Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive AR

I'd like to make a suggestion not a minor one: redoing Wikipedia's article storage/retrieval method/system, or at least creating an add-on retrieval method to deal with one of Wikipedia's most problematic aspects: disambiguation - I'll outline only the latter suggestion here.

Today, typing "Cork" in the search field and and hitting "go" will take you to a contributor-created disambiguation page - yet once there the list contains far from all articles containing that term. Typing "Cork football" will send you to a "search results" page (as the article does not exist). My question is: would it be possible to automatically create disambiguation pages that resemble the second circumstance - a search results page? This should of course be applied to searches containing only single terms contained in many article titles, or multiple terms contained in many article titles.

The only problem posed by this method would be the organisation of the results returned - what order would results for a search for "Cork" be returned in? My only suggestion for now would be to sort them (upon retrieval) by their category, the latter transformed into a sub-heading under which would appear all articles in that category.

I also think it would be useful Wikipedia (and the above method) to assign (visibly or invisibly) Wikipedia articles to three 'base' categories: "people", "places" or "things". In my experience, search patterns seem to revolve around these, and presenting a contributor with this choice would cut search time drastically (if they choose to use it).

Wikipedia is trying hard to define itself as an encyclopaedia, but I find it has yet to adopt a method best for both the web media (technology) and the habits of web-users. I hope you don't mind my two cents - cheers. THEPROMENADER 06:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to search for articles which mention "Cork" rather than going directly to the disambiguation page, press the "Search" button rather than the "Go" button. Go invokes search only if there is no article directly matching your query. See

Help:Go button for a more detailed explanation of how these two buttons work.-gadfium

09:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood: entering "cork" and hitting "go" turns up a manually-created disambiguation page; I propose to make an automatically-generated one. BTW, I'm not a newbie. THEPROMENADER 18:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand. To get an automatically-generated page, enter "cork" and hit "search". Most of the time, the dab page is more useful.-gadfium 21:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the "most of the time" in the present method I don't like - as I mentioned above, a dab page requires contributor creation and (I'm sure often neglected) maintenance, and, as per the examples above, often do not list many of Wikipedia's articles containing the search term. An automated system would assure an up-to-date resumé of all Wikipedia articles whose titles (stress on "titles") contain the search term, should "search term" article not exist, and this without any need to update a dab page every time a new article is created. THEPROMENADER 06:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to add that I usually just use

Jesuit sock puppet *and* Wikipedia. Usually the particular cork article I am looking for is the first one that comes up. It's a workaround that works because Google is a search engine and the Wiki is an encyclopedia. I like to use things to their strengths rather than trying to make something that does one thing super well into something that has to do everything kinda well. But I can understand why you feel the way you do and in a perfect world with unlimited funding I would agree. Saudade7

16:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion, but don't sell yourself short. In a perfect world, "funding" would be irrelevant and we would not need computers to simulate access to the storehouse of unlimited understanding. Nevertheless, nice workaround. dr.ef.tymac 13:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good point dr.ef.tymac! Reminds me of an article (I think by Martha Rosler?) about the WPA photographers taking pictures to use as appeals for charity, but how charity itself is a concession which always leave the ontological/economic structures that make charity itself necessary intact. That was shocking the first time I thought about it as an undergrad. Don't we want something more? Ciao! Saudade7 14:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Verging almost totally off topic, is it not possible that charity itself is a public good - that the giver gets more than he gives and the receiver gets more than he receives, when the transaction is motivated out of charity and is not a coerced obligation? Perhaps there are social structures which create a need for charity without themselves being unjust, and that the charity they motivate is an additional just benefit. Of course, this requires rethinking quite a few assumptions commonly made about certain sorts of social programs... User:Bckirkup 03 October 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiki has all the technology it needs to install a "google-like" search engine (and I already find it hard to imagine that, because of its media and structure, it doesn't have one already) or an automated disambiguation system, but perhaps the manpower (programming) is what needs to be "funded"; but really, these are not questions for we contributors. If an idea is good and good for Wiki, I'm sure that Wikipedia would be willing to invest if it is for its own better function/use. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 15:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As a relative newcomer contributer but a longtime reader and 13 yrs of Yahoo and little less of googling, I must say the go and search buttons are about the most frustrating entities on the entire web (after porn and spam of course ) I've read many times that that Google searches are the way to go, well if that's the case and the underlying causes of this are finances, then let's just be done with go and search thereby reducing the workload for Wikipedia and just use a specific Google search tool on site... just as many other sites do--Tallard 08:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Those sites pay for the priviledge of doing so. Many take on Google ads to help pay for it, which is something Wikimedia Foundation won't do. So, until donations become enough to pay for it, we won't get such a search system. -- Kesh 01:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this has been brought up before, but I didn't notice it in the list of perennial proposals. What do people think of adding this simple functionality to Wikipedia? Yes, it's very easy to copy the URL of an article from the address bar, but it would seem to be a rather convenient way to let others know about certain articles, and even to flag certain articles for one's own later reading. --Lukobe 21:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea Lukobe. Zantaggerung 01:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That's been rejected before, on the basis that a user might vandalise a page and then immediately email the result to someone, making it look like Wikipedia endorsed the vandalised version. --ais523 09:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Zantaggerung and ais523. I can understand the concern, but surely a note could be included at the top of the mail indicating that this was not the case? At any rate, my proposal would basically be to e-mail the first couple lines plus the URL, not the entire article. (If the entire article were to be e-mailed, perhaps it could be set that not the most recent revision would go out, but rather one from the previous day.) --Lukobe 17:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't used Firefox for a while, but IE has this capability built in. I'm using IE 7 right now, so I'll just give that as an example. At the top of the page, there is a "Page" combo box next to an icon of a piece of paper and a pencil. If you click on the down arrow next to that icon, you get several options, including "Send page by E-mail" and "Send link by E-mail". Corvus cornix 21:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's on FF (I'm using it, after all), but someone could possibly write an

how am I typing?

03:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

For more details, see bugzilla:227. --ais523 13:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As I recall from a while back, part of the problem is that Wikipedia doesn't want it's servers put on spam blacklists. Andrewjuren(talk) 22:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal:_Mandatory_noindex.2Fnofollow_for_User:_ns

I love the featured content...um, feature. I was wondering if there has been thought given to generating RSS feeds for the featured content. This would allow people to see at least a clip of the featured article in their blog-roll / reader software they use. If a small intro blurb to the article was provided via an RSS feed I would think some people would end up more inclined to click through.

It would allow users to see the content easily without having to remember to visit the site daily. Just my two cents, and I apologize if this has already been suggested and rejected, I didn't notice it anywhere on this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dmcnelis (talk • contribs) 3 August 2007.

A new type of welcomebot proposal is being discussed here.

See

Hi there, I was wondering - why there does not exist a search toolbar of Wikipedia for internet browsers (like Google's one)? It will make information flow much faster! Any thoughts?

Thanks, S.

See Wikipedia:Tools for the various toolbars that have been invented. (If you use Firefox 2, you don't even need to add a toolbar; click on the dropdown box to the left of the search box, and you can add Wikipedia from there if you're viewing Wikipedia at the time.) --ais523 10:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Commons uses a 'wizard' when uploading, to help people identify the correct licence. There is ongoing discussion about doing something on Wikipedia at MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext#Proposal for mass overhaul, matching Commons. Could people contribute to the discussion there? --ais523 12:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Might it be possible to have a fixed left hand panel so that features such as "community portal" and, especially the search box are available at all times.

In editing I want to focus on a particular section in "Show Preview" mode and at the same time access the search box to help me research for further editing. (It's not a problem in "edit this page" mode as the edit screen scrolls and the search box is static at the left of the screen.) If I were to “compare selected versions” on the “history” page I reach a “difference between revisions” page and have the same problem. I lose the section of interest if I just use "home" on my keyboard to access the search box.

At the moment I set up a separate tab for Wikipedia home so that I have access to the search box, and a separate tab for Wiktionary. A fixed search box or a toolbar for search and Wiktionary (is that possible? costly?) would be very user friendly. --User:Brenont 03:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

With browser frames? You're likely to give many people another vertical scrollbar, which is wide and often confusing; especially those with older and less-capable equipment. Although, I'm very sympathetic; I often want to search without losing my place in scrolling. Maybe there is a nicer-looking way to do it than frames. 1of3 03:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I hate frames: to me, they're visually unappealing, never let me see the address of the page I'm on, annoy me when I am scrolling and my mouse leaves the frame, and just generally stink. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 04:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The three inches at the left of every Wikipedia page is devoted to a Wikipedia panel and it has scrolled off the screen much of the time. I don't understand the frame problem but I'm not that technical. A docked or floating toolbar could achieve my aim, couldn't it? --User:Brenont —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with a floating DOM element window is that it would have to be made compatible with non-javascript and non-css browsers. 1of3 14:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Easy fix: Take the bottom three lines from my CSS file and copy them into yours. Adjust the margin values according to your browser, default text size, and the number of links that you have in each portlet. If you have not customised the portlet links, you may need more space. And you will need to hide the language section as well (fourth line down in my CSS). Hope that works for you as well as it does for me. Some trial and error will be needed with the margins. You can use the same technique to modify the navigation portlet as well if you want to. Adrian M. H. 16:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be perfect were it not for the long list of interwikis on, e.g., the Main Page. Almost exactly perfect, though. 1of3 16:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That's why I wrote that you need to hide the language section. Adrian M. H. 16:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been using this a few days and I think it is very close to being ready for prime time. There need to be conditionals based on screen height (javascript) and the number of interwikis, but this is a tremendous improvement. In order for this to get implemented though, this discussion has to move over to

I tried something similar in CSS a while ago (I'm not sure whether I used the same code or not), and it had problems with position:absolute and position:relative CSS elements. Could you test the code on some of those first, to make sure it works? (By the way, I put a scrollbar on the interwikis if there were too many of them, to solve the interwiki problem, but that isn't enough on smaller screns.) --ais523 15:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It is really not something that everyone (or even a majority) would want. I tried it as by way of an example for this thread, but I have not kept it. I'm in the habit of hovering the pointer over the left pane when I when I want to scroll the whole screen while editing, and a fixed object gets in the way of that. Best left for individuals to adopt if they want it, I think. Any positional inheritance issues would be easy to fix, though. Adrian M. H. 15:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this what you're looking for? meta:Help:User_style/floating_quickbar — Omegatron 02:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

We now have over 400

Wikipedia:What The Fuck? Oh My God! Too Many Damn Three Letter Acronyms. ARRRGGGHHH!!!!~!@!~1`2 --Ali'i

15:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Revised.--

tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM

) 16:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• They all start out with different words, either "this image," "this work," or "this file."
  • "This image": {{cc-by}} {{cc-by-sa}} {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}
  • "This work": {{cc-by-2.0}} {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}
  • "This file": {{cc-by-2.5}} {{cc-by-3.0}}
• Most of them simply give the license version followed by the raw URL of the license (and among these, some say "version X" while others say "v. X"), but {{cc-by-2.5}} and {{cc-by-3.0}} render the URL with the name of the license as the link text.
• {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} is noticeably different from all the rest, with a different frame and width, and smaller, left-aligned text.
• In {{cc-by}}, {{cc-by-2.5}}, and {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}, the "CC", "by", and "sa" are icons combined as one image, which renders the "by" and "sa" icons larger than they are in the other templates.
• {{cc-by-2.5}} and {{cc-by-3.0}} are missing the word "the" before the license name.
• {{cc-by-sa}} renders the words "this image" as a link to the image's URL, which none of the others do.
• Most of them render "Creative Commons" as a normal wikilink, while {{cc-by-2.5}} and {{cc-by-3.0}} have it as an interwiki link.

