediaWiki UI elements!!! HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with the existence of the joke as it wasn't funny when I didn't click on it the first time. However, shouldn't hiding a malicious link be a bannable offense? MLA 17:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think purposely hiding any external link is a punishable offense. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I consider that this div class (usermessage) has been abused, and that its abuse should be curtailed by enforcement, not by a “please don’t” message on

The "please don't" message is unlikely to curtail the fake boxes without enforcement. Having the wording in the policy guideline just makes it clear that there is consensus against them. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Policy.. ? You're talking about "enforcing" a guideline. If what you want is "banning" the boxes, and sending in the marines to aggressively remove them (which seems to me quite counter to the wikipedia spirit, and you, Radiant, may wish to flee in terror in an orderly manner round about now), perhaps you should in fact propose a policy to that effect. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

In this case, however, this proposal and common sense line up very well. Guidelines should not be ignored unless there's a relatively good reason or exception. Enforcement... would be troublesome, yes. Editors might feel insulted if they were compelled to follow it by force. Blocking someone else as a preventative measure, from putting a usermessage on his or her user page, is ridiculous and pernicious. Overall, that this issue appears light ignores some relatively significant consequences.

There is consensus against deceptive usermessage class use, but the enforcement of consensus is not required for general circumstances. I'm still wondering about whether a policy is worth it or not. Please fill in the following table as you see fit:

This table can also be completed for other UI elements, some more significant than others, others trivial compared to some.

Gracenotes^T

§ 21:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As a proud owner of the practical joke banner, I firmly believe that outlawing the joke banner is against the true spirit of wikipedia. If we decide to censor everything on userpage, talkpage, and subpages, there are things such as User:Markaci/Nudity, which some people consider to be disruptive. It is basically a breach of individual freedom on userspace. I have removed the joke banner on my talkpage couple of months ago after a bitter dispute with User:Centrx who blocked me for 1 second for doing so despite strong opposition from the community and later refused to apologize. Since I believe talkpage is the main source of meaningful conversation on wikipedia, as a compromise, I removed the banner from the talkpage. However, subpages, archives, and userpages are different. Userpage is more about being creative, at least in my opinion. And just because I have a banner on my userpage doesn't automatically make a WP:Dick or a sockpuppeter.--Certified.Gangsta 02:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The one second block was for your habit of egregariously removing valid warnings because you viewed them as "a mark of shame", and unrelated to the banner. --

talk

02:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Those warnings are not valid, obviously. That guy is abusing the system and admin priviledges. Anyway, I could've build a case to desysop him but I don't have time. The reason he blocked me seems to start from the banner dispute which he interpret as deception. Then things escalated from there. Then he randomly framed some unjust accusation to make me look bad out of personal vendetta obviously. The other thing is, if wikipeida is only for editing, we might as well remove userpages altogether since only talkpage is relevant to actual editing.Certified.Gangsta 02:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

We allow user pages to contain practically any type of content that doesn't cause harm. Deliberately interfering with people's attempts to improve the encyclopedia is harmful. —

David Levy

03:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

They were valid warnings for delivering incivil threats of ban to other users. And you're continuing your disruptive behaviour along the same lines now[2] by removing anything you don't like and saying that well-grounded warnings from admins are invalid. I suggest you drop both the vendetta against Centrx and the unfunny disruptive banner. --

talk

03:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You're reincarnating the favorite straw man used against this proposal—censor everything. This isn't about censoring anything, it's about not mucking with the user interface of the site. There's no slippery slope involved with censoring content associated with this proposal because it has nothing to do with content, only with form. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The "true spirit of Wikipedia" does not include deliberately deceiving fellow users in a manner that impedes their efforts to improve the encyclopedia. —

David Levy

03:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

First user already blocked over a guideline which is still being discussed.David Levy, you have now removed the banner three times from Certified.gangsta's userpage, and threatened to block him if he restores it again. This is exactly the kind of behavior I was worried about when I saw the proposed new paragraph, and I don't mean CG's, I mean yours. Would you consider walking away for a few hours, please? Sleep on it, and think about it? I'd also be interested to know if this type of conflict escalation is what other people were envisioning when they expressed approval of the new paragraph? I have reverted, by the way, removing the bit about how users "should not put it back", which you had re-inserted with this edit summary. I've got to ask, why are you so angry? P.S. Breaking news: and now I see you HAVE blocked him. This is too, too bad. Please unblock, or I will. :-( Bishonen | talk 03:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

1. I suggest that you re-evaluate your opinion that users should be permitted to forge software messages for the purpose of deliberately confusing and misleading others (thereby preventing them from improving the encyclopedia).

2. I removed these banners from more than 90 pages, and this is the only user to edit-war over the matter so far.

3. I did unblock Certified.Gangsta as soon as he/she promised to cease the disruption. He/she then explained that this promise is valid for 24 hours, so I'm prepared to re-block if the disruption resumes. —

David Levy

03:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This makes me want to add it to my userpage, even though I think it's stupid. But I won't, and only because I don't edit to make a point. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Two cents here... when I was a newbie, I clicked on those joke "new messages" banners. Now that I've been around a while, I get the joke and don't click on them. Heck, I can go in my monobook.css and make my real "new messages" appear some other color or whatever. But, for the sake of newbies (per

I've got yet another con. When I'm on a slow computer (read: public one) and am just logging in for a few minutes (you know, just to make sure no one is calling for my head, maybe copyedit something, maybe make a follow-up comment on some talk page) these fake message bars can be really disruptive and time-consuming. They serve no positive purpose, yet they serve multiple negative ones. Luckily, I'm seeing consensus to remove them based on this thread, and will do so. Picaroon 03:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll invoke a wider consensus, as the matter of the guideline addition, and of this block in particular, is now on ANI.[3] Bishonen | talk 04:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Get rid of all of them. They've been annoying for a long time now. --Cyde Weys 04:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Lots of stuff is annoying. It's just a little joke, and it allows editors to feel human. We're not unfeeling content-generating robots - at least, those who are either

Random832(tc

) 04:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one who sees the irony in this statement coming from someone with the user name Random832? :-) —Doug Bell ^talk 05:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There's plenty of potential user page content (including humor) that causes no known harm. Is it so much to ask that people not waste other users' time by deliberately tricking them via forged software messages? —

David Levy

06:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S.,

Folks common sense needs to apply here. To make a blanket rule that's going to block everything resembling MediaWiki functionality including lame "new message" joke alerts is just draconian. There are no doubt legitimate concerns about users spoofing certains functions of MediaWiki but I'll be hard pressed to agree with those who want to inlcude the Practical joke "new message" alert amongst those concerns. (→Netscott) 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, there are worse examples, but that doesn't mean that this one isn't bad. —

David Levy

06:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

David Levy, where did you get the impression that there is strong consensus for your block?--Certified.Gangsta 05:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've made no such claim. Evidently, some people believe that I overreacted. I disagree. You deliberately violated a guideline (which you knew existed to prevent disruption) after being warned not to. You also removed the warning. —

