Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive AN

I would like to propose permanently semi-protecting all 366 articles about calendar days. Now I suppose that'll draw some opposition so I figured it would be best to discuss in the widest possible forum and of course there's no rush to do this. Let me first try to carefully state my case.

• These pages are all fairly stable. If one overlooks the vandalism and ensuing reverts, there are really very few meaningful edits on these pages.
• These pages are heavy vandalism targets. As anyone who has ever done recent changes patrol knows, the "1989 Cute guy John Doe is born" is very common.
• The ratio of vandalism-related edits to meaningful edits is about as low as it can get. Speaking recently to Riana, I used January 22 as a random example: out of the last 50 edits, more than 40 have been vandalism-related. The rest of the edits have been mostly cosmetic fixes implemented by accounts which would not be affected by semi-protection (I think this edit is the sole exception).
• These pages are heavily watched so any request for edits by IPs or new users would presumably be quickly implemented. They would also be quite rare since, as mentioned earlier these pages are quite stable.

Now the policy on semi-protection says that indefinite semi-protection should be used for "Articles subject to heavy and continued vandalism such as George W. Bush". There's no question that the calendar days are the subject of continued vandalism but I'll concede that it's not heavy if one compares it to the hardcore hailstorm that affects the beloved GW Bush article. Still, from a cost/benefit point of view, semi-protection would seem reasonable. If I can get consensus here, I'd like to experiment by protecting a dozen of them for say a week or two. We could see how that goes and make a more educated decision afterwards. Pascal.Tesson 04:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as there woun't be a ugly tag on top of them all, then I'm all for this suggestion. They are a indeed a target for vandals. --Steinninn 04:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No need for that, the template {{

Sprotected2}} just puts a discrete little lock in the top right corner. Pascal.Tesson

05:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Interesting idea. Semi-protection of these pages isn't

WP:BITEy in the way that protecting mainpage articles is. I'd support a test. How about semi-protecting alternating days (July 5,7,9,11 for example) and comparing after a set amount of time (say a week) how those look compared to the before-and-after of the adjacent days (say, July 6,8,10,12). The idea here is that whatever the current day is seems to get a fair amount of vandalism. Also try the same with two heavier traffic pages (such as December 25 and January 1). Flyguy649^talk_contribs

05:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me, those are basically just index pages to begin with. --

talk

05:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Most IP-edits made to "days of the year articles" are indeed vandalism or nonsense, but I'm not sure it has reached a level that permanent semi-protection is needed. Each article on it's own is not heavily vandalised at all, all the 366 pages combined are easily watched (this link gives you all the recent edits), and the standard arguments for why pages should stay open applies. But I'm not strongly against it either. I've grown more and more tired of reverting prank edits myself like those these pages attract, and as articles become better and better, and we have more and more people who bother to sign up an account, I feel we now can afford to be more selective than we used to with who we let edit these articles. So, I guess I'm undecided here. Shanes 05:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I oppose semi-protecting these articles. Almost all the vandalism, as has been pointed out above, is of people adding their own name or their friends' names. This is relatively harmless vandalism - if someone reads the article in this state, it doesn't significantly detract from their experience of Wikipedia. In effect, these are harmless test edits, and while we would prefer that people use the sandbox, semi-protecting these articles won't move them in that direction. Some people who cannot edit their birthday article will make similar edits on less heavily watched pages, and others will never try editing at all.-gadfium 06:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

While I respect that stand I must disagree. Vandals are for the most part harmless kids. They go to the page of their birthday and think "he he, I'll be funny and add my own name" but I assume that a vast majority of them would, in the event that they can't make that edit, just forget about it. You, on the other hand seem to think they'll say "oh, I can't edit this so let me add my birthday to the article elephant." The problem of course is that we'll never know which of us is right about this. In any case, I believe that vandalism is a significant problem on Wikipedia not because of its malicious nature (by and large they are rather harmless edits) but because of the sheer volume of vandal edits. In any case, I'm certainly well aware that there are drawbacks to semi-protecting any page but in this case I think the advantages outweigh the concerns. Pascal.Tesson 06:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think, if the next article they read is "elephant", they are more likely to add a comparison to their sister than their birthday, but in any case I think for someone to make their first edit to any page is important, even if it's not a productive edit and gets reverted very quickly. This has always been a part of the Wikipedia philosophy; it's why we use templates like {{

cracking down hard on inappropriate edits. Test edits are mostly made by teenagers, and once they realise that they really can edit and have those edits appear to the general public, some proportion of them might decide to edit productively.-gadfium

23:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

But isn't that a bit too idealistic? I've always felt that the philosophy behind

WP:BITE is not that "vandals become editors so let's be nice to vandals" but rather "incompetent newbies become good editors" so let's show patience with newbies even those who think their sister looks like an elephant. But all in all, a certain level of reasonable restrictions to IP edits (such as the inability to create new pages) does lighten the load on vandal fighters and I'm not convinced that it so dramatically scares away potential contributors. Pascal.Tesson

23:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is an idealistic project. So far, it's worked well that way.

Elephant is not actually a good example, partly because it's already semi-protected, and is probably watched by a substantial number of people. I think it's more likely someone would click on another name from their birthday page, and then add to that quite likely obscure article that 90 years later Tommy Smith was born to carry on their work.

If these pages are semi-protected, then the various year pages from say 1985 to 2000 should probably be semi-protected as well for the same reasons.-gadfium 00:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia has done well because it stuck to its idealism for the most part but also because it was able to make pragmatic choices and turn away from idealism for the sake of idealism. Pascal.Tesson 03:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a difficult choice. The conflict as I see it is that we're weighing the labour involved in constant useless reversions against the potential benefit achievable through anonymous edits, and second order effects where test edits might lead to successful recruitment. Because these pages naturally evolve very slowly, it's difficult to find useful anonymous edits. To me, it suspiciously resembles past arguments where some would encourage semiprotection of "finished" or "stable" articles, which I certainly don't support (we should never send the message that "this is done - don't screw with it"). It's for this last reason that I lean towards oppose: we don't want to send that message. Dcoetzee 09:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I support the semi-protection. I watch October 4, my birthday, and nearly all of its edits are of this sort. The good edits are nearly always by established users. Because I'm often the first to see it, I'll be the one to take the time to check the article to be sure it's a redlink and then revert it. I also agree that these articles are very static. In my opinion, these test edits will rarely result in recruitment. As said above, most are made by bored school kids adding themselves, unlikely to ever make a constructive edit. I know that I didn't make annoying tests. Regarding Dcoetzee's last statement, I hadn't really thought of it that way before, but for days of the year, it seems they are done, and that we don't want them screwing with it where we then have to revert it. Anyway, if the person has a constructive edit to make, a request on the talk page is encouraged. Reywas92^Talk 14:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm conflicted about this... I'm not usually a big fan of preemptive page protection, and certainly there are few enough of them that a concerted effort to make sure a few people are watching each one is probably sufficient to keep them clean. That said, however, of the ones I watch/see on RC patrol, by far the majority of the changes are new users or IPs adding themselves or other redlinks. I haven't seen any sign that people I've warned about this have turned into serious contributors afterwards, even when I've tried a more personal message welcoming and explaining why their birthday is non-notable by Wikipedia standards. So I guess I'd describe my position as slightly weak support -- I think it would be OK not to protect, but it would save us time to protect without causing much harm. Pinball22 16:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I also support the semi-protection per Reywas92's comment above. ~

sign

18:25, July 3, 2007 (UTC)

I also support. Almost no IP edits are not reverted and not being able to add yourself to a date isn't going to turn a useful contributor away.

