Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Village pumps: Policy • Technical • Proposals (persistent) • Miscellaneous |
| Skip to: Table of contents | First discussion | Bottom of page |
| Village pump proposals post | ||
|---|---|---|
New ideas and proposals are discussed here. Before submitting:
| ||
Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon:  in the edit toolbar). Please add new topics to the bottom of this page. | ||
| « Older discussions | Archives: | [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 1}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|1]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 2}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|2]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 3}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|3]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 4}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|4]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 5}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|5]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 6}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|6]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 7}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|7]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 8}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|8]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 9}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|9]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 10}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|10]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 11}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|11]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 12}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|12]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 13}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|13]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 14}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|14]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 15}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|15]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 16}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|16]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 17}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|17]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 18}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|18]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 19}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|19]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 20}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|20]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 21}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|21]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 22}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|22]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 23}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|23]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 24}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|24]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 25}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|25]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 26}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|26]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 27}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|27]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 28}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|28]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 29}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|29]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 30}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|30]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 31}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|31]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 32}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|32]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 33}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|33]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 34}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|34]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 35}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|35]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 36}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|36]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 37}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|37]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 38}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|38]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 39}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|39]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 40}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|40]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 41}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|41]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 42}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|42]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 43}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|43]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 44}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|44]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 45}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|45]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 46}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|46]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 47}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|47]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 48}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|48]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 49}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|49]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 50}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|50]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 51}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|51]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 52}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|52]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 53}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|53]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 54}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|54]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 55}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|55]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 56}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|56]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 57}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|57]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 58}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|58]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 59}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|59]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 60}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|60]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 61}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|61]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 62}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|62]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 63}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|63]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 64}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|64]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 65}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|65]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 66}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|66]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 67}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|67]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 68}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|68]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 69}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|69]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 70}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|70]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 71}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|71]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 72}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|72]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 73}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|73]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 74}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|74]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 75}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|75]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 76}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|76]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 77}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|77]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 78}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|78]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 79}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|79]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 80}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|80]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 81}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|81]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 82}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|82]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 83}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|83]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 84}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|84]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 85}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|85]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 86}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|86]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 87}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|87]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 88}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|88]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 89}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|89]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 90}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|90]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 91}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|91]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 92}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|92]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 93}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|93]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 94}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|94]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 95}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|95]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 96}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|96]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 97}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|97]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 98}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|98]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 99}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|99]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 100}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|100]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 101}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|101]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 102}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|102]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 103}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|103]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 104}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|104]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 105}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|105]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 106}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|106]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 107}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|107]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 108}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|108]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 109}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|109]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 110}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|110]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 111}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|111]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 112}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|112]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 113}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|113]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 114}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|114]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 115}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|115]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 116}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|116]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 117}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|117]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 118}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|118]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 119}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|119]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 120}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|120]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 121}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|121]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 122}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|122]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 123}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|123]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 124}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|124]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 125}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|125]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 126}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|126]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 127}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|127]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 128}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|128]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 129}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|129]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 130}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|130]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 131}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|131]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 132}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|132]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 133}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|133]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 134}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|134]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 135}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|135]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 136}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|136]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 137}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|137]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 138}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|138]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 139}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|139]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 140}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|140]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 141}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|141]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 142}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|142]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 143}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|143]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 144}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|144]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 145}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|145]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 146}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|146]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 147}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|147]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 148}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|148]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 149}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|149]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 150}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|150]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 151}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|151]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 152}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|152]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 153}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|153]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 154}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|154]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 155}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|155]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 156}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|156]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 157}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|157]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 158}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|158]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 