David Levy

06:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not an understatement to say over 95% of wikipedians believe you overreacted. The guideline is deliberately added by you and active discussion is still ongoing here, with various minor edit war on the guideline page. Unilaterally removing the banner, harssing me on my userpage, then intentionally warning/blocking me after you nearly break 3RR on my userpage is definite no-no for admins. The banner is not even disruption. I consider your warning to be one-sided, subjective, and an invalid threat. Basically, an abuse of administrative priviledge.--Certified.Gangsta 06:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

1. You're right. That isn't an understatement; it's an overstatement. I take the concerns expressed by these users (whatever percentage they constitute) very seriously, but I disagree. This, however, doesn't mean that I would dismiss their viewpoints and block you again. If there is no consensus for such an action, so be it. I'm but one sysop trying my best to enforce policies and guidelines to the best of my understanding; I have no delusions of grandeur or belief that my opinions are sacrosanct.

2. Again, I didn't author the guideline addition.

3. My removal of the banner was far from unilateral. At the time, there was overwhelming consensus.

4. Advising a user to follow a guideline is not harassment, and the 3RR does not apply to the reversion of vandalism. (Deliberately violating a guideline that exists to prevent disruption is vandalistic in nature.) I would never block someone with whom I was involved in a legitimate content dispute.

5. Considering the fact that I unblocked you as soon as you agreed to stop restoring the banner, would you care to retract your previous allegation that I sought to stop you from participating in this discussion? —

David Levy

07:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems to me to be more of the same militantism that rears it's head on Wikipedia every so often. Some users seem to think Wikipedia should be as clean, stiff and dour as an English tea room or a board meeting in Japan, forgetting this is somethign most us do for FUN. Improving this project is, or at least should, not be another job, with a thousand HR decrees. It's a joke. take it case by case. Make the rule say such things should never lead to external sites, or to content of a non-family nature within wikipedia, for example Genital Piercings. But if you've got a fake 'leave me a message' up that leads to the

Wikipedia should be profressional. Playing jokes on other users is being

uncivil. I support allowing it because wikipedia is BASED on freedom and accepting a whole host of different editors. There is no case where these things are helpful though, and users SHOULDN'T use them. I oppose enforcing such a rule, but support making it known to editors that it isn't appropriate. i kan reed

06:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, the idea of this - a spoof You Have New Messages box people can place at the top of their page - is really quite funny. But only as a joke told, not done. CyberAnth 06:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My thinking doesn't fit the below poll. I think fake new message banners are annoying and I think a tiny bit less of contributors that use them, but they're harmless, as long as they don't lead anywhere bad. I'd support a suggestion that they not be used, and a further statement that if they DO lead anywhere bad, anyone can remove them with a good edit summary and a note on the user's talk page, and reinsertion is not approved. That may be too nuanced, but I have non standard things in my userpages too, and I'd hate to see us all restricted to everything completely standard. ++Lar: t/c 21:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Why hasnt any Admin made a policy on this? Should I go around on Wikipedia saying I'm an actual Admin and then when they click on the message they get "Haa, Fooled you". This is plain stupid. Please make a policy against these fake user messages. Infact, this is wanting me to fake people that I'm an actual admin - maybe that will get the point across to the admins. --Matt57 23:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You can't make a policy with just one admin. Policies are supposed to be decided by the community, and as the straw poll below shows, not everybody's in agreement.

(Talk)

00:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll (archived)

Fourth option

That the real new message box should be moved outside the content box so that it cannot then be spoofed, rendering this whole thing irrelevant. Votesopinions in this section are in addition to support/oppose/neutral above.

1. --
   Random832(tc
   ) 17:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

   While it seems sensible this "solution" is not very practical because the reality is that with CSS code virtually anything is "spoofable" with regards to how a page is displayed on the Wiki. (→Netscott) 17:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

   wikicode CSS can only apply styles to its own content. You can move the fake box up, but you CAN NOT move the title down to where it would be if it were naturally placed above it. --

   Random832(tc

   ) 04:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

   I'm sure that most anyone competent in CSS could find a way to spoof it. I think this user page is fairly illustrative of what I'm talking about (notice the Wikipedia icon in the upper left hand corner). (→Netscott) 04:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

   Gracenotes^T

   § 16:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

With regards to the proposed wording, what would you all think of re-wording it to only exclude UI spoofing with malicious intent? Personally, I agree with the proposal as it stands, but re-wording it in such a fashion may at least allow us to come to a compromise consensus. -- Qarnos 10:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Better than nothing at all, but I'd still like to tread on it for it's annoyance factor. There's nothing to be gained by annoying people except a few cheap laughs so annoying people is wrong. Not to mention the confusion caused to people having not encountered a 'new messages' box before. --Seans Potato Business 23:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sixth option: monobook.css

A better solution is to allow individuals to disable/highlight fake message boxes if they personally wish, thereby avoiding any confrontation. For a long time, I've had this in my monobook.css:

div.usermessage a { /* make links inside other people's fake "new message" boxes show up in a 5x size red font */

  background:red!important;
  font-size:500%;

} div.usermessage a[title="User talk:Interiot"] { /* make sure my own "new message" box shows up normally */

  background:none!important;
  font-size:100%;

}

It makes all links in "new message" boxes show up in a very large red font, making them look more ridiculous than deceptive. --

Crafting intial guidelines about "new message" joke banners

Per the fairly clear consensus about certain aspects of the joke "new message" banner discussions I have intiated a proposal to begin crafting a guideline about them. I invite those interested in participating to

I fail to see what the discussion is about. See WP:USER#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F. This specifically mentions:

Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia,"

This is even more the case if some users find something annoying. I've already removed a false message box and would have moved to blocking if the user had not been co-operative (which he was).

Tyrenius 08:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Woah...hold on there. So you also support blocking users before a consensus on a iffy policy is reached?!? So users aren't allows to have stuff on the page that make people smile? Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 08:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And that rule was taken out of context. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 09:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, I support blocking users on a stable guideline over which consensus was reached a long time ago, which I have copied above. Yes, users are allowed to have stuff which make people smile. They're not allowed to have stuff which annoy people, which one of the people who used to have one plainly admits is the case:

I know it can get annoying sometimes, so if you don´t like it, then never visit my userpage nor any of my subpages

There's quite a few people here forgetting that editing is a privilege, not a right, and it's one granted for one purpose only, which is the creation of an encyclopedia. Once that priority is put back in place, then other problems sort themselves out. I suggest you forget about practical jokes, and get on with creating some good article content. Also user pages are not "private property". They belong to wikipedia. If you don't like that reality, then there's always myspace.