I support this proposal, as well. The cost/benefit analysis here is strongly in favor of semi-protection for these pages. -Chunky Rice 22:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I too support this proposal. — The Storm Surfer 03:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is well thought out Pascal, and eloquently worded, howver I'm afraid I oppose. I am in favour of anonymous editing in all cases, except where sprotection is totally necessary. The point here is, I don't think sprotection is necessary at all. On the flip side, I am perfectly willing to add every single one of these pages to my watchlist to increase their visibility to me, if this helps. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 04:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh I'm sure they're all heavily watched. And I really don't feel so strongly about it: it seems like a reasonable idea to me but I'm perfectly ready to accept that there's no consensus to do this. I just hope that enough people will take part in that debate to gauge the support for it. Pascal.Tesson 04:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

why not make an option on the front page just for birthdays that ppl can post. maybe a separate column, in yellow or light blue frame or something. this will solve part of the problem. and the semi protection does seem reasonable nonetheless. But if the birthday thing is created then there is no need to make semi protection. :DVitalyshmelkin 10:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. The ratio of anon edits that are vandalism vs. constructive edits in these articles is persuasive. One benefit to semi-protection not yet mentioned is that RC patrollers spend time dealing with these edits that would be better spent addressing other needs on Wikipedia. Accurizer 11:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, create 366 templates, with the meaningful data. Transclude the templates on the main article for each day. Casual vandals will just try to edit the day page, and not know/care about how to change the template. But, the main article for each day should be protected (the templates remain unprotected). End of problem?? Neier 11:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - 99.99% of edits by new/unregistered users to these pages are vandalism. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 12:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong support - I've reverted lots of anon. IP edits on these pages, many of which had stayed there - never noticed - for weeks or longer. I too have thought of proposing generic semi-protection for these pages -- so I'm glad Pascal.Tesson finally took the inititative on this issue. Thanks! Cgingold 14:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong support - As a regular RC patroller, I can vouch for the fact that these are test edit/vandalism magnets. Semi-prot won't harm em, and anyone who really wants to improve them can do so easily. Excellent proposal.xC | ☎ 14:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. Taken as a group, these 365 articles have a very high proportion of IP vandal edits to constructive IP edits (any at all?). Let's free up editors to work on things beside reverting vandalism of these articles. (And, by the way, my brief look at one article seemed to show that it wasn't move-protected - why in the world not?) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see the need to semiprotect something which is (supposedly) heavily watched anyway, but I think it boils down to the wikiphilosophy you're adhering to. Let's say it like this: There is not enough vandalism to warrant semiprotection right now; just wachlist and revert. And just as a little caveat: if you start with dealing out semiprotection because the edits to an article are more than 90% vandalism, you will have more articles to be semiprotected. Lectonar 15:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I don't think that vandalism level is heavy enough to warrant protection. Vandalism that appears in these pages also tends to be the least malicious kind. I don't think the benefits obtained from this proposal is enough to further compromise our principles of open editing. Borisblue 09:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose philosophical approach, I agree with

Oppose, semi-protection in perpetuity is not done. Corvus cornix 18:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is. For instance, pages like

Auschwitz are semi-protected indefinitely and the last time someone tried to unprotect George W. Bush it was reprotected immediately with the summary "are you insane?!". There are good arguments against indefinite semi-protection but "it's never done" is not one of them. Pascal.Tesson

18:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see the results of this, as a supporter of the proposal. What happened to it? --User:Krator (t c) 23:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Support a test. As Flyguy649 suggested, a test of this would be interesting, and should be agreeable to most. Maybe July-December, as that is the period we're entering, and provides a clear end date for the test. --Quiddity 00:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally oppose this. We can just revert vandalism, and those pages have the potential to attract new editors that begin as "vandals" and can eventually become helpful editors. A.Z. 00:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Yeah, it's a pain in the butt, but I'd be surprised if we don't have at least one or two "reliable" editors to watch each of the dates. I'll add my birthday to my watchlist now, in fact. Cmprince 03:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Weak Support - The concept is good in principal, but if you will notice certain dates tend to get more vandalism than others. Why not instead of semiprotecting all the dates, just semiprotect well known dates. Such as July 4, December 25, February 29, etc. Just a thought. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Support I've had many of these pages on my watchlist for a while and they are a target for vandals and a "my daughter was born on this day"-target for newb editors. It's a pain for the editors that maintain and vandal and vanity edits routinely remain unnoticed for long periods (i've seen 4 months). --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - I agree with the previous statement that RC patrollers can focus on other needs. I also like the idea to create templates for each day. Vandals wouldn't care enough to take the time to figure out how to edit the template. Although some may still post nonsense, it may deter many.

Weak Oppose - Im reaslly torn here. Ever since I started on Wikipedia I've been an RC pattroller, and after seeing how much vandalisim these articles got, I now watch about 5 pages (my birthday, my congressman's birthday, and a few friends' birthdays — this also has the benefit of not making my birthday so obvious if anyone's trying to root out my identity for some reason). Is there a lot of vandalisim? definitly. Would semi-protection stop it? There's little doubt in my mind. At the same time however, semi-protection isn't the only way to deal with this. These pages can be and are closely watched. Semi-protection seems like trying to pound in a nail with a sledgehammer. It's overkill, but not by much. I just think using a regular hammer works fine as-is. I won't be dissapointed if they are s-protected (it'd be less work for me), but at the same time, I don't think it's necessary. (If we still wanted to do something, perhaps a bot could check "births" for each day for redlinks?) --Ybbor^Talk 01:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Totally unnecessary. I'd be surprised if these aren't among the most-watched pages on Wikipedia; my own birthday (May 21 gets hit about once or twice a day, which isn't really very much compared to a lot of the other pages I watch.--jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - overkill.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Turkeyphant (talk • contribs) 11:33, July 26, 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary - I've changed my opinion after watching about ten pages for the past week. Although some of the pages did receive vandalism, it was all reverted relatively quickly. I'm sure that if enough regular editors watch 10 pages each, very little vandalism would stay for very long. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

weak oppose - this is a very tempting idea which i sympathize with for its practicality for me. but it is a precedent to permanently semiprotect articles. user:Dcoetzee makes a good point earlier. further more, Wikipedia provides two services to the public, access to information and the ability to change that information. this compromises that idea out of an argument for convenience. some proposals improve others solidify. we are not the sole editors of wikipedia preparing for retirement. there will always be others after us. but for now, we are the few, the proud, the registered user. it has been our effort to not only improve wikipedia but keep it what it was to us when we first found it, open. openness is and always will be wikipedias greatest strength and most admired virtue.Some thing 05:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any sort of database, or filter, or overlay, in existence right now for an "essential" Wikipedia?

As an example, if I was running a school in rural Congo with no internet access, it would be nice to have one CDR (or whatever size medium is required) that has just the essential educational articles, with all the trivia and pop culture stripped out.