159}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|159]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 160}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|160]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 161}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|161]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 162}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|162]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 163}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|163]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 164}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|164]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 165}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|165]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 166}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|166]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 167}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|167]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 168}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|168]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 169}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|169]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 170}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|170]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 171}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|171]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 172}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|172]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 173}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|173]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 174}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|174]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 175}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|175]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 176}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|176]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 177}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|177]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 178}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|178]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 179}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|179]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 180}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|180]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 181}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|181]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 182}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|182]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 183}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|183]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 184}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|184]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 185}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|185]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 186}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|186]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 187}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|187]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 188}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|188]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 189}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|189]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 190}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|190]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 191}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|191]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 192}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|192]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 193}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|193]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 194}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|194]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 195}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|195]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 196}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|196]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 197}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|197]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 198}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|198]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 199}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|199]], [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 200}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|200]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 176}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|176]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 177}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|177]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 178}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|178]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 179}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|179]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 180}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|180]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 181}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|181]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 182}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|182]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 183}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|183]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 184}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|184]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 185}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|185]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 186}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|186]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 187}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|187]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 188}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|188]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 189}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|189]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 190}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|190]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 191}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|191]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 192}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|192]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 193}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|193]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 194}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|194]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 195}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|195]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 196}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|196]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 197}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|197]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 198}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|198]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 199}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|199]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 200}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|200]]}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 151}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|151]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 152}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|152]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 153}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|153]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 154}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|154]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 155}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|155]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 156}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|156]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 157}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|157]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 158}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|158]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 159}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|159]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 160}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|160]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 161}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|161]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 162}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|162]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 163}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|163]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 164}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|164]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 165}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|165]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 166}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|166]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 167}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|167]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 168}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|168]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 169}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|169]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 170}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|170]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 171}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|171]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 172}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|172]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 173}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|173]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 174}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|174]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 175}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|175]]}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 126}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|126]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 127}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|127]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 128}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|128]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 129}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|129]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 130}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|130]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 131}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|131]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 132}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|132]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 133}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|133]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 134}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|134]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 135}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|135]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 136}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|136]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 137}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|137]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 138}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|138]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 139}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|139]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 140}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|140]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 141}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|141]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 142}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|142]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 143}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|143]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 144}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|144]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 145}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|145]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 146}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|146]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 147}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|147]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 148}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|148]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 149}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|149]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 150}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|150]]}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 101}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|101]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 102}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|102]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 103}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|103]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 104}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|104]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 105}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|105]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 106}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|106]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 107}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|107]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 108}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|108]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 109}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|109]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 110}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|110]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 111}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|111]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 112}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|112]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 113}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|113]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 114}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|114]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 115}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|115]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 116}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|116]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 117}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|117]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 118}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|118]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 119}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|119]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 120}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|120]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 121}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|121]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 122}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|122]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 123}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|123]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 124}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|124]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 125}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|125]]}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 76}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|76]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 77}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|77]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 78}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|78]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 79}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|79]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 80}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|80]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 81}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|81]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 82}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|82]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 83}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|83]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 84}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|84]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 85}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|85]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 86}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|86]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 87}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|87]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 88}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|88]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 89}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|89]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 90}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|90]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 91}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|91]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 92}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|92]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 93}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|93]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 94}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|94]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 