Tyrenius 09:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Tyrenius, there should be a lot of latitude in the first statement that you quoted. Building a sense of community is important, and surely every involved Wikipedian should be able to have a trivial (not excessively time consuming) or personal subpage. The user page guideline is just that, a guideline; I agree with you that the trouble caused by this, however, transcends that of a guideline. Check out my table above. Please don't argue by quoting from

WP:UP

about what should and should not be allowed -- that's essentially not the issue, since it more applies to social networking.

Finally, blocking a user causes much more collateral damage than you can imagine. Protecting a page is a much much much better idea, if needed.

Gracenotes^T

§ 19:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. I meant that a user that otherwise could contribute content and revert vandalism would be blocked, which is over all bad for the encyclopedia. Remember,

Gracenotes^T

§ 20:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Grace, I don't think a block would be given unless the user refused to allow the item removed, I don't think anyone is advocating blocking anyone who does this. To put it another way, the blocking policy that requires blocks to be preventative as opposed to punitive would not be effected. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm kind of hurt by your brash response. I don't like being lectured. It sure isn't helping Wikipedia either. grrrrr... Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 09:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Then it might be advisable to be more cautious before making accusations. Tyrenius 10:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yo Jumping cheese. I got your back.--Certified.Gangsta 09:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh...thanxs? =) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 09:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me of an AfD where people don't know the policy. It seems like many people don't know about

WP:NOT. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me}

) 14:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If anything lends credence to the old adage it is this discussion. Steve block Talk 10:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Um, thanks, but this was a section for a reason. I give you, {{insanity}}. Steve block Talk 11:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  Oaky-dokey. —Doug Bell ^talk 12:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  pig in a pokey! Steve block Talk 17:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  Mad ... angry? Or Mad... Insane? Wjhonson 07:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

Many of you feel these "jokes" are harmless. Say I found one of these jokes, and I fall for it, and I find it disruptive, what do you think of me posting a note below the "joke" saying "The above message is fake, you do not neccesarily have a new message."? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I placed a warning in a hoax box and the user removed it, obviously wishing to carry on wasting people's time. What was particularly annoying was that I was under pressure with a lot of intense messages and activities happening simultaneously, so I kept clicking the hoax one without thinking. Editors have a right to be able to trust and rely on official notifications. In this instance I found this hoax box to have a very disruptive effect. Tyrenius 22:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[Semantic nets & OOP/mult inheritance via changes to internal links capability...] Hi!

It'd be neat to let wiki contributors OPTIONALLY specify &/or Edit the TYPE of LINK of an INTERNAL LINK. This could eventually enable some really wonderful possibilities that I'm sure you folks are all aware of while remaining almost completely transparant to most current users/contributors.

It'd just require a change to your INTERNAL-LINK method...

I've discussed this somewhat more at length at:

I've appended an ugly text version here below ....

Thank you for your time!

Starting.

Starting to build a semantic wiki with a few simple changes to the internal links feature]

With a few simple changes to the Internal Links feature, we can all start to incrementally build a wonderful semantic network version of Wikipedia!

Here's what I'm proposing initially :

When someone creates an internal link while editing a page it would create a Default link type called "Other : <stub ". But it would also open a small window with checkboxes that the person can tick (and/or others can edit later - just like the pages themselves - eg. wiki-able link-types/link descriptors).

Here are some potential basic link-types that a person could TICK off for any given internal link :

• Is-a
  • Is-a-subtype-of
  • Is-an-example of

• Contains
• can-include
• Is-part-of

• Co-occurs / Is Associated with
• Excludes (eg. negative association or neg. correlation)

• Causes
• Can-cause
• Is-caused-by
• Can-be-caused-by

• Uses
• Is-used by

• IS/Was-located-at

• Started-at
• Ended-at

• Is-synonym-to
• Is-antonym-to

• Is-increased-by
• Is-decreased-by

This will VERY RAPIDLY allow Wikipedia contributors to turn the existing wonderful entries into an active semantic network that one can search and do inference upon! It will also allow for multiple inheritance and other delights of object-oriented programming to be rapidly and incrementally be implemented by Wikipedia contributors.

For example :

• a city is-a-subtype-of location
• New York City is-an-example-of a city.

Non small cell lung cancer is-a-subtype-of lung cancer

Dyspnea is-a

Lung cancer is-a-subtype of cancer

Cancer can-be-caused-by smoking.

Jimi Hendrix is-an-example-of a historical person

Jimi Hendrix is-an-example-of a guitarist

A guitarist Uses a guitar.

And so forth.

This OPTIONAL capability - that is initially completely transparant to MOST users will eventually allow for much more enhanced search capabilities and inference capabilities.

For example : FIND all SYMPTOMS that can-be-caused-by smoking.

The eventual possibilities are very substantial and it comes with virtually no change to most users and contributors.

A contributor who doesn't want to specify the LINK-TYPE will just leave it as OTHER : (Stub). Other folks may then come along later and EDIT the LINK TYPES adding additional ones or deleting or modifying them in typical wiki-fashion. EG. : not only are the PAGES modifiable by users, but also the LINK-TYPES.

People clicking on the internal links will still go to the same pages as before with the same experience as before. (However at a later date it may be possible - for example to do wonderful inferences and searches on specific link types.

• Eg. Find all the pages of people who were guitarists
• and played in New York city.

• Eg : find all the pages of
  Dyspnea
  AND
• can-cause Chest Pain AND cooccurs-with Obesity

OR other such capabilities.

More on this later, but I've got to go now.

What do you folks think ?

It should be fairly straightforward to implement! Just a change to the Internal-links method....

Any thoughts ? -- 129.78.64.100 06:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC) G. Holt

See also

t

07:52z

I put somecomments on the talk page. If wiki can run objectdesign sql examples, then

all link as the set of relation of semantic, may be applied. Your set is small. Let the link be a cause of semantic relation existence.--Eaglesondouglas 15:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest having level-2 and above vandalism warnings send out an audible tone. A set of five beeps is my speicific idea, repeated three or more times. The idea is to give teachers a way of catching vandals in action. If they hear the tone, they can demand that people stop working on their machines while the person with the warning is located. A quick check of their web browser (or perhaps the browser's history) should quickly show whether the person in front of that machine is responsible for whatever vandlism earned the warning.

The implementation of this idea should be accompanied by a campaign to get newspapers to publish stories on the implementation of this mechanism. The tone won't be worth much if teachers and parents don't know what it means.

One more suggestion: The enabling template should be self-timestamped so that the tone will cease to be broadcast to the page's viewers after a set amount of time (say 5 to 10 minutes). (The reason for the time limit is that after more than a few minutes, the odds of this being a different user when the tome is emitted start to become substantial.) --EMS | Talk 20:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have 4 concerns with this.