I was thinking that would be an interesting idea - a way to be able to read, or download, only the essential articles.

I assume identifying the articles would just take the addition of a tag. As for a script to assemble the updated essential articles for download, though, that is beyond me. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You might be thinking along the lines of the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team's release versions. I don't think that their releases, which are more "general interest" than subject-specific, are exactly what you're looking for, but it's the closest approximation I can think of. John Carter 19:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The

2006 Wikipedia CD Selection on Wikipedia main space.--Boson

17:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the categorization taskforce was doing something with Alai's bot. The place to go is probably the taskforce's talk page.--Boson 06:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

.Here's my point on the spell check many young students use wikipedia and some times it can be a simple mistake or someone may not know the spelling and these can all be solved with the google search but many of the youngster don't always know how to get to that search. I know that a spell check for an encyclopedia may seem like dumbing down to some flamer but it is relay a great feature .... added at 00:56, 19 July 2007 by Unsignedcomment (contributions)

Typographical exuberance doesn't make people mad; it merely irritates them, additionally suggesting that the writer is mad.

Perhaps you can explain your proposal in more detail, particularly in view of the way in which the software here already makes suggestions if the page somebody asks for doesn't exist.

Do remember to sign your comments (unless of course not signing them is your

point). -- Hoary

01:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This would not function, for the reason that the titles of many articles are deliberately spelled incorrectly for some specific reason. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

no it isn't a great feature. It is annoying when search engines think they know better than you what you are trying to find. Anyway, this seems to be more of a flamebait than a serious suggestion. There is already a solution to address the most common misspellings, {{

I might add that my comment on typographical exuberance was in reply to the comment Ah using exclamation marks like that make many of the people who are here that flame newbies mad that is why I use them; the OP subsequently deleted this. -- Hoary 13:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is getting out of hand I get a hate mail from "Anonymous Dissident" saying there is no elitism on wiki and say I'm stupid and don't know what I'm doing. I may be stupid but criticizing someone for suggesting a spell check for Wikipedia search then telling them "You can accuse Wikipedia of many things, but certainly not of elitism. WP has an obsession with accessibility to and participation of, to put it bluntly, morons" yes that is elitism and each member of wikipedia is part of wikipedia and your comments ruin the good community of wikipedia. My post was mainly about a spell check a spell check offering suggestions for the search like the one on google yes it is a basic suggestion and not much to it thats why I suggested it I thought it maybe nice and easy to implement. I have learned from my first post everyone on wikipedia is perfect and can do no wrong but some people are not good speller like me I always use spell check on Open Office and it is easy and convenient. I like this response it so nice and polite "no it isn't a great feature. It is annoying when search engines think they know better than you what you are trying to find. Anyway, this seems to be more of a flame-bait than a serious suggestion. There is already a solution to address the most common misspellings" this is flame bait why are you so cranky you don't like it so it is flame bait boom you attack come on this is not the place for that as for thinking the search engine is better than you I just don't know why a suggestion of the correct spelling is so intimidating .My attempt to ferret out people who attack was just that people on many talk pages are mean and nasty and it should stop just because you are typing 10000 Km away. My user name is Unsignedcomment I thought it was mildly funny but even more I was lazy and do not care much but to Anonymous Dissident it is stupid maybe you think that but a user name is so meaningless here's what Anonymous Dissident had to say "To create a user account Unsignedcomment and then make a point of not signing your posts is just puerile obstinacy and doesn't buy you any points." . I have not posted much I just did not realize I had to sign my post some what like a forum I thought it signed the post for you. As for buying points if I get enough do I get a BB gun like with skeet ball tickets (joke in case you don't get it and are angered to the point of Anonymous Dissident ) .sorry for not reading the FAQ but that does not excuse the hat brought about by a mistake none of the geniuses above have read the FAQ or they would know the answer to why this is not possible and would have let me in on it wouldn't they or are the cranky and elitist.And my next proposal will be a proposal to rid Wiki of the intimidation and B!@#$ing above. Maybe you think someones Idea is dumb but does that give you the right to be mean no if someone is a new user help don't hate. Maybe only you guys and doctors should write the encyclopedia oh no that Nupedia what happened to that?-- User: Unsignedcomment 13:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What 'hate mail' are you refering to? I have not spoken to you once before this, and I never said anything remotely hateful to anyone. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be under the misapprehension that dab's comment on his talk page, which did not accuse him of being stupid, was from you. I don't quite know where the "stupid" thing has come from. Adrian M. H. 21:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This post has become something of a joke I'm sad to say. The user feels that everyone is being 'mean and nasty' to him in what is a clearly civil discussion for something which I am afraid to say will not work. Sorry. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm very confused reading this. Is there another conversation that explains why dab would think this proposal was a flamebait?

Ok I would erase the whole thing but i'm sure there is a rule that i can't karma points would help kindness maybe be called childis for something as dumb as a dumb screen name is uncivil maybe not maybe your user who flames as well just may.kindness and respect goes alongway —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unsignedcomment (talk • contribs) 03:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC).

Atropos, some elements were evidently later deleted by Unsignedcomment, see what Hoary said at 13:44 Nil Einne 14:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, this makes sense now. I'm glad you're around when my reading comprehension fails me. :D

Atropos

00:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

STARTING OVER

I think this is an interesting topic so i'm trying to quarantine the previous insanity, and start anew. let me start by saying that this is primarily a software issue that may or may not be solvable here but it at least starts the conversation. i agree that it is annoying when a program/browser corrects your spelling for you automatically. and it is not always helpful for it to suggest "correct" spellings of things after you make a search. however, i think google in actuallity, after making a search provides you with a list of alternatives in case your search didnt bring the desired results. and i dont think google brings these results from a dictionary. it more or less provides similar words that are more commonly searched and successfully clicked on. wikipedia could potentially, using its existing articles title words, provide a short list of similarly spelled article names or words in the event that there are no exact matches from your search. this would be much more convenient than having to search through the index, or open a new tab to search it on google to check if it provides an alternative spelling that you can then copy and plug into another wikipedia search (which i humbly admit to doing frequently). so here are the questions. is this desirable? whats better? and how could it be made possible? Some thing 05:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

All things being equal, an option that helps people who've spelled things wrong would be a good thing. But this might be misleading (as pointed out above), it could well be a chore to implement, and (as you say) the same function is available directly from Google if you simply open a second window for the purpose. -- Hoary 05:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

concerning one of your counterpoints, "this might be misleading (as pointed out above)"- it would not provide alternatives from a dictionary but from wikipedias index of existing articles, there by always providing even the purposefully misspelled article title words. further i'll add that creating a more efficient wikipedia (ie. less dependent on outside forprofit services like google) is a benefit to society worth the chore IMO. Some thing 06:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Not having a spell check does encourage people to pay attention to spelling and to perhaps learn to spell correctly without a spell checker. It also encourages people to distinguish between words that are spelled the same but have different meanings, or between words that are spelled differently but have the same pronunciation. For those editors that make no effort to use correct spelling, this is obvious to other editors and tells us something useful about that first editor. Surely all this is a good thing? --Eriastrum 16:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals)#Better search feature, summarized as "This is Mediazilla:974. The functionality exists, but is disabled for performance reasons."