To me, {{cc-by-3.0}} looks the best stylistically, so my proposal would be to use it as the standard for all of them, with the following changes:

• Add the missing "the" before this license name
• Change "this file" to "this image"--unless the tags are used for things other than images, in which case "file" or "work" might be better.
• Change "Creative Commons" to a normal wikilink. Having it as an interwiki link is unnecessary, and without the different shades of blue the two links look like one.

I don't think that the direct link to the image in {{cc-by-sa}} is necessary, but I think it's used on all the CC tags on Commons, so perhaps it should be included for the sake of uniformity.

What do you think? --CrazyLegsKC 09:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer "work" to "image," since IIRC the templates are used on audio files. Work might also be better because I think some editors use their userpage to license their own work under multiple licenses. --Ybbor^Talk 13:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The tags are also used to licence sounds and videos, as well as their more common use on images. --ais523 16:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree they should be standardized, but while you're at it, standardize the userpage licenses listed here:

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Large/Licencing and decribed here: Wikipedia:Multi-licensing and User_talk:Ram-Man/MLFAQ. -kslays

18:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The current {{Disambig}} template is worded like this:

This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.

Between those two sentences, I propose that we add:

You may also search for Beds in the full text of all articles.

I'm not sure on the most succinct way to word this. Any other thoughts? — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 18:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My only suggestion would be to make it

You may also search for Beds in the full text of all articles.

So as to look better. Other than that, I agree.-Ljlego 19:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense to me too. --OES23 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Any opposition to this change? If there is none within a week, could an admin please make the change? — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 19:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Very sensible! Approve--Tallard 08:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I support changing the template. It's been more than a week, so please make the change. -kslays 18:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No, no... First of all the problem to solve (in my understanding) is that user enters Beds into search box and intuitively clicks Go expecting a Good Thing to happen. Ups, it is not happening! The root cause is not the broken disambiguation pages, but the Go button acting not so intuitively.

Your solution will only help a little, because reader remembers he/she have already searched for Beds, why to search again then? I think this hint should be displayed, but not hidden somewhere inside the {{disambig}}. It should be displayed as a separate line on any page, but only as a result of Go-search user action. --Kubanczyk 08:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised not to already find this somewhere on the Wik, especially in perennial proposals or in the Project of Fun or similar locations. The proposal is this: set aside some corner of WP, either all the subpages of the format Wikipedia:Lexicon/whatever or some other subdivision (if it got hugely popular, perhaps its own namespace) and play Lexicon on it. I'm aware that isn't really what Wikipedia is designed for, games do not belong here, we are trying to be serious and spread information, take your games elsewhere, etc. But clearly, pretty much by definition, Wikipedia has the largest editing community of any wiki around, and a Lexicon hosted by WP or at least by Wikimedia would be sure to never die through inactivity--there would always be new people to step in for dropouts--and the lexicons would, I believe, be of superior quality to games cobbled together out of whoever you can find online. Thoughts?--Mobius Soul 19:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

From the Lexicon article: Players assume the role of scholars that write the history and background of a particular time, era or world (completely fictitious in nature). So precisely what would be the value to Wikipedia - as an encyclopedia - to have superior lexicons of this nature? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That they would be fun. Enjoyable, in a creative, literary, smart way--presumably exactly the way Wikipedia editors like to have fun. I don't claim they would be useful for any practical purpose. But a lexicon written by smart people who love words and stories is immensely fun to play, or read.--Mobius Soul 01:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say be bold and make it. But one of the 1300 administrators would probably delete the page. A.Z. 03:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds amusing enough. It might become a problem though, I think the best idea would be to host it off site or perhaps just direct users to http://www.uncyclopedia.org. -Icewedge 06:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, Lexicons are immensely hard to keep alive. I've started or helped start three, only one of which was played to completion, and that's the only completed one I've ever seen. It's hard to get people to come and play in the first place--a Lexicon only appeals to a certain kind of person--and they tend to get bored and stop writing after one or two rounds. It only worked on Urbandead because the game the wiki was attached too had a big community, many of whom were on the wiki and could see the announcements calling for players. Trying to start one on an independent website would result in its withering on the vine very quickly. But hosting one on Wikipedia would result in a functionally infinite pool of just the right type of person being in a position to see the announcements. Nowhere else would work--Uncyclopedia wasn't interested. It's too intellectual for them and frankly, I think it's too intellectual for the average prolific Uncyclopedia editor to be very interested in it or good at it. Anyplace with a smaller editing community than Uncyclopedia wouldn't be enough to support the Lexicon. Can anyone tell me how exactly it "might become a problem?"--Mobius Soul 14:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to play lexicon. Your playing it would not help improve the encyclopedia.

Atropos

19:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it'd be a grand addition, like a more interesting sandbox.

pray

04:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You might try userspace, but it is possible that it would be MfD'd. ~

how am I typing?

03:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• I feel that this could actually hurt the project more than anything, Sure playing Word Association is all fine and dandy, but what your doing here, if I understand it correctly. is writing falsified information, and I think that's a road we don't want to go down. Deathawk 01:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Concur on that -- but maybe the board and Jimbo would want a new sister project --and could sell ad space to fund projects like this one. Non-profit is not the same as no revenue streams coming in. // FrankB 17:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Using the what links here feature, when it directs you to a very long article, is there any way, right now, to quickly find a specific link to a specific page within that article? Especially when the words used in the text are not the same as the title of the page linked to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanchardb (talk • contribs) 23:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Search in the edit box (does not work for links in transcluded templates).--Patrick 23:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You could also view the source of the page and search for the (appropriately encoded) page title, and look at the adjacent text to determine where to look. Anomie 02:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the illustration for this article is unnecessary and probably break some law of United States. What does mean the community? This can be located in a encyclopaedia like ours? ServusDei 21:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Its probably about as tasteful an illustration of the concept as you can get and I see no reason to remove it. The image isn't crude, provides a valid and exact illustration of the article's topic, and

Wikipedia isn't censored Collectonian

21:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

And the description in article isn't enough for understanding, what is a

anal-oral contact? this image isn't crude?? What is crude then? ServusDei

06:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Crude is what your emotions founded in prejudices react to strongly enough to have as a opinion. Setting aside our natal and religious prejudices is part of our job here. So, our task is to make dispassionate evaluations of whether an illustration depicts the topic, or not. This one comes "close"—the tounge is not in contact though, so some could argue not close enough. Disengage the emotion, and go with the flow. Making judgments such as "crude", "obscene", is not part of the job. // FrankB 17:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Job is making of money. Wikipedia isn't job, it's a hobby, not more. OK, if the people here want to change wikipedia into a porno-site, I have nothing against, It's your choice. And I will stay with my "religious prejudices" ServusDei 19:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, judging "obscene" is part of the job. Any image used on Wikipedia needs to be non-obscene according to the Miller test. As a rule of thumb, any image used in an encyclopedic context is not obscene. --Carnildo 19:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the image. It's almost certainly illegal per

Since wikipedia is non-commercial it doesn't fall under 2257. Downstream users might have a problem. Besides, you can't see a face on the image so I don't think there is a reason to delete it or remove it from the article. Garion96 (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Contacting Paul Godwin might prove difficult btw. :) Garion96 (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

2257 has no exception for non-commercial, encyclopedic, or educational use. Nor is there an exception for cases where you cannot see the face of the "performer." If you see anything to the contrary here or in the new proposed regulations please share. Wikidemo 23:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Note, I've proposed a ban on sexually explicit imagery here because of this issue. Wikidemo 00:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

See [1]. I couldn't quickly find the text of the actual law. The link you added linked to civil penalties for controlled substances. Garion96 (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It does not seem to apply for non-commercial and educational. See [2]. To quote "(d) Sell, distribute, redistribute, and re-release refer to commercial distribution of a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, or other matter that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, but does not refer to noncommercial or educational distribution of such matter, including transfers conducted by bona fide lending libraries, museums, schools, or educational organizations." Garion96 (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The law is poorly worded. The non-commercial / educational exception you quote is to "sell, distribute, re-distribute, and re-release." The law does not provide that exception for what Wikipedia does, "inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service." That's why we need to look at the regulations. The regulations I linked to (which are from the Wikipedia article) got deleted, presumably in favor of the newly proposed regulations. That's why the reader is automatically defaulting up to the next regulation in the list. I'll see if I can find the regs.

Okay, found the regulations, here. The commercial requirement applies to brick and mortar distribution; all websites are covered, whether commercial or not. Wikidemo 01:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In that case, you need to contact the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyer. Nobody here is qualified to deal with it. --Carnildo 02:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I just said the same thing in the other thread. -Chunky Rice 02:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What article exactly? I don't see it. See also [3] for more info. Besides, we shouldn't do anything anyway until the foundation legal counsel confirms that explicit images should go. I still don't see a legal reason to do so. Garion96 (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

§ 75.1(c)(2): a "secondary producer" is anyone..."who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct." § 75.2(a) says any producer "shall, for each performer portrayed in such visual depiction, create and maintain records containing the following:" [draconian record-keeping and record availability requirements we cannot follow]. I'm not about to launch a deletion campaign on Wikipedia without a green light from the Foundation; however, on a case-by-case basis, it's fair to say that when you think it's a felony to have the image it's best to delete the image and wait for further instructions, not leave it up until you confirm it's a felony. It's the same as if you found an actual instance of child porn on the site. But I will ask. Does anyone have Godwin's email to ask him? I must have it around here somewhere. Wikidemo 02:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. You shouldn't be doing anything that's based on your determination of illegality. Even if you are an attorney, that determination should not be made by you. Otherwise, what's to stop anyone from removing random content, saying that they think it's illegal? -Chunky Rice 02:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Also still disagree, I don't work with American law but this does not seem clear enough. Let Mike Godwin handle this. Garion96 (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing to stop anyone from doing anything on Wikipedia, that's how this thing works. But people do remove things unilaterally for all kinds of images. But I agree, we need to figure out a policy on this and be consistent. I will be asking MG. Let's see what he says. Just don't be surprised whichever way his answer comes back. Wikidemo 18:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That because Wikidemo decided it was illegal and arbitrarily deleted it despite the ongoing discussion about it. You can see the image under discussion in the last revision Collectonian 02:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely I should be avoiding illegality on the site, and there's nothing arbitrary about that. Copyvio gets deleted on sight and this is a much more serious issue than copyvio. If I thought there were any real risk I would revert again (see below), but I don't think the FBI will be breaking down the Foundation's doors on this image anytime soon, so I'm fine with waiting for Mike to take a look. For a little more reasoning on this feel free to take a look at the very polite discussion between me and User:Chairboy on my talk page. Wikidemo 03:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: I've reverted Wikidemo's change for now, the legal situation remains to be defined and redacting it from the encyclopedia for legal reasons is premature. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a ridiculous discussion. The intercourse article doesn't have a close-up photo of penetration, or any photo of humans having sex, for that matter; and it never would. Even if you want to make the argument that the photo doesn't depict actual contact between the partners, the intercourse article doesn't even contain a close-up photo of a penis approaching a vagina, and similarly, never would, because such a thing is pornographic and totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The same goes for fellatio, cunnilingus, oral sex, and countless other articles describing sex acts. They all contain drawings and textual descriptions of the act, which are enough. A close-up explicit photographic depiction is completely unnecessary and adds nothing to one's understanding of the subject. I challenge anyone to find an encyclopedia that does contain such material.