1. What about school computers with no speakers or only headphones?
2. Wouldn't this only work when the student checks the talk page? With this, what if another student, who didn't do the vandalism, checks the talk first?
3. Would this be a separate template, or an optional parameter on existing ones? As this would have no purpose on vandals not at a public computer (except annoyance)
4. This may put a much bigger drain on the already slower-than-the-rest upload servers. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• While this is a great idea in principle, I think the only real effect would be to dissuade vandals from opening their talkpage. Falcon 00:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• When a website starts making noises at me, I close it. A school could install it's own software for that sort of thing. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't they just turn the volume down so no one hears it? Cyberia23 23:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, is this even technically possible? Can media files be set to play automatically? Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal thought: I really, truly, unearthly, hate music or sounds from browsers. I can't stand going to MySpace to check added external links and being received with music. I hate the old Geocities pages with midi tones as background music. I prefer changing the background color of the pages being visited by the vandal in yellow, orange and red depending on the warning level he is currently at (and at this, I am being pretty extreme). No sounds, please. -- ReyBrujo 00:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad idea. —Centrx→talk • 00:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Anybody and everybody in the school (shared IP) will be beeping away whether they vandalised anything or not. CiaranG 14:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• It would encourage vandals to send out warnings to annoy others with the beeps. I've seen it happen before (
  hint: link someone's keypress to the BOING! sound and watch them scream). >Radiant<
  13:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that this last reason is the one that kills this idea. I don't mind annoying vandals and if the sound is placed on a short fuse (ceasing to be emitted after a few minutes) you won't have everyone in a school beeping, or even the next user of that IP. However, I had failed to consider that "turnabout is fair play". --EMS | Talk 14:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons this board got created was as a venue to dovetail with this proposal. Things have been quiet at the proposal for about a month. Does anyone object to my proposal of a three month trial run? Seeking opinions, feedback, and potential refinements. Durova^Charge! 22:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks OK. No objections from me if you want to run this for a bit as a trial. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 22:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Kla'quot 05:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It is said that our present noticeboards (mainly the various pumps and the admin board) don't scale well. The "community board" was created in an attempt to alleviate that, but unfortunately it is far from clear what the distinction is between that board and the older ones. I've temporarily suspended it to facilitate discussion about the focus of all these boards, and to prevent overlapping discussions. Please join discussion on Wikipedia talk:Community noticeboard. >Radiant< 11:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears active. Navou ^banter / _contribs 20:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a fan of advanced topics in artifical intelligence. A distinction between the actual relation as automated and the application of knowledge is a fine distinction that is now able to be formulated.

According to Frege F[x,y]=x/y

by solving for the only symbol allowed to be used in his famous relation, automated inference in three orders is possible! This is new and not referenceable because it is a discovery.

Here is the solver function:

F[1,symbol]=1/symbol

where symbol is the symbol for the third abstract symbol. Note, the third order abstracted symbol or sign!

It is a fairly elegent topic and needs review by the village experts. Can I try it out? --Eaglesondouglas 23:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for original research, period. Wikiversity welcomes it, but stick to publishing it somewhere else first, and then we can reference that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will not do anything as it is going to be showing up in automated reasoning computers soo.

Thanks --4.249.207.210 20:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

We should include a little page about our IRC and link to it from our sidebar. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 23:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I discovered Wikipedia quite some time ago and have spent a lot of time reading generally well-written and interesting articles, I've still not found any easy-to-use manual for Wikipedia through Wikipedia. It seems to me that such an introduction should be clearly available as a link on the very first page of Wikipedia. This manual should be reasonable short so that it can be read from the beginning to the end in let's say 15 minutes. Then of course in that manual there could be many links with more detailed information about rules for editing etc. I've seen that there is a lot of information about rules, news etc etc, but it's all too detailed and dispersed for a person to grasp the essentials within a reasonable time. The risk is obviously that many people, who would be interested in contribute and edit themselves, are put off, since they can't find an easy manual for what to do and how to use it all. For example yesterday I watched a speech by the founder of Wikipedia on the homepage of Ted. He said that there is a page, which shows all changes, which are being made within Wikipedia. Also, he claimed that there are discussions for what pages should be kept and what should be deleted. However, I can’t find such pages and I can’t find any manual, which could help me finding those interesting pages. Please let me know what you think about my idea.--Smallchanges 10:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume you know about Help:Contents but don't find it adequate. The welcome message on your talk page is meant to include most of the important pointers. The problem is Wikipedia is huge (really huge). What you're asking for is sort of analogous to a quick overview of New York City, although this might make a reasonable Wikibook. BTW - The specific pages you mention are Recent changes (in the navigation box, on the left) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. I have been editing on Wik for over a year and still find the information on how to do things on Wik extremely hard to (re-)find and often written in jargon (W:DK, NPOV sockpuppet, etc.). I have repeatedly suggested a search function for Wik (i.e., not for the content, which we obviously have, but for searching on how to do things with Wik, e.g., making footnotes, finding out all the edits a given editor has made), but this has fallen on deaf ears. The Help page certainly is any-thing but adequate. Kdammers 00:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in

be bold and try to fix it yourself. BTW - you can find out all edits a given editor has made - from either their user page or talk page, click "user contributions" (in the toolbox, on the left). -- Rick Block (talk

) 01:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd still like to see

Help:Contents/Site map be the default at Help:Contents. Previously there were icons everywhere, and page load was a concern; but that is no longer the case. I believe others are fans of the 'subpages' format, but I think it leads to needless complication and stagnation, and makes it hard to search. If anyone strongly agrees, I (or they) can resuggest it there... --Quiddity

00:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Rick Block and Kdammers, thanks for your quick answers and useful input. --Smallchanges 09:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have created a proposed policy on Wikipedia's attitude towards pedophile editors

I appreciate this effort, and think that it may be worthwhile to clarify these issues. However the POV of

Perverted Justice should not determine our policies. We can decide them on our own. -Will Beback · †

· 05:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is "Perverted Justice" and why should we care what they think? --Cyde Weys 06:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Cybervigilantes, evidently. Deco 06:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oooof, no thank you then. Vigilantes scare me almost as much as the people they're supposedly "protecting" us from. --Cyde Weys 06:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Seriously. They're out to paint people in the most sensationalist light possible and structuring policies around a reaction to them would be horribly broken. I'm pretty sure that cases involving this are rare enough to be handled on an ad hoc basis. The snopake case had some related issues, but it was more creepy than outright pedophilic. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't find their coverage of neither Wikipedia nor Blogspot particularly sensationalist. (I didn't read anything else). I doubt if Wikipedia, and the same is probably true about Blogspot, can do anything about this issue without sacrificing other values, but the criticism should not be brushed away as sensationalist. --Merzul 15:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't find their coverage of neither Wikipedia nor Blogspot particularly sensationalist. Except that they are lying. They state in the Blogspot description that "advocating sex with children [is] an illegal act in the United States," but it's not; as long as you're not calling people to action, it is protected free speech. That's called sensationalism. Ashibaka (tock) 05:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"When you delve into exactly who the users are editing the "Internet's Encyclopedia" you find a vast pedophile cabal seeking to undermine it." isn't sensationalist? (incidentally, this should be added to