See also

I believe this is accomplished by editing MediaWiki:Addsection. I'd go ahead and be bold, but that's a little too bold...

What do others think? — Omegatron 16:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Not necessary. The plus tab made immediate sense to me, because it represented adding something. But that is just based on my own experience, since I do not know any other Wikipedia editors or serious users. On narrower viewports, it is cumbersome to have lengthy tabs because they are very close to the personal links. Adrian M. H. 20:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I worry that changing the plus icon to text that long might break screens at 800x600. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even notice + for a long time, but that's just me. On talk pages, edit this page should be given less emphasis (unbolded) than + because + is probably used a lot more often than edit this page. People should only need to click edit this page when they want to change banners at the top or to refactor the entire page. To respond to an individual section, use the section's own [edit] link. If discussion gets shortened to talk and edit this page gets shortened to edit or renamed to the more intuitive edit entire page, then + can be renamed to add section or something. 800x600 should be able to handle it. –Pomte 21:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with de-emphasizing "edit" on talk pages and emphasizing "new section" and the section edit links. — Omegatron 01:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I run 800x600 and "leave a comment" would fit fine. This, that and the other 07:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This would need a lot of testing with various browsers and font sizes at 800x600. When the tabs overflow, they tend to disappear, a very bad thing. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 08:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

When the talk pages are forum-structured, there will be a "new post" button and everything will make sense. They won't have to know how to create a section header or sign their post either. Dcoetzee 08:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, when I set my font size to 40, the tabs overflow; so maybe we should just change them all to single letters.  :-) — Omegatron 15:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the shortest possibler button labels up there.

^(H)

16:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There are ways to customize everything with javascript and CSS for advanced users and sysops with 15 tabs, but the default user interface should be targeted at the newest of newcomers. "+" is almost meaningless in this context. — Omegatron 19:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I recall this proposal previously got rejected due to historical reasons or some such, but if it does go through, there are some other message in Special:Allmessages that may need changing as well. –Pomte 23:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"Historical reasons"? Bah.  :-) — Omegatron 00:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If we were to change "Discussion" to "Talk" (see Proposal #39, below), there would be room to change the "+" to "New Post". Two birds in a bush or something like that . . . Bielle 01:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think "discuss" would be better if trying to save space. — Omegatron 00:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

'Edit this page' is an action that applies to the visable page. 'Discussion' and 'article' are places we go. I wonder if removing the grey line under 'edit this page' would make clear what the tab applies to? Then we could change 'edit this page' to 'edit'. That would give us room to change '+' to some friendly verb. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the tab until now. I fully agree with the change. It's a useful tab and there's no reason why editors must wait more than one year (the time I've been editing) to know that it exists. A.Z. 02:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If it gets changed into "leave a comment" then in light of it being very long, I suggest changing "edit this page" on talk pages into "edit". It's good to say "edit this page" on articles, but it's not a good idea on talk pages. --Steinninn 09:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons I prefer the venerable "classic" skin for Wikipedia. Over on the left side I see "Edit this page", "Discuss the page", etc. -- simple enough for a simple guy like me. I only wish I had the stick-to-it-iveness to learn CSS & help keep that skin up to date. -- llywrch 23:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I made the change. As I said in my edit summary, this proposal's been here for nearly a month with a slight plurality support.

This is NOT necessarily final, but should encourage much more discussion and a global consensus instead of a local consensus. If it's causing problems on pages that transclude this message (besides the tabs), feel free to revert it. Otherwise please leave it up so people can see it, decide whether they like the change or not, and reach a good consensus on whether it should be kept. — Omegatron 06:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is way too long, IMO. Call it Add if you want it to be easier to understand, but tabs are getting way too long for example for people that add other tabs to their interface. I now need to be full screen to see my last tab. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's way too long to be useful. Either "Edit this page" needs to become "Edit" or this "Leave a Comment" needs to be shrunk back down to "+". I don't care which, but it's way too long right now. --

talk

13:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "+" means nothing. My suggestion would be "Add" or (preferably) "Add comment". --Edokter (Talk) 13:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea; perhaps this could only be reached from the talk page (to group meta-article material and pretty much insure that people will read already existing comments)? Ragaxus 03:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk Pages

Summary: change the tab title (MediaWiki:Talk label) from 'discussion' to 'talk'.

(the first few posts of this thread were moved from Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Talk Pages)

When I first discovered Wikipedia, I spent much time looking for "talk" pages. I am a native speaker of English and I know that "talk" and "discussion" mean much the same thing, but the omnipresence of "talk page" led me to believe that something less formal was meant. Nowhere have I found a reference to a "discussion page", not then and not now. Why do we not change the tab from "discussion" to "talk" and save all the newbies some confusion? We're not likely to change the editors' text habit. Bielle 15:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It couldn't make more sense. I agree with the change. A.Z. 18:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Discussion Page Guidelines. Calling the discussion pages "talk pages" is jargon that is specific to the English Wikipedia; for example, talk pages on the French Wikipédia are des pages de discussion, while the German-speaking Wikipedianer have Diskussionsseiten. For the proposal to have a chance of having an effect, you should post it at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).  --Lambiam^Talk 19:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This probably happens because other languages have no equivalent to "talk pages". A.Z. 19:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What? Of course they have talk pages- take a look at any of the other language Wikipedias, see a list. Friday (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Friday, I didn't mean that other language Wikipedias don't have the equivalent to talk pages. I meant that other languages don't have an expression such as talk page, and therefore their only option is to use the equivalent to discussion page. Romance languages and German all have a cognate of the word discussion which means the same thing, therefore making it the most obvious translation. A.Z. 19:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The idea that other languages don't have a less formal word for talking than "discussion" is absurd.

Atropos

21:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I was only referring to English Wikipedia in suggesting the change. I assumed that, whatever the tag in other Wikipedias(-pediae?), it is appropriate to its language, and the use of its language. Is there a need to have some congruence in the tag, as would be represented by the root orthography of "disc(k)uss"? That may be a silly question, now that I look at it, as there wouldn't be any visual connection with Chinese, for example. Thanks for the pointers to the pages where such matters are discussed, Lambiam, and to the better place for its discussion. As for having "a chance to have an effect", I have nothing invested in the suggestion or its acceptance. It merely reflects an editor's interest in (a) ease of use and (b) consistency. Bielle 19:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

As it is, the tags are inconsistent with the way that all Wikipedians call these pages, and, because of that and other things, they are harder to use. A.Z. 19:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at Lambiam's first link above. It asks the same question, but there is no discussion or decision that I could see. Perhaps I don't know how to look for follow-up. I have also looked at the Village Pump's FAQ, Perenial Proposals and current suggestions and could see no earlier similar suggestion. On Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), #33, there is a discussion of the "+" tab. This would appear, then, to be the place to hold a discusion on "Talk" pages. If someone who is following this thread knows how to move the relevant parts of it to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), please BE BOLD. Bielle 20:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, an user with the privilege of being able to edit protected pages needs to change this page. The change is uncontroversial and, if I were an user with such a privilege, I'd make it right now. A.Z. 21:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that we can say the proposal is uncontroversial until we have given it some time to be considered. Change is nearly always controversial for someone, and that someone (or those "someones") needs time to be able to respond. That's why there are Talk (Discussion) pages, after all. Thus, even if I had the privilege, I would wait a few days. There is nothing urgent here. Bielle 22:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand. I would wait a few days as well, then, but I feel this is rather uncontroversial. A.Z. 23:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering why we all call these pages Talk pages, the text seems to always have been discussion. Anyway, I think Talk is a better idea, the rest of the interface calls these pages talk pages (even the My talk page link) -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is a subtle contextual difference between the two words. "Talk" could be interpreted as endorsing "chatting", which is