I challenge you to find an encyclopedia that contains an article on Jigglypuff. No? Well, that argument didn't go very far, did it? I'll agree that a line drawing would be preferable to the photo, and if you have one, feel free to swap it in. -Chunky Rice 03:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

We have articles about topics that other encyclopedias don't, but content itself still needs to be encyclopedic. Just because other encyclopedias don't contain articles on the more trivial subjects doesn't say anything about the way we limit content. We have rules about notability that tell us which topics we can have articles about, which allow for many topics other encyclopedias wouldn't include; but we have separate rules governing content, which state that such content must be encyclopedic, that unless I've misunderstood something means content that would normally appear in an encyclopedia. This image would never be in an encyclopedia article, no matter what the topic.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:17, 10/13/2007

There's nothing unecyclopedic about a visual illustration of any article that we have here. (Un)encyclopedic is such a useless vague term, anyway. -Chunky Rice 03:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia first and foremost, so it's not a useless term; nor a vague one, as the only thing required to distinguish non-encyclopedic from encyclopedic content is to ask whether or not the content would ever appear in an encyclopedia. There answer here is no. Similar to the way a close-up photo of a penis approaching a vagina would be deemed unnecessary (and even unacceptable) for the intercourse article, the same should apply here, and if you think that's an undue comparison then I'd like to hear why.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:37, 10/13/2007

Please cite specific Wikipedia policy or guideline instead of the extremely vague "non-encyclopedic." -Chunky Rice 03:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Please answer my question first, as even without the word "encyclopedic", my larger point still stands.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:43, 10/13/2007

Your point, as far as I can tell, is that this content would not appear in a standard encyclopedia. Which is completely irrelevant, since Wikipedia is not other encyclopedias. It is its own encyclopedia, with its own policies and guidelines, which we follow. So if you aren't going to cite any, then you really have no leg to stand on. -Chunky Rice 03:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Forget about encyclopedic vs. unencyclopedic. "Similar to the way a close-up photo of a penis approaching a vagina would be deemed unnecessary (and even unacceptable) for the intercourse article, the same should apply here, and if you think that's an undue comparison then I'd like to hear why."

Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:48, 10/13/2007

You're right about that, since the appropriate image for sexual intercourse would be actual intercourse, not the moment immediately prior. A line drawing is preferable (I see we have one), but if one was unavailable, a photo would be appropriate. -Chunky Rice 03:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

←Why would a drawing be preferable?

It's less titillating and more illustrative. -Chunky Rice 03:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Why should we be concerned over titillating?

Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:04, 10/13/2007

Because our primary purpose is to inform. If you have a point, make it. Or if you have policy to discuss, cite it. Otherwise, I'm done with these rhetorical games. -Chunky Rice 04:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)We aren't censored for you or for anyone else. There are subjects on here that you may find distastefu;l, but as long as ythey are presented in a neutrally worded and factually accurate manner then they should remain. The same goes for an image that illustrates a concept, we do not remove images because they offend your sensibilities - you don't like them, stay away from sexually orientated pages. Viridae^Talk 04:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't personally have any problem with the photo, and if I did want to stay away from such photos, I could go look at any other article on sexual acts, because they don't have them.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:19, 10/13/2007

So anyone has actually sent Mike Godwin an email yet? Could be there a chance that our former attorney, Brad Patrick, dealt with this issue before? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Mike had been emailed. I would do it myself if I knew his email address.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:19, 10/13/2007

I think Wikidemo contacted him. His contact information is at

User:Mikegodwin if you need it. -Chunky Rice

04:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably. Check this google result: pornography 2257 site:en.wikipedia.org. Anchoress 04:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

(←) Well, considering the topic, another related issue has been brought up at

And the same response was given; talk to Mike (Gowdin). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

As an outsider, the following comment. Some people argued that the image was "unencyclopedic" and "you would never see this image in an encyclopedia". That is simply not true (at least not outside the US). If a publisher was to release an "encyclopedia on sexacts" then there might be a reasonable chance that such an image would be included. Hell, there are countless Kama Sutra publications that contain photo's of all the sexual positions. To say that the photo is unencylopedic in the context of the article is simply rubbish. At most we are violating a US law. No more, no less. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

As a man, wich tongue presents on this foto, I want to explain something.
We just wanted to illustrate article, nothing more. We don't have a plan to change Wikipedia to a pornographic resource. The low of the USA and Florida is unknown for us, so in many cases we guided by rules of Wikipedia and our intuition. On Commons we founded some fotos, that can be classified as pornographic in Russia. So, we decided, that foto of anilingus has no differences from (for example) this or this, and maded foto for article. If our foto break some law of United States, it must be deleted from Wikipedia. But can somebody to make me know, there we can find text of the low, which prohibits foto of the anilingus in Wikipedia and allow foto of masturbation (or video of ejaculation)? (sorry for my English)--FearChild 17:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the background and for the contributions to Wikipedia. If the US law applies to this image it requires that you keep your own ID (that could be a Russian passport, but I doubt anyone from the US is going to go to Russia to check). The problem is that the law would also require the Wikimedia Foundation in Florida to keep a copy of your ID, which obviously is not going to happen. The law specifically mentions both oral-anal sex (real and simulated), and masturbation (real and simulated), so definitely those two images. The ejaculation video isn't as clear to me - it depends on whether a court would decide it falls under the category of "lascivious display of the genitals."