WP:LOC) --Random832

12:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Preserved

For Great Justice —dgies^t_c

18:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Is Perverted Justice the people who hack into other people's computers on the off chance of finding incriminating images on them? Corvus cornix 19:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia be run by a single website that accuses it of not taking great enough steps to fight pedophiles? There is a problem, but perhaps we should decide our own policy. Captain panda In vino veritas 22:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why wasn't I invited to be part of this "vast pedophile cabal"? My cabal of people-trying-to-annoy-everyone-else is very annoyed that I... I mean *we* are out of the loop on this! Wjhonson 07:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I... so totally don't care about their statement. It is astoundingly sensationalist. The amount of effort I plan to put into reacting to that is.... going to be over with at my signature. If they have an issue with certain edits, they can bring them up on talk pages, AFD, etc. like the rest of us. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 19:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that on many Wikipædia pages, there are

Note wikimedia software supports

LATEX which should be usable as advanced HTML as MathML in the future (indeed you can do it now with custom settings). Nil Einne

19:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Stwalkerster 17:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The edit page already links to the sandbox, however it could be more prominent. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest adding it to the navigation pane as the toolbox isn't noticed much by new users. I don't even use it that much. Or at the least, move it higher up n the edit screen, right now its down near the bottom. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 18:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a crazy idea that I randomly had the other day so bare with me... But I think it would be amazing if wikipedia could somehow make an application that utilized peer to peer software. In other words... store the contents of wikipedia on user computers that have the application running on their computer. Still keep up the local servers but somehow create a p2p version of wikipedia that could act as a "backup" for the site. And if the idea caught on enough we could do away with the local servers completely. It would totally revolutionize wikipedia and make it a permanent stable of the internet that would not be reliant on donations or massive local servers. Just food for thought. --Tobyw87 21:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a good idea, but it is impractical, because many ISPs are not-so-keen on the extremely high bandwidth that p2p requires. Stwalkerster 17:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer to peer only works with a static copy if information. If the information is constantly changing, like a wiki, then the synchronization issues would render any advantage moot. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I dunno, many articles use lots of templates that are transcluded. With this, they would all be coming from different locations and that could slow things down. Also, many people wouldn't want to keep a bunch of pages on their PC all the time. And what about firewalls? They could block people trying to access a page stored on a computer. And also, not everyone has hi-speed internet. While a page loads in a few seconds with DSL/cable, on dialup it can take a minute or 2. If we use a P2P and a page is only on a dialup PC, it will take a few minutes for everyone to access it. Finally, what about high use pages like the help desk? Would each revision be saved on the same computer or ont he computer that made the revision? Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 17:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As HighInBC has remarked, this is unlikely to be possible technically due to the way wikipedia works Nil Einne 19:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone every created a mediawiki site which is free?

Which allows anyone to post anything they want, and have access to all the files? I have an assbackwards system called Siteground.com, which is terrible.

This could revolutionize the way that people transfer and collect data. Kind of a yahoo, or google of the internet, based outside of the United States, with weaker or nonexistent copyright laws.

It would make wikipedia seem bassakwards.

Kind of like the internet on

That would not work. Sure, it might seem to work for a while, when it's new. But running servers costs money, and if you accept everything, you would have to use lots of servers. Besides, it is not at all a good thing to allow people to post anything they want. -Amarkov moo! 17:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

See also,

Talk

17:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Um... what? It doesn't accept everything at all, it's just that it accepts different things. -Amarkov moo! 17:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of wiki sites out there that have less rules than Wikipedia, but I don't know of any that have no rules at all. Laws would limit what could be posted, if nothing else. If you want to create a wiki of your own, you can download the Mediawiki software for free. Koweja 17:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well as the user remarked, he's looking at countries with 'weaker' copyright laws. However even countries with 'weaker' copyright laws (it's actually more the enforcement then the laws although they do lack ugly things like the DMCA) still have some and it will be an extremely high profile target. Also, there isn't just copyright but terrorism related stuff, child pornography etc which will never fly in any country so there is no way you can ever allow everything. Plus many of the countries with 'weaker' copyright laws tend to be somewhat repressive politically (e.g. Russia, China) so even if you do get more copyright violating stuff, you'll get less stuff on e.g. Putin or Tianemmen Square. Perhaps most importantly, as Amarkov pointed out, the bandwidth and server costs would be astronomical. This is one of the key reasons this stuff moved to P2P (other then a lot of ordinary users being harder to go after then a few servers). The only way you can really achieve something like this is with some sort of P2P like

Freenet. However such stuff tends to attract considerable controversy as although many users say they are opposed to censorship, quite a few of these people change their minds when it comes to stuff like child pornography. Nil Einne

19:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Running your own wiki is easy, just install the software and away you go, any content is your own responsibility. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Was the suggestion of using "subst:" to reduce server load informed by actual profiling? That is, did someone actually measure the non-hypothetical, real-life difference?

The suggestion initially seems plausible, until you learn a few things about computers. And the first thing to learn is that intuitive guesses about optimizing an application are almost always wrong. In fact, using "subst:" probably slows down the server since database throughput is orders of magnitude slower than CPU/RAM throughput. But until careful real-life measurements are taken, nobody can really know.

Of course, "subst:" is sometimes the desired behavior, regardless of server load issues. However other uses of "subst:" cannot be justified without hard evidence.

WP:PERF seems relevant --Random832

14:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Therefore we should remove all claims that the use of "subst:" reduces server load, because it could indeed have the opposite effect. For example

Xerxesnine

16:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's important because without it, a single template update can spoil the cache for every single page that template is transcluded on, which is tens of thousands for some high-use templates. The only case where I've seen subst advocated for load issues is sigs, though. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Some templates, like {{

WP:UW fan), would cause a huge job-queue increase if they were modified after a large number of non-substings, which would probably swamp the other tasks for which the job queue is used for several minutes. Simply viewing a page with a transcluded template isn't normally a problem, though, as you noticed (the developers have installed a template-transclusion limit so that the cases where it is a problem can't happen). --ais523 17:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC

)

Heh. Gracenotes, a

Gracenotes^T

§ 18:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There have been cases (not testing, but situations nonetheless) where it can be a bad idea for transclusion. Although there is no need to worry about performance, if you wish to create a template, and it becomes very popular, it may well be beneficial to make it a good template then substitute rather than transclude. Yes, we don't have to worry about performance - but this doesn't mean, of course, we waste it. High-risk templates being protected could well be an example. In other words, substitution is pretty much a necessity when transclusion proves to be a bad risk. x42bn6 Talk 17:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Suppose I don't buy your arguments. I say, for example, that cached template functions are faster than the database throughput. How will you convince me otherwise?