Quiddity has hit the nail on the head with his description of the 'subtle contextual difference', so I shan't say anything other than to endorse his statement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

True, there is a "subtle contextual difference". English is full of such things. However, no one is paying any attention to the diifference, as far as I can tell, which may mean it is "subtle too far". "Discussion" could equally well be "chatting"; the difference depends more upon the setting and the formality of the language of the conversation than on its content. Everyone refers to what is linked to the Discussion tab as "talk pages" or just plain "talk" and, whether we wish to encourage it or not, talk and chat do happen there, along with discussion, negotiation, argument, notification, diatribe, rant, positioning, advertising, pleading, demanding, and almost every other actvity possible on screen. The difference between "talk" and "chat" is another example of a "subtle contextual difference". "Chat" has a specific meaning on-line, however, and indeed, it is not what we wish to encourage. "Talk page", however, on English Wiki, means the "discussion page and what actually goes on there". It seems unnecessarily confusing to insist that the tab keep the "Discussion" label merely to make a point that talk isn't chat. (While the

WP:POINT being made is not disruptive, neither is it helpful, especially to the newcomer.) Bielle

19:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd beg to differ or there would be no need for pages such as

David D. (Talk)

20:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

For one thing regarding definitions, talk means to speak, as if with the mouth. Discussion can still mean writing it. The page titles are so because it is shorter. I personally am for continuing using 'discussion' for the tab. Reywas92^{TalkReview me} 22:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be "miscontrued as chat",

Wikipedia:WikiLawyering is a reality for the most minute points. Nonetheless, "Discussion" as a tab remains confusing, and there is a simple way to eliminate the confusion. No one has yet addressed this issue, which is the only reason for the proposing the change. And, in respect of the care and keeping of newbies, please see the opening comment in 33 above, and all the following flac about the "+" sign.Bielle

23:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the confusion. The pages are for the discussion of the article content, that seems to be quite obvious. Agreed one might call it talk but the service that the page provides is apparently quite descriptive. At least, I have never considered it to be an inappropriate name. Are most newbies really that confused?

David D. (Talk)

02:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for most newbies. I can tell you that I spent considerable time looking for "Talk Pages". I found the "Discussion" tab and knew what it was for, and what went on there, but assumed, as the name "talk page" was everywhere, that it was something quite different from "Discussion". If you do an internal search for

Talk Page you get to read about "Talk Pages" in all their manifestations. "Discuss" and "Discussion" are secondary meanings. The article even notes that you should look for something labelled "Talk" (or "discuss") at the top or side of a page. All I am suggesting is that we reflect the actual use, and what the "Talk Pages" article believes to be the case already, in the tab system so that there is one less hurdle for a newbie. Obviously, all of us figured it out, eventually. (Perhaps it is a secret test to see if a newbie really is Wiki editor material. Perhaps I am a slow learner.) The world will not collapse if we don't make the change. From the resisitance noted here to what I thought was a minor matter, it might be easier to try and get all the editors to refer to "Discussion Pages" instead of "Talk Pages" with the same objective, of being more newbie friendly. I wonder where I would make that proposal. :-)Bielle

02:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Bielle that "talk" can be used to mean "write", especially online. It means something as "communicate" or "communication". That's why almost all Wikipedians feel comfortable calling them talk pages. Reywas92, do you commonly refer to those pages as "discussion pages"? A.Z. 19:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I agree that it is very confusing to label the tab "discussion", but have everyone (including the help pages) constantly refer to them as talkpages. Especially so for newcomers, young editors, and

I'm just guessing that it's a perennial proposal, though I can't see it at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals or at Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals)#Proposals concerning Talk namespaces (and other discussions). However, here is the correct place to discuss(!) it, and I personally wouldn't oppose the change of MediaWiki:Talk to say "talk", barring any new persuasive evidence that the status quo needs to remain.

Any oldtimers know about any past history of this idea? (they're not exactly "unique terms" to use as search fodder..!) --Quiddity 18:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It seemed to me such a simple idea that I, too, went looking for a history at all the places you mentioned, and failed to find anything earlier on such a change. I should have said all this in the opening paragraph, and saved others the effort. Anybody find anything? Bielle 23:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

1. We should really be emphasizing accessibility to newbies above all else. We need to make the site very easy for newcomers to contribute to.
2. Would "discuss" (verb) be a better choice than "discussion" (noun)? — Omegatron 01:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"Discuss" suggests active participation better than "discussion", but the confusion about "talk pages" isn't remedied by the change. Unless we have something labelled "Talk" or "Talk Page", the confusion remains. Bielle 01:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should be emphasizing accessibility to newbies above all else. Openness is the whole idea behind Wikipedia! Imagine if we had suggested ten years ago "let's let everyone edit an online encyclopedia". Someone would surely come up with something like "no, people will begin to chat, it will become a social network, it will never work", and things like that. Imagine that Wikipedia had been created and someone suggested "let's write on the main page that anyone can edit it". Surely someone would say "no, because it will turn the encyclopedia into a huge chat room". It's just fear. Changing the name of the tag will improve Wikipedia by making the website more accessible to new users, as people will more quickly understand what is a core aspect of Wikipedia, namely the talk pages, which will diminish a bit the feeling that Wikipedia is such a misterious place that only a selected few can understand. Letting the links to talk pages continue to be called "discussion" will only make people confused and prevent good editors from participating in the project. A.Z. 02:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

To (inaccurately!) summarize people's positions on this:

In favor:

• Bielle: "Why do we not change the tab from 'discussion' to 'talk' and save all the newbies some confusion?"

• A.Z.: Agrees with Bielle.

• lucasbfr: "I think Talk is a better idea, the rest of the interface calls these pages talk pages."

• Omegatron:"We should really be emphasizing accessibility to newbies above all else."

• Quiddity: "I personally wouldn't oppose the change of MediaWiki:Talk to say 'talk', barring any new persuasive evidence that the status quo needs to remain."

Against:

• David D.
  :"Anything that could be misconstrued as chat should be avoided."

• Reywas92:"Talk means to speak, as if with the mouth. Discussion can still mean writing it."

A.Z. 17:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a terrible summary of my position! I specifically stated that I wouldn't oppose a change. I was merely pointing out why discussion was the currently used word, and why there was a disparity between the formal-name and the informal-usage. It probably should be changed, as far as I can see. --Quiddity 17:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed my post so you are in the group that supports the change. A.Z. 18:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ;) --Quiddity 19:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say I was in favor of this change, either. Lumping people into groups based on your perception of their position is usually a bad idea. If you want to see what we actually think, take a poll or something...