95}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|95]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 96}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|96]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 97}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|97]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 98}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|98]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 99}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|99]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 100}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|100]]}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 51}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|51]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 52}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|52]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 53}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|53]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 54}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|54]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 55}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|55]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 56}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|56]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 57}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|57]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 58}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|58]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 59}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|59]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 60}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|60]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 61}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|61]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 62}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|62]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 63}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|63]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 64}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|64]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 65}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|65]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 66}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|66]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 67}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|67]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 68}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|68]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 69}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|69]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 70}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|70]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 71}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|71]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 72}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|72]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 73}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|73]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 74}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|74]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 75}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|75]]}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 26}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|26]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 27}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|27]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 28}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|28]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 29}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|29]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 30}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|30]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 31}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|31]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 32}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|32]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 33}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|33]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 34}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|34]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 35}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|35]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 36}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|36]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 37}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|37]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 38}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|38]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 39}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|39]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 40}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|40]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 41}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|41]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 42}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|42]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 43}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|43]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 44}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|44]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 45}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|45]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 46}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|46]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 47}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|47]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 48}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|48]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 49}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|49]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 50}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|50]]}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}|[[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 1}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|1]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 2}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|2]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 3}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|3]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 4}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|4]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 5}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|5]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 6}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|6]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 7}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|7]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 8}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|8]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 9}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|9]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 10}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|10]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 11}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|11]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 12}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|12]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 13}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|13]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 14}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|14]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 15}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|15]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 16}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|16]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 17}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|17]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 18}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|18]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 19}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|19]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 20}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|20]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 21}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|21]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 22}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|22]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 23}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|23]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 24}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|24]]|, [[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 25}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|25]]}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}|no archives yet ([[{{#rel2abs:./Archive 1}}Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}|create]])}} | |
| <inputbox> type=fulltext prefix=Wikipedia:Village pump break=no width=30 searchbuttonlabel=Search all village pumps & archives </inputbox> |
Dealing with Petitions
There's recently been an outburst (I'd say epidemic, but I'm trying to be neutral here) of "petitions" started in order to address a few controversial issues from one perspective or another. I think that we ought to... well, I don't want to say "outlaw" them, but I can't think of a better term. I imagine that if we could get some wide support for such a stance that we could develop a policy and then MFD the dozen or so existent petitions.— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 14:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I was thinking along the same lines. I'm not a big fan of petitions (at least on Wikipedia). It doesn't seem constructive to me, to have a place where only support (or opposition) to a proposal can be stated. In fact it seems contrary to the general Wikipedia spirit. Proposals should be decided based on discussions where all sides can participate, rather than being open to influence by "political pressure", so to speak, of a bunch of one-sided petitions. Equazcion (talk) 15:20, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)
- wikipedia:Petition to Outlaw Petitions ? :) Tim1357 (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps all the "petitions" could be renamed "discussion" or "Think tank" or similar, and a section for opposition added? Those who created the pages don't own them, and I agree with Equazcion that a list of only those supporting something is useful. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 15:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is when a page is created that does not allow for opposing views then it ceases to seek consensus and instead become a campaign to one point of view. I say if you want to do a petition print it out and go stand on the corner, Wikipedia is run by consensus not popular opinion. Any admin worth their salt will give zero credibility to any process that ignores consensus, so these petitions have meaningless results. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps all the "petitions" could be renamed "discussion" or "Think tank" or similar, and a section for opposition added? Those who created the pages don't own them, and I agree with Equazcion that a list of only those supporting something is useful. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 15:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Most of the petitions that I've seen here recently were not trying to create a new policy or do anything that required a consensus, so getting a consensus on the page would be rather pointless. I don't see how a petition where opposers need to create their own page is significantly different from the standard RFC view/endorse model where opposers need to create their own view. Mr.Z-man 17:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well then at least people looking at one page can see all the views. With a one-sided petition, you just see one side of the argument and one list of supporters. This is quite foreign to the wiki way of seeking consensus based on all the relevant views and considerations.--Kotniski (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- So if a discussion isn't trying to get a consensus at all, should that discussion be banned as well for being confusing? A petition is not at all foreign to the wiki way of seeking consensus, because a petition is not seeking consensus. Mr.Z-man 17:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think that's basically the problem -- that a petition is not seeking consensus, yet it is an attempt at getting something to change anyway. Change happens through consensus, so if you try to do it another way, that's... bad? I think, anyway. Equazcion (talk) 18:03, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)
- It seems that the target of most petitions (so far) has been the WFM, so I guess that the first question is, "is it appropriate for us to be demanding things from the WMF?" I think that the answer there is "sometimes". So then, the follow up to that is "should those demands be made on a Wikipedia?", to which I would answer "No, their probably more appropriate at Meta, or completely off site". I've noticed at least one petition which is clearly targeted at fellow Wikipedia editors though, which is something that I've foreseen occurring for weeks, and is the main reason that I think allowing any of them to exist here on en.wikipedia ends up being inappropriate.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 19:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)- As far as requesting things from the WMF goes, the general rule of thumb is that global requests (something for all projects) go on meta and local requests (something for one site only) go on the site that's requesting it. Putting it on a 3rd-party site just seems odd. I don't see why it would be so much different if its more of a "demand" than a "request."
- @Equazcion: "Official" changes, like changes to policies or articles happens through consensus, but that's not what these petitions (at least the ones that I've seen) are seeking. Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse is not asking for a physical change to policy, its making a statement. Putting that in the form of a threaded discussion would completely defeat the purpose. Wikipedia:Flagged revisions petition is not asking for a FR policy, we already have that, its asking the foundation to deliver on what they've already promised. Mr.Z-man 20:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'd agree that those examples seem fine. Let's confine this proposal, then, to those petitions that are attempting to influence a "physical" change. What sparked this proposal, I think, was this: Wikipedia:BLP semiprotection petition. Can we agree that this is the inappropriate use of a petition? Equazcion (talk) 20:29, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)
- It seems that the target of most petitions (so far) has been the WFM, so I guess that the first question is, "is it appropriate for us to be demanding things from the WMF?" I think that the answer there is "sometimes". So then, the follow up to that is "should those demands be made on a Wikipedia?", to which I would answer "No, their probably more appropriate at Meta, or completely off site". I've noticed at least one petition which is clearly targeted at fellow Wikipedia editors though, which is something that I've foreseen occurring for weeks, and is the main reason that I think allowing any of them to exist here on en.wikipedia ends up being inappropriate.
- I think that's basically the problem -- that a petition is not seeking consensus, yet it is an attempt at getting something to change anyway. Change happens through consensus, so if you try to do it another way, that's... bad? I think, anyway. Equazcion (talk) 18:03, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)
- So if a discussion isn't trying to get a consensus at all, should that discussion be banned as well for being confusing? A petition is not at all foreign to the wiki way of seeking consensus, because a petition is not seeking consensus. Mr.Z-man 17:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well then at least people looking at one page can see all the views. With a one-sided petition, you just see one side of the argument and one list of supporters. This is quite foreign to the wiki way of seeking consensus based on all the relevant views and considerations.--Kotniski (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- wikipedia:Petition to Outlaw Petitions ? :) Tim1357 (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- ←I like the three petitions mentioned so far as examples. The way that I see it, Wikipedia:Flagged revisions petition is a request/demand directed to the WMF, and Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse as well as Wikipedia:BLP semiprotection petition are directed more at en.wikipedia itself (and it's good to mention both here I think, because they sort of take opposite "ideological" sides of the issues surrounding BLP). I'll readily admit that the FR petition is specifically targeted towards en.wikipedia, but it is directed at the WMF. I understand the point made that Meta is normally about WMF projects as a whole, but I think that it would make sense to take discussion/requests/demands which directly addresses, or (as in this case) are only actionable by, the WMF and push them towards Meta; even if a specific proposal/demand may be confined to a single project at the time it is created. Making statements or demands of the WMF should inherently bring an awareness that the WMF is larger then any single project after all, and advocates should try to be aware that their proposals may have impact beyond their normal view. One thing that has bothered me for a long time is that distinctions between (mostly the English) Wikipedia and the Foundation have been "fuzzy" since Wikipedia's inception, and this seems like an opportune issue to try and correct that.