Xerxesnine

22:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a developer so I can't answer that question. I do know, however, that substitution is existent for a reason, and not just transclusion - and the effects of editing a transcluded template have been explained above. x42bn6 Talk 23:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you know some C++, I can give you an analogous situation. Suppose you take a small C++ program and force all the functions to be inline (via a compiler option, since the 'inline' keyword is merely a suggestion). It might run a little faster. Now do this with a large C++ program. In all likelihood, the large C++ program with all inline functions will run slower. Why? Cache hits.

The use of subst in Wikipedia is like inlining in C++. When the amount substed is not too great, there will be a benefit with subst. But as that amount increases, the benefit swings back to dynamic templates, like non-inlined functions in C++.

Maybe you buy the argument, maybe you don't. But the moral is: How do we decide the proper course of action with regard to 'subst'? Not by making arguments; only careful real-life testing can decide.

Xerxesnine

23:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Most of the arguments for subst aren't performance-based. 142.157.19.40 22:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Um ... you must have missed the end of my first post: Of course, "subst:" is sometimes the desired behavior, regardless of server load issues. However other uses of "subst:" cannot be justified without hard evidence.

Xerxesnine

17:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As it currently stands you have to have a separate login to edit an article in a different language. As it has been explained to me this is because different languages have different administrations/rules. However, what would stop one login name from having access to all languages. The different rules and administrations would still apply to a specific language, but users who are able to edit multiple languages could do so with one login. Wikipediatoperfection 07:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea. It's been implemented but roll-out is stalled. See m:Help:Unified login. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 07:43Z

I was browsing along the Homestar Runner Wiki after a look at the the Battlestar Galactica Wiki and I thought... how about cross-wiki redirects? By this I means sending people who look up Commander Adama here directly to the BSG wiki and having a link on the diambig page for Deutschmann to the joke on the H*R wiki. I suggest this because:

It would free up space on wikipedia's servers.

It would give credit for wiki-interest in things like Star Trek and Star Wars to where it belongs.

The coverage on the specialized wikis is better.

It will avoid all sorts of unnecessary redundancy.

And it will mean fewer jokes about wikipedia's focus on fictional things (I think they call it "fancruft"). I'm new to Wikipedia, so please forgive if this isn't a new idea. Misaf-Keru 01:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

But then wikipedia is essentially endorsing the other wiki, and giving up on the task of writing an encyclopedic article about the topic. Wikipedia has seriously different standards for articles about fiction than fanwikis. A wikipedia article should focus on things like themes, critical analysis, and reviewer responses, generally real-world impact. Fanwikis focus on extreme levels of detail, and ones like memory alpha explicitly segregate out of universe information into secondary locations. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, but what about providing external links to fanwikis on their associated articles here? What that fit in with

WP:EL or instead be a violation; or might it be something worth modifying the policy to provide for? --Bossi (talk ;; contribs

) 22:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• That it would add to the credibility here while simultaneously allowing fans access to more detail if they want it. Win-win. So what do you think of this proposal? Misaf-Keru 06:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This proposal will need a change in the MediaWiki software, and will go nowhere here. File this as an enhancement request type "bug" at the Bugzilla mentioned in the header above. Jesse Viviano 22:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we add the option to have today's picture emailed to people, so that we may send it to friends and stuff. Isn't that how featured articles work? If not, than that option should be made availale. I knwo you can do it by file, but thats so long.

Wikipedia doesn't do mass mailings as far as I know, but if you want to e-mail pictures to your frields go right ahread (just be sure to include the license terms in case they want to modify or use them for whatever). If you want to keep tabs on the picture of the day just add {{POTD}} to your userpage. --Sherool (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected, we actualy do have a "daily picture" mailing list. You can sign up here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/daily-image-l --Sherool (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

why not set up a Wiki project whereby people enter in how they were treated / cured of various ailments or injuries. This will then end up being a huge repository of case studies, enabling people to see which treatments are effective.

This isn't really a proposal for Wikipedia. This is more a proposal for an entire new wiki. For that, see m:Proposals for new projects. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 17:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedias do not do their own studies, though this may be a good idea for a new wiki. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Although, like Wikipedia, it may be inaccurate—and we're dealing with medical advice, not just general knowledge, so I foresee some problems there.

Gracenotes^T

§ 21:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have seen a number of articles that list Myspace as either a reference or, more often, an external link. I can't help but think that that looks really unencyclopedic, linking to a site with more media-enhanced problems than Wikipedia and has basically zero credibility. Why is there nothing that says Don't link to Myspace? This would definitely increase our credibility (or at least our image of credibility.) Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS (Part of Wikipedia:Attribution now) does that job. It doesn't look well followed, seeing this(long load). I also noticed that you have to manually modify the URL in Special:Linksearch to change the number of links showed and search by namespace. Someone should fix that. Prodego ^talk

02:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Also

WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided no. 10 specifically mentions myspace. Tyrenius

02:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

But as of the time I checked, there are 16,435 links to myspace form Wikipedia, so this obviously isn't enforced. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

But does that include userpages? Prodego ^talk 02:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It won't be enfored, it is a guideline, guidelines aren't enforced. Cbrown1023 talk 03:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "enforced" was too srong a word. It obviously isn't very implemented. As the template for the MoS pages states "Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines." I'm not seeing much heeding. And no, that count should only be article namespace, total, there are 22,610 links. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 03:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

ACtually, Iron Man (film)'s director has an official mySpace so that way fans will know what is really happening with the movie. So mySpace can by reliable. The Placebo Effect 02:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it's okay to link to the myspace page of the subject of an article, just as it's okay to link to a personal webpage. So a lot of the links are fine. What percentage, of course, is a different question. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a word for that - fancruft. Catering to the fan, and not to the general encyclopedia reader. Actually, the link to "Iron Man Movie Group on Myspace" in

Gracenotes^T

§ 05:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the wording on

WP:EL is a little unclear "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article" does this mean "a page about the subject" or only "the page is the subject." The more I read it, the more it seems like the latter. If it is, then links to myspace should really only be on articles where myspace is the "official website" or on Myspace. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review!

19:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Is only a guideline, and it should be followed as much as it can be. So if there's an official site that it updated relatively frequently, my rule of thumb is to remove any MySpace links (since it adds the social networking aspect, that an official site wouldn't have -- auxiliary forums don't count, since they are not irrevocably entangled with useful content. If the only official site is a MySpace, I either let it be, or carefully consider

Gracenotes^T

§ 21:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, most articles that can only list myspace as a source or external link probably fail WP:ATT and WP:N anyway. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution is policy, which is why I mentioned it. However, there are legitimate uses (such as John Broughton's example). Using as a reference, and not just a link, is a problem if the page is not official. Prodego ^talk 03:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Grammar editing

I think what we could really use, in addition to a Peer Review section, is a Grammar Review page. If an article is of solid quality, but the writing is somewhat less than adequate, it would be a handy place where wikipedians with strong grammar skills could give a PR'd page a good polish (prior to moving forward for FAC). Any thoughts on this? — RJH (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

{{

copyedit}} ? Night Gyr (talk/Oy

) 17:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

New bot

Resolved

I'm no programmer, so perhaps a bot that removes links to no-longer-existant images? AdamBiswanger1 16:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:CommonsDelinker and User:OrphanBot (for images on Commons and Wikipedia, respectively) manage most of that work between them. --ais523 16:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's good to know. Thanks AdamBiswanger1 19:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed "spring cleaning" day

See

Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker

. 15:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:UW

redirects reminder

Hi,

Just a reminder for the strawpoll on

WP:UW

about redirecting the old user warnings templates to the new system which closes tomorrow. If you have any interest in this issue please leave your comments

here. Original message. Cheers ^Khukri

10:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Use WebCite for web references

WebCite is like the Internet Archive, but caches pages on demand, allowing you to cite the exact version that you viewed regardless of whether the page changes or goes offline. Should we be using this whenever we cite a webpage? — Omegatron 22:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

couldn't we integrate this into the {{

New York Times for an article, for example) don't get it? Night Gyr (talk/Oy

) 22:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

well, now that I look, apparently they require you to attach yourself to each link you create, so they wouldn't quite work with something on the scale of wikipedia. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we should be careful about the use of outside products. WebCite may be a non-profit organization and free to individuals using it this way, but it is supported by publisher fees. Its copyright policy is that "Except for archived content, this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License." I see no reason why an editor may not choose to use this, but it should not be WP policy to incorporate requirements or expectations to use an outside service. I am not sure it has general acceptance. DGG 22:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it. The Internet Archive has been around for years, is pretty trustworthy, and in any case, is used as a last resource. Asking people to use it sounds like an advertisement for the site. -- ReyBrujo 22:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

couldn't we integrate this into the {{cite web}} template, so that editors don't need to worry about it

Exactly. It already has an archiveurl= parameter.

apparently they require you to attach yourself to each link you create

Meaning what?

The Internet Archive has been around for years, is pretty trustworthy, and in any case, is used as a last resource.

The Internet Archive only archives things that the Alexa toolbar finds, though, which leaves a lot of gaps. And it's usually only linked to after a site has gone offline, not when a site changes. WebCite creates an archive at the moment the page is cited. If we cite a page that later changes, our citation is no longer valid.

Asking people to use it sounds like an advertisement for the site.

WP:AGF? — Omegatron

18:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't archive automatically when you pass it a URL. It archives when you give it the command at a form, and that form requires you to enter an email address, where they email you when your archive is ready. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah. It would be great if we could just archive things automatically by linking to http://www.somearchivesite.org/thecurrenttimeinUTC/http://www.thesitetobecited.com/page.html

Also, I read through http://www.webcitation.org/faq (which also explains why Internet Archive isn't good enough), and the service is currently an academic project at the University of Toronto, with a Collective Commons-licensed site, so the advertisement accusation is unfounded. — Omegatron 19:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of total stars

I have just started a article with the title mentioned above. Perhaps it would be interesting contributing\starting with me to this list; it might be fun if their is some kind of a competition between several users, to be on top of that list! Maybe some people would go and work harder, do more, contribute more, and vandalise less! So, what do you say?

the Old and respectable Kashwialariski 15:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This would only work if there were some sort of qualifying standard for the award of stars; as it is, they are given at random by editors at random to people whom they feel deserve them. At random. I like the concept in principle, but to make it work would entail the total formalisation of star awards, which I suspect many people would be unhappy with.--

Anthony.bradbury

16:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would prefer a list of wikipedians per promoted featured or good articles (which do exist hidden somewhere). -- ReyBrujo 17:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No, barnstars are not a competition, and we should not make them into a popularity contest. This is a bad idea and should not continue. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Night Gyr.↔NMajdan•talk 21:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Night Gyr — Omegatron 00:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of total stars

"Policy" in names of policies

(I previously posted this elsewhere, but it was too low-traffic.)

When we write new policies, can we avoid using the word "policy" in the name of the policy? Wikipedia:Attribution isn't any less of a policy even though it's not called "Wikipedia:Attribution Policy". For example, an alternative to "Wikipedia:Protection policy" might be "Wikipedia:Protection" or "Wikipedia:Article protection". —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 08:12Z

Possibly the difference is that "Wikipedia:Protection policy" is our policy regarding protection. "Wikipedia:Attribution" is the policy (ie that information must be, er, attributable) rather than our policy regarding attribution. --Cherry blossom tree 11:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, though I don't see significant difference between the two things you said. I think the reason currently some have "policy" in the name and some don't is simply because people named them arbitrarily. Anyway I'm more concerned about going forward. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 11:48Z

I'm scratching my head to see the difference as well. Consistency in titling is desirable, but I'm thinking it might be better to have "Policy" at the end of the name, when it is a policy, so that people recognise its importance (as opposed to an essay, for example). Tyrenius 02:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• In fact most of those pages with "policy" in the name predate the {{policy}} tag and indeed the entire classification. Hence the names were used for emphasis. >Radiant< 13:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that explains how we got where we are. Any objection to making titles consistent (one way or another)? —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-21 05:44Z

Detailed user statistics

Hi, on the Special:Statistics page, would it be possible to get more detailed statistics available? Perhaps stating as a percentage how many of the 4 million-odd users are actually active - i.e. have made edits in the last 6 months? And the number of distinctive IP addresses have been used to edit would be brilliant too. Thanks in advance for your responses — Jack · talk · 19:08, Friday, 16 March 2007

Number of active user accounts would be useful. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 08:15Z

These data are available at Wikipedia Statistics, gathered regularly by User:Erik Zachte. JoJan 08:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, forgot about that. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-17 09:31Z

Why not include it in Special:Statistics? — Jack · talk · 07:52, Sunday, 18 March 2007

The statistics on Wikipedia:Statistics are mostly generated from queries on the database dumps made roughly every month or so. If they were placed on the Special:Statistics page, I would anticipate a major strain on the servers, either by a) calculating percentages on every load of the statistics page, or b) requiring a major change in the software. Harryboyles 10:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD template change

I have proposed a change in an AfD template. Please comment at Template talk:REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD. —dgies^t_c 17:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to add a bit to

WP:NOT

I'm proposing to add a small subsection to

Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information

. My proposed subsection merely states that Wikipedia articles should be summaries of their topics, not an exhaustive collection of every bit of data which exists on that topic, and that facts which are neither notable nor even interesting should not be included in a wikipedia article. While this may sound like a statement of something utterly obvious, it appears to exist nowhere within wikipedia policies or guidelines, and many new or inexperienced editors do indeed believe that adding every bit of info they can think of to an article is reasonable.