Sign under any options that you like. Feel free to add other options. — Omegatron 01:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

A poll may be helpful for something, but I hope it doesn't become an election. I think the discussion above and more discussion like that are useful, and a poll would be useful if it were just a part of the discussion. I thought my post was useful because we could easily know who was left to be convinced. A.Z. 02:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been ten days now. We can continue discussing, but I think it's time for an administrator to make the change. A.Z. 03:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been twenty days now. A.Z. 22:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Reywas92 wrote that "because of parallelism (grammar), 'discuss' just wouldn't work", but there is a button called "edit this page" (perhaps it should be "page edition"?). Their argument for not changing the tab to "talk" is still that "talk" means to speak with the mouth, while discussion can still mean writing it. This is simply not true: people use talk all the time to mean communicating in ways other than speaking with the mouth. They also wrote that "I really don't think something needs to be inviting". Things are supposed to be inviting because of the openness of the project: the more people, the better. A.Z. 22:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the fact is that original argument for changing the tab is that the name of the pages is "talk pages", not that the word "talk" would be a better description of the activity that happens on talk pages. In Bielle's words, "Nowhere have I found a reference to a 'discussion page', not then and not now. Why do we not change the tab from 'discussion' to 'talk' and save all the newbies some confusion?" I have been through the same problem: I didn't immediately understand what people were referring to when they said "talk pages". If the tab said "talk", I would've immediately understood it.

The names of the other tabs are not an attempt to accurately describe the content of the pages that they link to. It's hard to guess what the tab "history" refers to, but people do call those pages "history". Tha sme with "watch": you have to learn what it means somewhere else, likely by clicking on it, or reading about it somewhere. Nevertheless, people do refer to "watchlists" and they do say "I'm watching that page".

No-one calls talk pages discussion pages, anywhere, and that does cause some problems to some newbies, which is the main reason that concerns Bielle and concerns me. Other people seem not to be so worried with newbies, yet they do support the change because it's sort of ridiculous for that word to be there ("discussion"), when there's no reference to it anywhere else. A.Z. 22:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am astounded this hasn't been changed yet. Wikipedia usability is horrendous. 129.120.159.176 13:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I made the change to Mediawiki:Talk. As I said in my edit summary, this proposal's been here for nearly a month with a slight plurality support.

This is NOT necessarily final, but should encourage much more discussion and a global consensus instead of a local consensus. If it's causing problems on pages that transclude this message (besides the tabs), feel free to revert it. Otherwise please leave it up so people can see it, decide whether they like the change or not, and reach a good consensus on whether it should be kept. — Omegatron 05:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Another user reverted Omegatron's change, without giving any explanation here on the village pump... Now, Andre's decision is being discussed both here and here. I suggest that we centralize the discussion on the village pump, so everyone can participate and it all stays in one place. My opinion is that Andre's argument for reverting the change is wrong: he says that there should be consensus for the tab to be named "talk", but I don't see why it would be any better for it to be named "discussion" when there is no consensus that it should be named "discussion" either. I don't know what is the solution, though. A.Z. 18:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Two points: 1. I love how everyone just assumes that it's soooo simple, and seems sooooo obvious once it's actually been pointed out to them, that it MUST have been proposed before! 2. I'm also surprised no one proposed that perhaps the reason they're called talk pages is because they're in the talk namespace. Morgan Wick 06:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Poll: discussion tab

"discussion" → "talk"

1. Makes sense to me because of title prefixes like "Talk:" and "Wikipedia talk:". — Omegatron 01:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
2. This reflects tha language used throughout en.wiki and will be the easiest for newcomers to understand. This benefit outweighs, in my opinion, the possibility that the change will be seen as an invitation to "chat". Bielle 01:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Clearest for newcomers, ESL editors, and young editors. Used almost-consistently throughout the help pages, and consistently in normal usage. --Quiddity 01:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
4. I'm in favor of the change. I explained why on the thread above. A.Z. 03:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
5. —
   talk – desk
   ) 03:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Moderately in favour, only to bring it in line with the namespace. And at least it is short. Adrian M. H. 15:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Strong support - this goes along with the namespace names; it seems to me that the meaning is clear, and it's shorter. Od Mishehu 08:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Strong support - As a new user (and a native English speaker), it took me a few minute to realize that talk and discussion pages were the same thing. In addition to it being clearer, it's shorter -- just as Mishehu said. Spazure 05:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
9. That's what everyone calls them. Why confuse the newbies. --Apoc2400 08:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
10. or "talk" -> "discussion", but, namespace aside, good luck getting everyone to stop calling them talk pages. --Random832 19:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
11. Because it's in the Talk: namespace, people are going to keep calling them "talk pages" no matter what they're actually called, and if you're worried that they'll become forums, just add one of the standard "This is the page for discussing article Blah." headers and warn people about what wikipedia is
    WP:NOT. Confusing Manifestation
    03:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
12. The shorter, the better. The two meanings are "close enough for computer work". StuRat 23:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
13. I agree that it makes since for overall site consistency.
    ^T/_C
    03:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
14. We already call then talk page, so... -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
15. Short and simple - also works with internal consistency. --
    talk
    14:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
16. One less piece of jargon for new contributers to learn. --Ybbor^Talk 15:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
17. We all call them talk pages. The present linkage system is to [[user talk:NAME]]. And scattered throughout the project there are vast numbers of references to talk pages, including a lot within
    ^"talk"
    12:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
18. Strongly Support Djmckee1 - Talk 06:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
19. It's in the talk namespace, after all. -- Ned Scott 06:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
20. It makes sense. The user interface should maximise usability and minimise confusion. This change would certainly minimise confusion. --
    talk
    ) 12:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
21. It's shorter and it's what the namespace is called. Perhaps "talk page" would be even better. Kusma (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
22. It's called a "Talk" page. --Edokter (Talk) 13:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
23. Doesn't everyone call it a "Talk-page" already ? It's user_talk too, not user_discussion. --Eivind Kjørstad 08:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
24. Per Omegatron. - Presidentman
25. Makes sense.  Tcrow777  talk  23:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"discussion" → "discuss"

1. Saves space, more inviting than "discussion". — Omegatron 01:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Not a bad alternative. I still don't like the idea of "talk", despite reading the many arguments above in favour of such a change. The title of the tab should be viewed as an invitation to discuss the page, or to a discussion. What does an invitation of talk conjure in the minds of editors? A monolog? An IRC channel? A dialog? Discuss represents so much more than these.
   David D. (Talk)
   03:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, David D., it does that, but "discuss" does not speak to the initial reason for the proposal: that everywhere on en.wiki there are mentioned "talk" pages, and yet there are no "Talk" pages. You can't read anything on English Wikipedia and fail to come across a reference to a "Talk" page, and yet, they don't exist. Bielle 18:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

3. I agree with Omegatron. ~
   sign
   23:08, July 4, 2007 (UTC)

Don't change "discussion" tab

1. --Steinninn 01:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
2. I see no reason to change, however, see above for views on discuss which might be a viable alternative if people really find discussion too cryptic.
   David D. (Talk)
   03:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
3. It is fine the way it is right now.
   spebi
    ~ 07:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose 'Discussion' could be changed to 'talk', but because of parallelism (grammar), 'discuss' just wouldn't work. The 'article' tab would then need to be changed to 'read', perhaps. Why inviting? + may be confusing (not to me), but 'discussion' says it; I really don't think something needs to be inviting. Reywas92^Talk 14:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