- Petitions such as Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse as well as Wikipedia:BLP semiprotection petition are what really bother me, for the most part. Their existence is what several of us were worried about when the FR petition cropped up, but I think that we were shouted down for ideological reasons. For petitions such as this, there does seem to be quite a bit of general support that they are unwanted, which Chillum talked about above. I can see the need to handle this in two different ways, depending on whom is being addressed, which is why I wanted to make a distinction in the first place and offer a proposal to move some to Meta. I may be missing some problem because I'm the one making the proposal here, but this approach seems logical and helpful to me.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 21:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I just found this: Wikipedia:Petitions are harmful, which seems directly applicable here. I've added a link from the talk page there to this section, as well as adding a link from a few petition talk pages.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 22:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see how such distinctions matter that much. Classifying documents with essentially the same structure as either "Petitions" or "Open Letters" strikes me as being a bit pedantic in terms of this discussion (Incidentally, this is part of the reason why I avoided naming specific pages at first. I don't think we should allow ourselves to be bogged down in the issues around specific "petitions", here).
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 23:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've moved said section to the talk page; please see the resultant discussion here. --Ckatzchatspy 06:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Edit, "Moving "Oppose" section to talk page; this is a petition, not a vote"[2] Why wasn't a RFC opened about this yet? I am all for Wikipedia:Equality myself. Everyone should have these support only petitions, (started by User:Scott MacDonald) or no one. Ikip 06:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The nature of petitions in general, and the BLP problem in particular
When Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell together signed one of the first petitions (open letters) to the world calling for nuclear arms treaty talks (the Russell-Einstein Manifesto), they were doing it in full knowledge that they were trying to use their own reputations as thinkers (10 of 11 signatories were Nobel prize winners) to advance their opinions over what they would obtain if they merely went to the polls and voted along with millions of other people who knew less about the issues. That is the nature of petitions. They are NOT “mini-polls” where one side is left out. They carry more information than numbers—they carry the weight of the reputations and social status of the people who sign them.The importance of such petitions was so evident to the founding fathers of the US, that they included in the first amendment the right of the people “to petition the Government for redress of grievances.” Why was this important? Why couldn’t “the people” just vote the government out of office, if they didn’t like the way they were doing the job? The founders knew that there were times when a government could be deadlocked, but continue to move if small committees could decide on ideas put before them by virtue of their being supported by well-known and well-respected members of the community. Such things are a type of impromptu lobbying, but done by thinkers, not money interests, and not simply by weight of numbers on a plebiscite/referendum.
As I have commented on the TALK page of the BLP sprotection petition, I think that the governance structure of Wikipedia has long been broken. This is not surprising, as it is built on a model of decision making (small-group “consensus”) which never scales well. And no, it doesn’t scale well on WP, either. If we define “consensus” as a supermajority of 70%, it can sometimes be garnered on questions that essentially have only binary answers (an RfA, for example, with carefully self-chosen voters) but they don’t work well for complex problems in which there are as many ideas as voters, and the entire community is invited to vote. This is why all democratic countries are republics, also called representative democracies. None work either by direct democracy, or else by what WP calls “consensus.” Nor does WP make important decisions by this method—rather it runs on a vote of the Board of Directors of WMF, which is a very small group. And one which does not vote uniformly, either.
The US does not elect its leaders by consensus or yes/no supermajority (although Cuba supposedly does—a fact I recommend to those who think Wikipedia has stumbled upon the next advance in political theory). Even the second term victories of presidents Nixon and Reagan (49 states to 1 in both cases) had less than 61% of the popular vote. On more complex issues, such as health care for the last 20 years in the US (to take an example), the system can be effectively paralyzed by the numbers of people with ideas for solutions, none of which can garner consensus or even a supermajority. Thus, even with broad agreement that something must be done about the problem, nothing has been done about the problem (which continues to grow).
If the US republic system can be nearly busted for complex problems, WP is even more busted. The present BLP fiasco, in which 175 new BLPs on mostly-unknown people are created each day with nobody to read them, is an example. The public knows this is a problem, but WP cannot even begin to agree about what to do about the problem. This proves that the system does not work, for BLP is a very serious moral and ethical problem—perhaps the most pressing that WP faces.