I am getting very little in the way of comments or feedback on this, so please drop by to

WT:NOT#Proposal_to_add_to_Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information and support, oppose, or help amend what I'm trying to add. --Xyzzyplugh

07:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Be careful what you wish for because triviality is often subjective. Night Gyr (talk/Oy

) 15:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

How about we add "Wikipedia does not need to present the same rule in different words"? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Chemical compound stubs

Wikipedia has hundreds, if not thousands, of articles on chemical compounds, generally found in the many subcategories of

Wikipedia:Chemical compounds has been created to discuss what to do with all this. Deletion is arguably a waste, but perhaps some articles can be combined into lists for greater comprehensiveness. Please join the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Chemical compounds. >Radiant<

16:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Aesthetics

I've just been looking at the large number of articles whose various authors have never heard of the concept of an aesthetic layout - in other words just plain, ugly articles - badly chosen photos or diagrams that have been poorly placed - images crunched into atrocities called "infoboxes" - horizontal lines cutting the article into pieces - the list is almost endless. My proposal is that Wikipedia thinks seriously about having watchdog groups to monitor and rearrange badly designed articles. Such groups should be made up of editors who know what a good layout is - professional painters and photographers and the people who compose advertisements know what to look for. It's high time Wikipedia had a facelift. Paul venter 10:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Your best bet is to set up a
  WikiProject for this purpose. >Radiant<
  12:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• See also the templates {{
  cleanup-restructure}} and general {{cleanup}}. A good WikiProject already in place to alert would be the Maintenance
  one, and especially its subprojects on illustration and general copyediting (listed in the table). The way I see it, you probably won't actually have to start a new WikiProject -- just help to keep a current one on track. Thanks for your input! ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Lenoxus " * " 16:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary quicklinks

I proposed this a while ago and it got support, but nothing came of it, so I am proposing it again. (discussion copied from the archive) Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 17:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what exactly to call them, but the Polish Wikipedia has some very handy links under the edit summary box for automatic edit summaries. As I don't speak Polish and I was just there to add an interlanguage link, I don't know what most of them do, but some are:Interwiki, stub, redir, infobox, and image. These could prove helpful here. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The green boxes below the edit box (eg. [4])? If so, they seem to be added via javascript, in

Interiot

22:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd really like to have this. Or maybe some kind of keyboard shortcut. For example, typing 'ce' in the edit summary would expand to copy-edit. Gflores^Talk 14:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes please, and yes please. Great ideas :) --Quiddity 18:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. These ideas would make our chores here easier/faster. The Transhumanist   23:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If your browser has form auto-complete, enable it. This works nearly as well. For example, all I have to do to insert the edit summary "fix double redirect" is type "fix d" [down arrow] [enter] –

Qxz

02:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

downlaod.wikiepdia.org other way of downloading

it has come to my attention that download.wikipedia.org isn't frequently updated nor gives it very specific downloads. SO what I would love to do is in fact make special downloads for every 'portal' on the site. I'm modest opinion, I think that it will save some GB's on the traffic counter.

And the structure isn't quit user-friendly when unpacked in a directory. So I would propose the make a directory structure that is very clear:

/root
index.html

sub-portal directory example

/portal1
-/a-z directory
--/images
---/images display html files
---/images

—The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Webscriptz (talk • contribs

) 18:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia:Notability (science)

A poll is underway at Wikipedia talk:Notability (science) concerning whether or not this guideline currently enjoys general support from the community. Please feel free to join the discussion. Mangojuice^talk 20:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I will second this. I support this proposed guideline but am happy to see it genuinely ruled on by the community as a whole and not just by those of us who have worked on it. --EMS | Talk 02:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, no, that's not at all how it works. Guidelines aren't "ruled on" by anyone, nor are they created through polling. Rather, there is discussion ongoing on the page. At the moment there do not seem to be any real arguments against the page, but one or two editors object on grounds that process wasn't followed (regardless of the fact that the process they refer to doesn't actually exist). Comments are of course welcome. >Radiant< 09:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Actually, I do think the "discussion" that should have been happening was being treated as a poll, but naturally what we want is a discussion: does
    WP:SCIENCE have community support or not, and should it be a guideline? Mangojuice^talk
    12:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia in the classroom

Here's an idea I've had on the back burner for a while: given that an increasing number of university professors are assigning their students to edit Wikipedia article, are we ready to have a WikiProject where they can share strategies?[5] So far all that Wikipedia has done is document those examples. It looks like it could be very beneficial to this site (and to the educators) if there we created a place where they could get together and see what works best for their classrooms and for the encyclopedia. Durova^Charge! 17:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I though of such a project, however I was thinking that a separate dedicated wiki would be a better place for such a thing as it may wish to have a broader scope than Wikipedia. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a fantastic idea. Wikipedia:Students' notice board, anyone? Keeping it on Wikipedia will make coordination easier than on an outside wiki.--Pharos 17:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I think WikiProject format is more suitable than noticeboard format, unless you're thinking of something different. My primary idea was to make this a forum where professors and teachers can share strategies for incorporating Wikipedia assignments into their classrooms. Within that project the students might have their own section to coordinate their end of the work. Durova^Charge! 17:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I only suggested a noticeboard as noticeboards tend to be defined by their members (such as the noticeboards for citizens of different countries), while wikiprojects are defined by their subject areas. But either way, I totally agree with the concept.--Pharos 18:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good point. The difference I see is that country noticeboards are useful for active Wikipedians but many of these people would be new users or infrequent contributors: educators who are intrigued by the project and need just enough information to structure a classroom assignment. So instead of ongoing developments this would address the same issues multiple times. WikiProject format fills that need although I'm receptive to any better idea that comes along. Durova^Charge! 13:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The project idea is good. It is a subject based idea, not a group based idea because regular Wikipedians will be able to give inputs on the ideas the teachers have, which lets face it are not always compatible with our goals. It will give us a forum to guide their lessons into something that is compatible and beneficial to Wikipedia. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It would be very good to have a place where seasoned Wikipedians can help the professors and teachers understand the site better so their assignments are compatible with our policies. A couple of months ago we had a ruckus when one instructor issued a classroom assignment to vandalize Wikipedia. That led to Jimbo's direct involvement and one of our administrators quit. Proactive community involvement should head off that kind of problem and facilitate more productive contributions. I'd be very happy if more students were improving Wikipedia from their university libraries, and if my recollections from my own student days haven't grown too hazy, I think my class assignments would have felt more meaningful if they'd actually been published. Durova^Charge! 18:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#WikiProject_classroom_coordination Sign up if you're interested and we'll get this off the ground. Durova^Charge! 18:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent idea. I seem to recall a similar page being set up over a year ago, but the issue was less pressing then and it kind of fizzled out. I'll see if I can locate it. >Radiant< 10:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do. I anticipate part of what this project would do is organize information about classroom Wikipedia assignments, sorting things by assignment type and educational level which would be more useful than the chronological arrangement for an instructor who's planning a syllabus. Anything relevant that's already onsite would help. Durova^Charge! 16:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)