   I don't agree that there is a grammar problem of any sort; "discussion", "article" and "talk" can all be nouns. Bielle 17:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

   'Discuss' can't, though. I believe my opinion is made. Reywas92^Talk 13:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

   Sorry; I misread your original sentence. Indeed, "discuss" is not a noun; "article", however, can be a verb, if you are a law student. :-) Bielle 17:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

   There's a tab called "edit this page." A.Z. 03:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

5. Pointless. The tabs are worded quite clearly as is and "talk" is less descriptive, therefore more confusing, not less. --
   talk
   17:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
6. — Deckiller 18:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
7. I prefer "discussion" as it has an implied context that one should actually listen to opinions of others. Where as "talk" doesnt relate to an expectation that one should listen to the opinions of others. Gnangarra 13:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
8. Leave good enough alone. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
9. No, it's fine and please advertise this better before changing it. Andre (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
10. "Talk" actually strikes me as likely to be more confusing to an unfamiliar visitor. I prefer a noun over a verb, because a verb implies participation. By contrast, a "discussion" is something a visitor can view passively if they choose. Dragons flight 18:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
11. No change is needed. "Talk" reads like an invitation to banter. However, the talk page guideline is clear that talk pages (except maybe user talk pages) are not used to be for idle chatter and random talk. Their purpose is discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
12. It's fine how it is. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
13. 68.39.174.238
    16:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Poll: + tab

"+" → "leave a comment"

1. Clearer for newcomers. — Omegatron 01:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Likely the best in terms of new-user comprehension, but may take up too much space. The overall best, then, is "New Post" Bielle 01:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
3. --Steinninn 01:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Weak Support. I would prefer just "comment" or "add comment" —
   talk – desk
   ) 03:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Yes. This, that and the other _[talk] 07:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Good idea. Not everyone is good at figuring out cryptic UIs. --Apoc2400 08:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Everything needs to be spelled out because we want normal people contributing. A.Z. 18:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
8. Probably my favourite out of the options here, but all of them are clearer than '+'. (From my Real Life interactions with non-Wikipedia editors, it's clear that the usability does need a lot of work; for instance, it's not at all clear that you can determine an image's copyright status by clicking on it, and the usual assumption (in my experience; this is anecdotal evidence and therefore probably wrong) seems to be that all Wikipedia images are public-domain. Clearer labels are one way to further this aim.) --ais523 12:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
9. I think this is a good idea, although kind of long. I didn't use this tab for months after I started using Wikipedia because I had no idea what it was, and I just didn't click it. Now that I know what it is, I use it frequently.
   ^T/_C
   03:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
10. I also think its a good idea. Most people don't ever click the + tab because they didn't know what it does and not everybody is "curious enough" to experiment with all the buttons so making it clear what it does is a good thing. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 18:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
11. I loved seeing this change and I'm upset that it got changed back. This is much clearer for newcomers than the cryptic "+" which I remember being puzzled by myself. Haukur 00:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
12. Strong Support Clearer for newcomers and looked great when it was changed. Djmckee1 - Talk 06:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"+" → "new post"

1. This is language generally recognized on the Internet and is clearer for newcomers than just the "+" Bielle 01:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
2. The tab is useful and it's hard to figure out what it means. It's even hard to see. A.Z. 18:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
3. "Add a comment" does not imply it's a *new* comment, so with both systems you have inexperienced users adding a section every time they want to add a reply, which is inefficient and annoying. Implying that every + is a new post will help clear that up. -
   [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!]
   18:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
4. If the + has to go, "New Section" would be clearer, since each comment is often referred to as a post. Adrian M. H. 18:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"+" → "new comment"

1. Not quite as clear as "leave a comment", but saves space. — Omegatron 01:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
2. My second choice, per discussion rationales offered above. --Quiddity 01:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"+" → "comment"

1. Not as good as the more verbose ones, but acceptable. — Omegatron 23:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
2. "Comment" has a clear advantage over all the other suggested alternatives. "+" is confusing - I had no idea what it meant when I first come across it and had to click on it to find out, which many editors won't do for fear of "crashing Wikipedia". "Add a comment", "leave a comment" and "new comment" waste space with unnecessary words - "comment" is part of the language of the
   talk
   ) 12:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"+" → "add comment"

1. Pretty clear, short. — Omegatron 23:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
2. I like this one best. Short and concise.
   ^T/_C
   03:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
3. My fav. It's concise, and doesn't look awkward. the_undertow ^talk 09:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
4. --Kaypoh 15:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
5. I like this best;the implication of adding something is important. I'd been here 3 months before realizing what the + meant. --Thespian 22:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
6. No room for misunderstanding what it does. --Edokter (Talk) 13:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
7. I hadn't known what the + does until I saw this proposal. "Add comment" is small, clear, and per Edokter. Ragaxus 03:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"+" → "new topic"

1. Clearer, more accurate, and shorter. — Omegatron 12:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Ditto. --Quiddity 17:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
3. While I still prefer "+", this option would be acceptable as well, as it is clear. (relatively) concise, and most importantly accurate. --
   talk
   20:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
4. While I personally prefer "+", I recognize that one of these options is probably simpler for newcomers. This one has the advantage of being minimally ambiguous with the idea of adding a new comment to an existing discussion (especially as compared to the other proposals). Nihiltres^(t.l) 01:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
5. I'm fine with just +, but I'm equally fine with this option as well. -- Ned Scott 06:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
6. Definitely the most clear, though I'd be fine with no change too.
   Atropos
   00:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
7. Yep, this seems to be the only unambiguous one. You don't have to start a new header to leave a new comment, I guess people may get confused about the difference between a new comment under a new header and a comment under an existing header. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 15:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
8. Makes more sense then the others because {{
   Talkheader}} uses "Click here to start a new topic," not "Click here to start a new comment."  Tcrow777  talk 
   00:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

1. I think of it as just a shortcut for experienced editors, plus editing the whole page or just a prior section, gives newcomers an example of wikicode to glance through. Plus it has a tooltip which explains itself. --Quiddity 01:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
2. As I wrote when the "+ tab" issue was raised recently, I see no problem with it, based on my own experience of finding my way around WP. It logically equates to adding something new. Adrian M. H. 15:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
   • Please restore the + sign. The width of the tabs is too wide when all tabs are visible, leaving the Twinkle tab for SD right under the watchlist link. Having to make sure I don't click in a hurry. Adrian M. H. 15:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Leave it alone or remove it. I see no real need for the tab anyway. If people are curious they can click it and find out what it is. Does everything really need to be spelled out?
   David D. (Talk)
   03:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Concur with David – if people are confused about the button, it is easy enough just to click on it and find out.
   spebi
    ~ 07:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Do not remove it, as it allows a more automatic edit summary and goes directly to the bottom of the page. "Leave a comment" is too long. Not to be rude, but it is very simple to realize what + means. If I had to chose, it is the shortest, "new post". Reywas92^Talk 14:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Keep it simple + is a recognised symbol for add, as such its appropriately used. Gnangarra 13:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
7. Once again leave good enough alone. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
8. Yes, please leave it. Andre (talk) 06:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
9. Restore +. If necessary, make a tooltip. Wait, we already have one. It says 'Add a comment to this discussion'. If that isn't clear enough, change it, but leave a message is just taking up space. --ST47Talk 11:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
10. Or something very short, as "Add", but personally I think that "+" was quite clear already -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
11. Restore the +. It's short and concise - and simple enough to figure out. Additionally, the new version is actually more confusing because it implies that to leave a comment you have to use it, when in reality you only use it to add a new section of comments. --
    talk
    13:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
12. Restore the + This is a well-known mathematical sign which means Add. What could be clearer? --
    ^"talk"
    14:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
13. Restore the + - As an administrator, I have many tabs. I'm no fan of the crowding, and "+" seems very intuitive - I understood it on first sight. It's also frustrating because I seem to see a majority of users opposing any change from the original - we need a consensus here, and for site-wide, hugely visible changes like this, it is frustrating to see such a short discussion change the interface against the wishes of many. Nihiltres^(t.l) 14:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