The present petition to semi-protect BLPs so that only name users (4 days, 10 edits) can change them, is very modest. And yet, it has not been able to be acted upon by the WP community. The present petition aims to use the reputations of its signers to get this problem before the WMF board, which is small enough that it may be able to reach some type of consensus to take at least this much action (I hope some kind of opt-out clause can also be eventually added). So far, the petition has been signed by a steward, a former arbitrator, and one member of the WMF board. I hope to gather more influential signatures.
Does this bypass the “community”? Who is the community? I believe where BLP is concerned, the stakeholders extend far beyond WP’s active editors, to the entire population of people who stand to find themselves one-day subjects (or victims) of BLPs.
These people are bypassed already. Nothing WP editors can do will change that. The WMF board, however, can change it. And should.SBHarris 08:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- You're basically saying you don't believe in Wikipedia's longstanding rule that discussion and consensus are the sole route to making changes. Debates about the practicality of consensus aside, it's nevertheless how we do things here. I don't see why your having become disillusioned with it should mean you get to do things your own way now, and in project space no less. Equazcion (talk) 08:38, 1 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- Speak for yourself, please. Unlike you (so it appears from the above) I never had any illusions that “the sole route” to WP making changes was “consensus,” so I’ve never had any chance to be “disillusioned.” I have been here long enough to see what happens when discussion gets embarassing, as for example in the great pedophile userbox wheelwar. That lasted 4 days before Jimbo summarily desysopped 5 admins and closed it all down, effectively making the policy. The arbcom ended up voting Jimbo unquestioned “ultimate authority” on doing things on WP. Do you really believe that Jimbo’s decisions, forced on others at the point of a block, represent “community consensus?” No, I’m not interested in pedophilia, I’m only interested in the example, which I was around to see (you weren’t, not having arrived yet). Please don’t tell me how “we do things here.”
- I know very well how things are done. The actual process, whether you choose to acknowlege it or not, is rather like a rope tug-of-war game over a mud-pit. When groups are small, sometimes one whole side loses. With larger groups, or when the rope has many directions to pull, usually the game goes on interminably without anything getting done. Or else Jimbo and rest of the WMF board decide to act, and do so.
- BLP, by the way, is another example. Things are not happening by “consensus.” On Jan 21, MZMcBride opened an RfC about BLPs. The RfC tag for that appeared on every WP editor’s userpage. Who decided to do that? Who has the power to do that and who did that? Where was the discussion/consensus (d/c) to do that, please? A week later, the RfC was shut down, and now some single “uninvolved administrator” is going to digest it. Where was d/c for that? Somebody’s going to talk for me? To who? Who is this “Task Force” and who are they making recommendations TO? Did I miss the d/c in setting that up? If there’s anything worse than “no consensus,” it’s fake consensus. At the end of this, somebody will act on BLP policy, but you can be sure they’ll consult the WMF board and Jimbo for approval, since anything else would get them desysopped as quickly as the case above. So why pretend? Simply petition them directly. SBHarris 09:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- So run the petition on their website (or in your userspace), and don't "pretend" that it represents the consensus of the English Wikipedia community (as a page in Project space should).--Kotniski (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you want to contend that the rest of us are only fooling ourselves, so be it. I'm not here to debate the effectiveness of discussion and consensus seeking on Wikipedia, or whether the effort is eventually thrown out in certain circumstances. To make an effort that doesn't even attempt discussion, just because you don't think it ever actually works, is not your prerogative here. If you want to start a discussion about how things work here and try to get Wikipedia to move away from the whole consensus "farce", as you seem to see it, you're welcome to try. You've already made the decision though, and have chosen to act on it. That can't be allowed. If users could simply act against any established practice they disagreed with, this place would work even worse than you claim it is now, I think. Equazcion (talk) 10:39, 1 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- So run the petition on their website (or in your userspace), and don't "pretend" that it represents the consensus of the English Wikipedia community (as a page in Project space should).--Kotniski (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Speak for yourself, please. Unlike you (so it appears from the above) I never had any illusions that “the sole route” to WP making changes was “consensus,” so I’ve never had any chance to be “disillusioned.” I have been here long enough to see what happens when discussion gets embarassing, as for example in the great pedophile userbox wheelwar. That lasted 4 days before Jimbo summarily desysopped 5 admins and closed it all down, effectively making the policy. The arbcom ended up voting Jimbo unquestioned “ultimate authority” on doing things on WP. Do you really believe that Jimbo’s decisions, forced on others at the point of a block, represent “community consensus?” No, I’m not interested in pedophilia, I’m only interested in the example, which I was around to see (you weren’t, not having arrived yet). Please don’t tell me how “we do things here.”