My personal opinion is that the image is encyclopedic and belongs in Wikipedia, except that the US law might prevent it. We don't censor and we don't require reliable sources to prove that an image shows what it says it shows - we just look at the image and decide. At some time in the future we might want to flag explicit images as "not safe for work" so that people can filter them out and Wikipedia doesn't get put on companies' block list. The law has some problems, but if it forbids these images without ID we'll just have to remove them. It creates a chilling effect on adult imagery and nudity, but nobody ever said the US law always makes sense. Wikidemo 18:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This is more of an aside, and I could be wrong about this, but to address the over-18 issue: the anal-oral contact photo, and especially the photo of the "woman" masturbating (this) look to me as though the subjects might not be over 18.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:30, 10/13/2007

I see. So, the question. If I will upload the scans of some documents, which prove, that me and Yanachka over 18, how somebody can relate it with tongue and anus on foto? Or this is not a problem of Wikipedia? On this foto there is no any faces. How can I prove, that scan of ID is mine? How can I prove that this foto is real maded by me and Yanachka? Is it real?--FearChild 19:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No, please don't upload your ID! (and I'd be careful about saying my real name if I'm uploading explicit imagery). The law distinguishes between "primary producers" (who actually take the pictures and make the videos), and "secondary producers" who merely distribute or republish them. The law requires parties to appoint a "custodian of records" who is responsible for the recordkeeping. For primary producers that person must examine the ID personally, and verify the accuracy of the information. If you take a picture of yourself that's fine - you've looked at your own ID. For secondary producers, the custodian is allowed to rely in good faith on the primary producer's statement that they examined the ID and that the data is correct. But they still have to keep a copy. Hypothetically, that means Wikipedia would trust you, and if you lied or made a mistake that's your problem, not Wikipedia's. But let's wait to see what Mike Godwin, Wikipedia's lawyer, says, before we spend too much time thinking about all the possibilities.Wikidemo 19:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

So the issues are:

1. Do we want some form of photographic illustration to some of our sexuality related articles (i.e. is it encyclopedic) ?
2. Are we subject to that specific law, and which kinds of pictures ARE acceptable under that law ?
3. Source of said materials and how to make sure everyone involved is over 18 and known to the foundation
4. Is the viewer over 18.

What I think

1. We have a lot of drawn representations. Educationally speaking, I would prefer to have a good photo in there once in a while (my biology book had more "graphic" content than Wikipedia has today). That does not mean just any photo depicting intercourse, but a carefully selected "as tasteful as possible"-photo. Example: the article Human severely lacks a photo that shows a man and a woman side by side in my opinion.

Legally I see that having any nudity pictures in Wikipedia would be extremely difficult if we follow US law to the letter. However if someone volunteers, I'm sure Mike Godwin could set it up if desired as long as we are talking about just a few pictures by just a few people. In the end, I think that is something we should strive towards, though I doubt that with the current load on the Foundation it will happen any time soon.

1. No idea.
2. Well if you speak about amateurs and volunteers then this is always going to be problematic to some degree I fear. We cannot send a Foundation employee somewhere to oversight the process I guess. We will have to rely on contracts and copies of identification papers. However after that, a contract is a contract, I'm sure Mike has binders full of them, I do not see the problem with "keeping records". The problem is creating records.
3. Making a "are you 18" button has been done before and should be no problem. The problem is mostly that it conflicts with: "Wikipedia is not censored".

If only America wasn't so Anal about nudity. Pun intended :D Unfortunately all we can really do here is wait for the Foundation, as stated before :( They are the legal entity that is affected here. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with the image because it needs color correction! Arg! It's not natural. Jeeny ^(talk) 00:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

We of the

There is a proposal to create

Doesn't this group already exist? Isn't called "wikipedia"??? SamBC(talk) 18:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, join us at one of the linked discussions. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And I've just discovered there's a third location, at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikipedia_Users.27_Alliance. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we put a "reply" link on talk page section headers? That would make it easier to reply, instead of having to section edit.

Cizzam18 16:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems like you are asking a general knowledge question, in which case it is probably more appropriate at the

reference desk.--VectorPotential^Talk

16:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Should a female footballer be called a footballeress or a female swimmer, a swimmeress etc? I think Wikipedia:Manual of Style has it covered. Yorkshiresky 16:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have rebooted and rewritten the old proposal to allow for

This is a request for a new feature in the MediaWiki software. On the article history page like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedophilia&action=history I have to click a thousand times if I want to download all versions so I can grep them. Of course, I could write a shell script to do the job but that would burden the server and only help those who have the script. I think it would be better, if the version history page contained a prominent link to download the entire version history as Pedophilia,v in RCS format as created by multiple

ci -d$DATE -w$USER -l $ARTICLE

commands. Any volunteer implementors reading here? Roman Czyborra 11:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't you just use Special:Export? It allows downloading about 100 revisions each time, and there is an offset parameter so (I believe) you can work your way through a thousand history pages if you want to.

You also don't mention why you want to do this. If you're searching for specific text, for example, then Wikiblame or User:AmiDaniel/WhodunitQuery may be better options. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 11:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointers to tools I hadn't known before. Special:Export is already helpful, but it is wasteful of bandwidth as it does not apply RCS diff compression, and it is limited to the 100 last revisions while I need a complete revision history. The WhodunitQuery is nice but limited to Microsoft Windows. So I still recommend my initial proposal be implemented. Roman Czyborra 08:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles have talk pages for suggesting improvement or the removal of errors IF it is not possible for the critic to simply make the changes themselves. While done in good faith, I find the litter of commnets often pasted on pages in parenthesis rather bad preentation for wikipeida, not to mention ugly and unnecessary (her is one example [[4]] at the time of posting. I certainly don't remember such text insertions being as common in the past. I suggest what is picked up on is Edited or discussed in the relevant arenas instead Dainamo 07:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing anything out of the ordinary. Can you quote what you mean? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I would guess the reference is to the weasel-word and citation-needed stuff. SamBC(talk) 10:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't see what the problem is. The alternative is just to delete the tagged comments, with the tags it can act as a prompt to whoever posted the information to provide credible citations to back up their claims and as a warning to other users to treat with caution. Yorkshiresky 16:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been wondering, why are all the "page might not be neutral", "page needs cleanup", "page might be compromised by weasel words", "page lacks sufficient cowbell" templates in article space? They're horribly obtrusive, in many cases convey the opinion of the editor who has deigned to "drive-by tag" the article more than any measure to which they reflect consensus and are next to useless for the reader. That information on Wikipedia ought to be cross-referenced and taken with a grain of salt (much like any other source) is a fact unknown to virtually no regular browser of the site, and at any rate is a notion that would be much better conveyed with a small universal disclaimer rather than with humongous, descending, colorful, graphic-laden monstrosities of a template, equivalent in all respects to the much-deprecated "Under contruction!!" notice notoriously plaguing novice websites.