    Omegatron commented on this post on my talk page, and on reflection, I don't think this comment was the best approach to the problem, or that its rationale was sound: it amounted to a well-written "NOOO CHANGE IT BACK!". While I personally prefer the "+" and find it intuitive, it'll probably be useful to new or inexperienced users to have a more descriptive tab - besides, I can customize my tab text using my personal monobook.js page, a solution I already have set up (but not entirely active) there. Nihiltres^(t.l) 00:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

14. Please restore +. I'm sure many people (like me) did not participate in this discussion so far simply because they expected the proposal to fail ∴ Alex Smotrov 17:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

    They might have also not participated because they expected it to pass. You can't really guess what someone's opinion is if they don't give their opinion.

    (Talk)

    17:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

    Hmm… I think it's unrealistic to silently expect something to pass when there are several new options to choose from. Anyway, my point is that most proposals seems to fail rather than the other way ∴ Alex Smotrov 19:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

    Or, as in my case, they may simply not have known the discussion was going on until they saw that the tab had changed. --

    talk

    17:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

    That was the whole point of changing it before the discussion was finished. I see now that his was a dumb idea, though, since people are just going to say "NOOO CHANGE IT BACK" without actually reading the discussion or alternative proposals. — Omegatron 12:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

    Actually, I did read the whole thing - and I suspect that others did as well...most of the comments have well-reasoned statements. Simply because they don't agree with the previous discussion doesn't mean they didn't read it. --

    talk

    20:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

15. It's a shortcut. It doesn't need to have one of the largest tabs on the list. Dragons flight 18:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
16. Takes up way too much space. Prodego ^talk 18:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
17. Like Quiddity said, it's more of a shortcut for expierenced users than new ones, and gives them a chance to see wikicode. Also, as other stated "leave a comment" would also apply to replying to an existing section, when the tab is really only for new discussion. --Ybbor^Talk 01:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
18. No change is needed (or rather, no satisfactory alternative has been suggested). In addition to being longer, "Leave a comment", "New post", "New comment", "Comment", and "Add a comment" all hold potential for confusion since each individual indented edit within a thread can be considered a distinct comment. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
19. I have quite a few tabs, and after this change they run off the screen for me. And, also, I don't think there's a need for a change. I was never confused by the + tab; since it's not completely necessary anyways, there's no need to make it massive. —
    talk
    • 02:46, July 14, 2007 (UTC)

    If you use "talk" instead of "discussion", there's room enough to change the + to "new post". You can use user css/javascript (not clear on the details, though) to change it back for you alone...

20. +1 on leaving it alone. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
21. 68.39.174.238
    16:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
22. I find the + pretty self explanatory. I don't see any need to change it. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 17:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop voting on everything

Oh, and this change is a stupid idea. Don't fix what isn't broken – Gurch 09:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly concur. Haven't they always been like this? Reywas92^Talk 14:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Try not to call people's ideas "stupid". It's rude, especially when there are some obvious, logical, and intelligent reasons behind the discussion (As in, it's the 'talk:' namespace, lots of newcomers have expressed confusion over the years, etc).
• We're not "voting on everything"; this is the first
  poll
  I've seen at VPp in a while. They're sometimes useful. An admin started this one.
• Appeal to tradition is one perspective, but it's not an argument ender. --Quiddity 18:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Anything that decreases the chance that a new comer will stay and be comfortable here should be changed to something more welcoming or easier to use. No experienced editor will be bothered by either the "+" or the "Discussion" tabs. We don't know how many potential editors a fruitless search for a way to add a comment or a guide to finding the omnipresent (but entirly absent) "talk" pages has driven away. We do know that some new, but not entirely inexperienced, editors mentioned that they have had some problems with these matters in their early days and were confused by them. Why not just make everything a simple as possible? Bielle 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop voting on everything

This isn't a vote; it's a poll. Both polls and votes are discouraged, but can be useful in certain situations, especially for decisions like this (you have to agree that a UI change is significantly different from an editorial decision about an article.) I've intentionally structured the poll so that people write their rationales for supporting different options instead of just saying "support", and so that new suggestions can be added to take into account different rationales and narrow in on an idea that more people will agree with. It's more like a structured discussion than a vote. I've seen this style used successfully elsewhere and thought it would be appropriate here.

Don't fix what isn't broken

Several people disagree. You should sign under the "no change" section if you don't think it needs changing.

Haven't they always been like this?

Way back in the day it said "Discuss this page", actually (see http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org), but why does that matter? Tradition is completely irrelevant. The user interface should be as usable as possible.

Also, everyone needs to realize that this poll is not very meaningful in the grand scheme of things. There seems to be a consensus that the interface should be changed, so it probably will be. But as soon as we make that change, everyone will become aware of the issue and there will suddenly be hordes of people with opinions on the subject. There will be much more discussion after the change is made, and an even better solution will most likely emerge. Relax. — Omegatron 23:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't change without a consensus -- a plurality is insufficient. Andre (talk) 06:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This whole thing is mountaineering a molehill, but "leave a comment" has to be the worst change possible. Its far too long, and its not very clear. Its very easy to leave a comment in a previous section, as I am doing now. New comment is far clearer and more aesthetic.

And thank god talk was changed back to discussion, I felt so unprofessional clicking it. The idea that the word "discussion" is "jargon" is a little frightening to me.

I changed them both back, as I don't think there's a consensus for "talk" and "leave a comment" here. Andre (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. "Add a comment" is not only too long, it is incorrect, as the action of that button is to start a new section and add a comment to it; most comments can't use that button. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 22:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There are several other proposals. You wouldn't be happy with any of them? You wouldn't be happy with something different, like "New topic"? — Omegatron 11:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I see now that changing it in order to generate more discussion was a bad idea. People are just saying things like "Please change it back, this takes up too much space!", completely ignoring the discussion and several other proposals that do not take up as much space. — Omegatron 12:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

So. Should we archive this, and try again some other year? --Quiddity 03:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think consensus is starting to emerge. We should try talking to opposers on their talk pages. People often vote on something, then go away and don't read further discussion on that matter. They may change their minds now, if they see that so many people prefer "talk". In this case, it makes a difference how many people prefer a version: since the intention is to make things easier, even people who personally would prefer "discussion" may support "talk" because it is less confusing to more people. A.Z. 03:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It may be something to consider to move-protect established articles that shouldn't need to be moved. For example, there is no reason at all that the article