- The WMF has its own wiki site (as well as Meta, plus various special-purpose sites - I don't know why they like to spawn these things). It seems to me that any petitions addressed to the WMF board could be placed there, not here. If you want to do something here, then you play by our rules - namely that no-one owns a page (so it's not appropriate for a page to state only one side of an argument, unless the community has adopted that side of the argument through consensus), and we arrive at decisions through discussion (or at worst, polling between at least two options). --Kotniski (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Proposal: move petitions to user space
| failed initial proposal. — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 20:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC) |
|---|
I propose that petitions (in view of their one-sided and un-wiki-like nature - see above discussions) not be allowed anywhere on Wikipedia except in user space. Any existing petitions to be moved to the user space of their originator. Please support/oppose/otherwise react.--Kotniski (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
support (move petitions to userspace)oppose (move petitions to userspace)
neutral (move petitions to userspace)
otherwise react (move petitions to userspace)
|
- I'm archiving this in hopes that it won't distract from the central issue. I personally think that it was a good first attempt at addressing the issue, but there are obvious problems with it, and we should continue discussing the issue and not allow this to distract us.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 20:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Petitions and "petitions" on Wikipedia
As various editors have already indicated, renaming petitions or changing their location does not address the primary concerns expressed by multiple editors here and on various "petition" talk pages. And as much as I appreciate the irony inherent in creating wikipedia:Petition against petitions on Wikipedia, I do not think that will be a solution. :)The underlying problem has to do between the nature of petitions in general and "petitions" on Wikipedia in particular (yes, the quotes are deliberate - see Air quotes). Due to the nature of Wikipedia, few "petitions" on Wikipedia are actual Petitions. They are, essentially, open-ended signature pages where editors can express support for a particular statement or proposal. Their design is inherently antagonistic toward consensus-building and discussion aimed at expressing, considering, and (ideally) reconciling opposing views. If anything, they encourage editors to entrench themselves in their positions, using raw strength of numbers as an excuse to avoid compromise, and to accept the mere expression of opinions as an acceptable alternative to meaningful discourse and engagement with others.
Actual, legitimately-constructed petitions that have a clearly-defined scope, a time limit, and are intended for individuals in positions of authority (e.g., developers and employees of the Wikimedia Foundation) can be useful. However, I believe that we should strongly discourage (or even prohibit) open-ended, target-less "petitions" on Wikipedia, or at least close them after a certain period of time. –Black Falcon (talk) 07:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Polls, petitions... Meh. What could possibly go wrong? -- Kendrick7talk 20:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- I am obligated to point out Godwin's law, but this really should be in the "See also" section of Polls are evil. :) –Black Falcon (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you are obligated to point out meta, then I am obligated to point out Metagaming. ;-) Despite Godwin's corollary, by the rules of the interwebs one side was obligated to bring up Hitler by now, one way or the other. I simply couldn't take it anymore! -- Kendrick7talk 06:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- I am obligated to point out Godwin's law, but this really should be in the "See also" section of Polls are evil. :) –Black Falcon (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Excellent summation of the issue so far, and I agree with the conclusions about the direction we should go. I think that it's obvious to those who read the sections above that my personal preference would be to simply get rid of/prohibit "petitions" on Wikipedia, but I could live with some rule saying that they can only be open for so long as well. Thanks for the summary!
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 20:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)- Any suggestions on where to suggest or place this rule? The last thing I want is to legitimize petitions by proposing Wikipedia:Petitions as a guideline... -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- lol... the irony running through this entire subject cracks me up. File:V= I wonder if we actually have a choice besides upgrading Wikipedia:Petitions, though. What about Wikipedia:Consensus? Or possibly Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)- Hey, thanks! I'd forgotten that Wikipedia:POLLING, which is linked from Wikipedia:Consensus#Community discussions and polls, is a guideline. I think the section "Polling discourages consensus" is probably the most appropriate (currently existing) place to address petitions, since most of the points made there apply to petitions as much as polls (even more so, in fact, because a petition is more hostile toward discussion than a poll due to the fact that it reflects only one camp's opinion or preference). -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- lol... the irony running through this entire subject cracks me up. File:V= I wonder if we actually have a choice besides upgrading Wikipedia:Petitions, though. What about Wikipedia:Consensus? Or possibly Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion.