In what is in no way an invocation of

I don't know if this has been discussed, but I know that I am against such a measure. There are two reasons why these templates should remain in article space: first, we like to encourage new editors, so it serves us well to give new editors a place to start, and second, it is important that a reader knows that what they are reading is not the best of Wikipedia. Someone might be very turned off from Wikipedia if the first article they read is full of grammatical mistakes and POV and they don't know that we realize that fact and want to fix it. —METS501 (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I use wikipedia far more than I make changes. I'd like to see a compromise between the above two viewpoints where the "cleanup" templates are made quieter: smaller, no box, no color, no icon. With only a little exposure I can know that wikipedia is a work in progress and that some pages are better than others, and that I can edit nearly every page. The only time I care about the box is if I happen to be editing the page anyway and it suggests something I can actually do. Quirkie 18:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur with this and add that a clear separator plus a healthy amount of space between the templates and the article would also be a good idea, both aesthetically and functionally. i.e. something like this, which still has a box etc. but I think would be a step in the right direction (cf. this quasi-current version of the same article, which begins with the equivalent of putting the reader through a powerpoint presentation). --AceMyth 00:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether as user or editor, I find the whole lot of "IN YOUR FACE" templates to be obnoxious and in poor taste—and worse, unprofessional. To me, they are self-inflicted wounds that could be replaced by a modest 2 line tall notice. I don't buy the idea that such tags encourage someone to become an editor. An "editor mentality" will spot and error and fix the typo or grammar without a tag. There are a lot of reasons to quiet them down and make an understated message, not least that they half blast me off the chair when viewing said page. {{

underconstruction}} is probably the worst of the lot, and the least needful to be a big box. A simple statement that the page is a work in progress is sufficient. // FrankB

17:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly true that many of these "cleanup categories" have fairly dedicated "locals", for whom it wouldn't matter at all if there were no (visible) template at all, as they'll be "consumed" by those editors regardless (a minority do work this way: see

underconstruction}} is trying to out-shout other templates, and feels it "needs" to be so visible because of its history as a supposedly short-term "am editing this Right Now, please avoid edit conflicts", but it's since had some wording drift, and of course tends to persist longer on articles than makes any sense. The last point could be dealt with fairly easily by automated removal, though it doesn't look like a large-scale problem at this instant. Alai

08:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I know I started regularly editing 2+ years ago because of a {{

welcome-anon}}, and started a named account. --Quiddity

16:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I also meant to add: even if there's no real "passers-by" effect (and evidently, there is at least some), it's certainly fairly likely to spur regular contributors to that article into taking some sort of action, if the template is sufficiently conspicuous as to make them actively want to remove it. (Of course, sometimes removing it is literally all they then do, but one lives in hope.) Alai 16:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly I started editing because of

how am I typing?

22:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I recently put Avis M. Dry in the category of "Deaths in January 2007", and any one who goes to her entry will see that there is a reference for the date of her death, "The Psychologist" for September 2007. However, on the talk-page of her death, I was told that an external link should be found for people who have passsed away. Can I suggest, however, that printed material is accepted as equally valuable citation material as the Internet? I have fears that if we merely allow other web resources to be seen as acceptable resources, many people will start to plagiarise other websites for Wikipedia articles. ACEOREVIVED 19:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked and don't see anything in the talk page saying anything like that? Printed resources are just as acceptable as web ones (maybe more so) as per

WP:CITE to see how to format the citations and references in the article to be more wikified :-). You might also want to add in her cause of death was, family info, etc and what her degrees were in. Collectonian

19:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Deaths_in_January_2007#Citation_for_Avis_M._Dry is what ACEO is talking about. I weighed in there. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Some wiki-savvy creators of speedily deleted articles also add entries for the articles they create on disambiguation pages. Could a bot handle removing dab page entries which link only to a speedily deleted article? —

I don't think this is a good idea - if a vandal created a nonsense article at the title of a missing valid article, the bot might remove the missing valid article from the disambiguation page. This task requires some human judgement - such a bot would only be worthwhile if manually assisted, and that might defeat its purpose. Nihiltres^(t.l) 14:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, what if it were limited to removing entries that were added by the same editor who created the speedily deleted page? At the very least, it would be useful to generate a list of such entries, which are easy to miss. —

|edits

21:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Norman Sabin Montreal, Canada (email removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.209.238 (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• This was addressed several days back (around the 10th, iirc). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a search engine. Our search engine is actually relatively poor, but the software is optimized for record archival and retrieval, not searching. When accessing a search engine, automatically positioning the cursor makes sense. In wikipedia, you may want to follow a link... so no auto positioning. You can always google and add the additional term Wikipedia, which will find it here. Many browsers can process a script so that prefixing the search criteria by w: will find whatever on wikipedia. The tool (very short script, iirc) is almost certainly navigable from here, but will likely be browser dependent.