- Any suggestions on where to suggest or place this rule? The last thing I want is to legitimize petitions by proposing Wikipedia:Petitions as a guideline... -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure I agree with the summation given here. It sounds pretty good in summing up the problem with petitions, but with its caveats for "real" petitions, it then wouldn't seem to cover Wikipedia:BLP semiprotection petition as the unacceptable type, which is I think what originally sparked this debate and I think should be disallowed. I think its author did state a timeframe of some sort, at the end of which it would be submitted to the foundation. It also has a focused target and is aimed at people in a position of authority, or at least of significant reputation (as is stated on the talk page), though others seem to be free to sign. If I'm just misunderstanding, and petitions such as this one are to be prohibited by the proposal, then I'd be on board. As for where to propose it, I'd start a new page in project space (name doesn't matter for now... wikipedia:Petitions don't help), and propose it for a guideline. If it gets accepted it can then replace Wikipedia:Petitions. Equazcion (talk) 04:59, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- PS: The current Wikipedia:Petitions can and should probably be moved to Wikipedia:List of petitions or something anyway. Equazcion (talk) 05:03, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- That was mostly an attempt on my part to soften my point of view, but I take your point. May I suggest adding the following text (revised as necessary, of course) after or to the end of the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion#Polling discourages consensus:
Petitions are even more problematic in this context as they not only encourage the community to avoid meaningful discourse and engagement, but limit their scope to only one initially-stated opinion or preference, with little or no opportunity for discussing and reconciling competing or opposing points of view. As a rule, petitions should be avoided; when they are created, they should be closed and marked {{historical}} after a reasonable period of time or once the initial interest in the petition passes.
- Thoughts? -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- There has been no objection in 7 days, so I inserted the paragraph into the guideline. Please edit, revert and/or discuss as appropriate. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- There is objection now. By indicating that a significant number of editors agree with a position or argument, and perhaps offering additional reasons in support of it, a petition can be a useful step toward formation of consensus, or to demonstrating that a given position does not in fact have consensus. A petition cannot by itself form or demonstrate consensus, but it can help indicate when further discussions or engagement is needed. For the matter of that the difference between a petition and an essay with a list of supporters is most one of name rather than function. A proper petition should IMO actually function like an essay -- its purpose is to persuade, and to document the arguments for a particular position. Such petitions should not be discouraged or quickly closed, much less deleted. DES (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Documenting persuasive arguments is the role of an essay; no signatures are required for that, and I've seen no argument so far that shows the benefits of such a list. A signature list binds people to a particular position, rather than encouraging them to discuss their positions and compromise. If a proper petition on Wikipedia should function as an essay, then let them be essays, without the supporter lists. Equazcion (talk) 00:54, 28 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- In a discussion, users can "agree with a position or argument, and perhaps [offer] additional reasons in support of it." The key difference is that they also can express differing viewpoints (ranging from nitpicks to strong disagreement). Please explain how the project benefits from a page on which only users who share the creator's precise opinion are permitted to respond (and how this is even compatible with our basic editing principles). —David Levy 01:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- There is objection now. By indicating that a significant number of editors agree with a position or argument, and perhaps offering additional reasons in support of it, a petition can be a useful step toward formation of consensus, or to demonstrating that a given position does not in fact have consensus. A petition cannot by itself form or demonstrate consensus, but it can help indicate when further discussions or engagement is needed. For the matter of that the difference between a petition and an essay with a list of supporters is most one of name rather than function. A proper petition should IMO actually function like an essay -- its purpose is to persuade, and to document the arguments for a particular position. Such petitions should not be discouraged or quickly closed, much less deleted. DES (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- There has been no objection in 7 days, so I inserted the paragraph into the guideline. Please edit, revert and/or discuss as appropriate. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Existing petitions
The above change seems to be sticking, so far... Since that's the case, should we do something with the existing "petitions" (which are listed in Wikipedia:List of petitions, FYI)? I'd think that it would be a good idea to at least mark them all historical, or something similar. We may want to "MFD" them, though. ...Or, not. I'm sort of ambivalent towards them myself, as long as no new ones start cropping up.— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think the question of whether it's sticking will be answered when we do indeed try and do something with existing petitions. Maybe one MFD for the whole lot? Or at least some sort of centralized discussion. I'd be prepared for that to turn into a rehashing of the merits of the policy addition though. Equazcion (talk) 19:59, 23 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- That was my main thought in starting this actually, that trying to do something with the old petitions would prompt either an affirmative acceptance, or rejection, of this whole thing. I definitely think that for whatever we do, we should handle the whole lot at once. MFD crossed my own mind, but my thinking is that it would probably be better to start an RFC about it here or on a subpage (either here or off of Centralized discussion). If we do that then we should put some sort of MFD style notice on each of them, as well. If the MFD/RFC is kept together with this somehow, then people could at least say "see the discussion above" for some things.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC) - Incidentally, I've done some copy editing on the Wikipedia:POLLING guideline, as well as placing the petitions content in it's own section and changing the redirect to point there. Everyone should feel free to review and change/adjust the recent changes themselves.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)- I think we would do better to mark them as historical rather than to try to delete them, since they do contain some discussion and could be said to have some historical value. They all can be tagged as {{historical}}, and the two "kitten abuse" petitions could be marked with {{humor}}.