• Perhaps someone can find the exact section and link that in below. // FrankB 22:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, focusing the cursor in the search box would prevent the arrow keys scrolling the Main Page, something which users expect to be able to do. (In pages that don't need scrolling as often like Google's homepage and http://www.wikipedia.org, the cursor is focused in the scroll box.) --ais523 16:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I propose that we create a tag, to be placed at the head of an article that would war readers of possibly, disturbing or downright disgusting imageages contained therein. I know Wikipedia is not censored, and nor should it be however I do believe that we should WARN people, because let's be honest does the average reader ever read any of our principles, and in that vein, couldn't we cut down on the whole angry letter business if we were to take the "hot coffee is hot" approach? Comments, my friends.

Tennekis 23:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

As you said,

no disclaimers in articles. This is a perennial proposal, see here. Mr.Z-man

23:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

In most page layouts, the chances are good that most viewers will be able to see at least one such image in their viewport before they have scrolled down, which would render any warning rather superfluous. If you don't want the pic, don't click the link, which I find is a very effective way of avoiding images that you don't want to see before breakfast. Adrian M. H. 23:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

My solution is to use Opera, which has a mode where it will only download those pictures you want it to. There's probably a Firefox plugin to get the same effect. --Carnildo 00:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

We may have to do it someday for a variety of reasons. Most importantly, US law may require us to shield some content from young people, and not breaking the law is in most cases a higher directive than any Wikipedia consensus, guideline or policy (though unilateralism on questionable matters of law is not - adopting content warnings or filters would be a big step and need considerable discussion). Most likely the best approach would be to tag possibly offensive pictures rather than putting a dislcaimer in the article. That would allow people to filter them out by their browser or some user setting but without censoring things for everyone else. The second reason is that if we don't screen out certain images, Wikipedia may end up on various block lists and we wouldn't want to deny Wikipedia to people at work. Third and most important, some classes of images are illegal themselves no matter who views them. Obviously we can't host child porn, and certain

new laws about child porn seem to make all sexually explicit images illegal unless we follow a recordkeeping protocol that is impractical for us. Wikidemo

09:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your second reason, that falls clearly under

WP:NOTCENSORED. Garion96 (talk)

20:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Exhibit A: thumb

Tennekis 20:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo - your wikilink to

2257 is in error. If you're referring to Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act, which is CFR 2257, I suggest that you take your concerns directly to the Legal Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation. This page really is the wrong forum. -- John Broughton (♫♫)

18:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[5] is old, and raises a number of issues that would be difficult to fix. But one issue raised strikes me as relatively easy to fix in the immediate term - the bloat of syntax necessary to include infoboxes and templates at the headers of both articles and talk pages such that many pages, when a user goes to edit them, have almost a full screen of text that is not human-readable before you get to the actual article text (which, while still syntax-laden, is at least mildly intuitive). This is a particular usability problem, because it falsely gives the impression that articles are hard to edit, and is deplorably

This could easily be fixed by offloading infoboxes and other information that goes before the lead in an article and all talk page templates to a subpage designated as "Header" (i.e. The weather in London/Header). Then that subpage could be transcluded into the page with a single, short template call, thus drastically reducing the amount of screen real estate necessary to get to the stuff that most people will actually be editing.

The only disadvantage I can think of is that it makes editing infoboxes harder. But given how utterly terrible template syntax is, I don't think the added step of going to a subpage adds to the difficulty particularly. In practice, if you can't figure out how to go to the subpage, you probably shouldn't touch the big infobox.

Obviously some things we'd want to exclude from this - the major dispute tags spring to mind (Which I would say are unsourced, NPOV, inaccurate, and cleanup - no more, I should think, though I'm open to having my mind changed).

Thoughts on this? Ways the proposal could be improved? Particularly template-happy WikiProjects that need to be consulted on it first?

The editing window for the bulk of the articles is unreadable anyway because of all the citations. Try editing [6], for example. I don't think there's anything we can do about it. Also, the subpages feature has been disabled for the main namespace, so "

talk

) 21:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That should be an easy switch for someone to throw if this gets implemented. Citations are indeed another HCI problem that we could use to fix, but I don't think its existence is a good reason not to fix the thing that can be fixed easily.

Phil Sandifer

21:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, subpages in the main (article) namespace are verboten. I'm not sure if the verbotenness is achived via software blocking or not (I suppose I could test that, but ... ); if so, the software would need changing.

I certainly support anything that makes editing easier. My understanding is that WYSISYG editors are being considered - see this page regarding wikiwyg and this page regarding fckeditor. As for citations, I think a tweak of cite.php (essentially, putting citations/footnotes into a separate edit box) is both feasible and effective. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that I am also proposing doing this on talk pages - there's no good reason why the WikiProject infoboxes (which are probably already too widely distributed) should be clogging the top of the page that newbies are expected to go to when they run into trouble.

Phil Sandifer

22:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Use a single template on the talk page, {{/talk headers}}, one problem solved. -- Ned Scott 22:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I really think the argument about talk pages is largely bogus. No regular editor should ever click "edit this page" for a talk page, and see all the templates. If they want to edit a section, they should click a section edit; if they want to start a new section they should click the "+" tab to create a new section. If that isn't clear, then let's try to make it clearer. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the "edit this page" link is always going to be the most intuitive way to add information to a page, and we should try to make sure that what appears when people click it is human-readable.

Phil Sandifer

23:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages are a red herring here. Apart from the few banners at the top (which you can easily avoid by scrolling down) and signatures, they consist only of plain text, and are pretty easy to edit in a variety of ways (also with the + button).

talk

) 09:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That is an easy thing for us to do, because we have been editing the site for months. My concern is a newbie who tries to make a few edits, has somebody ask them to take it to the talk page, goes to the talk page, and hits "edit this page" to find a mass of non-human-readable text. It's an unnecessary bump in the learning curve that we could easily avoid.

Phil Sandifer

13:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)