- Wikipedia:BLP semiprotection petition - open more than 2 months, no activity for 20 days
- Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse - open more than 1 month, limited activity in the past three weeks
- Wikipedia:Petition for reconsideration of the Wikipedia Forever banner - open more than 3 months, no activity for 3 months, issue is moot
- Wikipedia:Historical archive/Petition for the return of the Old Wikipedia - created in 2004, no activity in 4 years, already tagged as an {{archive}}
- Wikipedia:Petition Opposing Flagged Revisions - open for more than 2 months, no activity in the past three weeks
- Wikipedia:Flagged revisions petition - open for more than 3 months, limited activity in th epast three weeks
- The two which probably could be deleted with minimal controversy are:
- Wikipedia:Petition for a printed form, created in 2005 and only one support
- Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions petition, created in 2009 and only one support (incidentally, the existence of this petition was itself caused by a problem inherent to petitions, see the talk page)
- -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- After considering for a couple of days, and waiting to see if anyone else wanted to chime in, I agree. I think that I'll wait one more day, in order to allow anyone to chime in a 11:59:59, and then I'll go ahead and start adding {{historical}} to them. Someone else is welcome to do that for me, though... Anyway, we'll see how it goes I guess.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)- I marked all of them except the BLP semiprotect one, cause the rest seemed less controversial. I'll wait the extra day for the BLP one. Petition for a printed form is interesting as a bit of history to me, maybe keep it around? I don't know. What happens to the petitions category now? Should it be nominated for deletion? Equazcion (talk) 00:32, 27 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- As I've explained in the past and would have reiterated if I'd been aware of this discussion, Wikipedia:Petition against kitten abuse was not created for the sake of humor; it's a humorous presentation of serious criticism. Having apparently become obsolete, it can be tagged "historical" with the rest of the petitions. —David Levy 18:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- I marked all of them except the BLP semiprotect one, cause the rest seemed less controversial. I'll wait the extra day for the BLP one. Petition for a printed form is interesting as a bit of history to me, maybe keep it around? I don't know. What happens to the petitions category now? Should it be nominated for deletion? Equazcion (talk) 00:32, 27 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- After considering for a couple of days, and waiting to see if anyone else wanted to chime in, I agree. I think that I'll wait one more day, in order to allow anyone to chime in a 11:59:59, and then I'll go ahead and start adding {{historical}} to them. Someone else is welcome to do that for me, though... Anyway, we'll see how it goes I guess.
- I think we would do better to mark them as historical rather than to try to delete them, since they do contain some discussion and could be said to have some historical value. They all can be tagged as {{historical}}, and the two "kitten abuse" petitions could be marked with {{humor}}.
- That was my main thought in starting this actually, that trying to do something with the old petitions would prompt either an affirmative acceptance, or rejection, of this whole thing. I definitely think that for whatever we do, we should handle the whole lot at once. MFD crossed my own mind, but my thinking is that it would probably be better to start an RFC about it here or on a subpage (either here or off of Centralized discussion). If we do that then we should put some sort of MFD style notice on each of them, as well. If the MFD/RFC is kept together with this somehow, then people could at least say "see the discussion above" for some things.
- The marking of Wikipedia:Flagged revisions petition as {{historical}} has been reverted by its creator. I request that we treat Wikipedia:Petition Opposing Flagged Revisions equally, by marking both or neither as historical. Certes (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- I spoke to the reverting editor at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagged_revisions_petition, but he's refusing to come here to discuss his objections. Equazcion (talk) 01:49, 27 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for trying. I've removed {{historical}} from Wikipedia:Petition Opposing Flagged Revisions in the interests of parity; please revert me if you disagree. POV disclosure: I signed the Opposing petition. Certes (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I had no idea about this discussion and I think it entirely unnecessary to mark Wikipedia:Administrators against kitten abuse. I think almost everyone gets it already. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- I spoke to the reverting editor at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagged_revisions_petition, but he's refusing to come here to discuss his objections. Equazcion (talk) 01:49, 27 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- If you look above the current sub-header, I think you'll see that the discussion is not all that one-sided, and already wide enough that an RfC would just be a needless repetition. Equazcion (talk) 21:49, 27 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- I've seen larger participation in discussions about cup cakes on WP to be honest. The discussion above is not representative of opinions about pages that hundreds of people have already seen, and has frankly ignored the kilobytes of discussion already had on those individual petitions talk pages and at other venues like Mfd. There has been significant opposition to the wording of that policy change created above, so if you want it to stand, please demonstrate it has similar significant backing. MickMacNee (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you want an example of what wide participation looks like for these sorts of community issues, I started this Rfc when the issue of the legitimacy of self-electing groups came up. It's participation was wide, and its consensus ultimately clear, hence, when 6 motnhs later another proposal came up, it was killed off within hours. It is pretty clear you do not have that kind of consensus here yet. And I repeat, in the case of PIAR at least, the fact that it was to be an open-ended petition was known by everybody before signing, and when this concept was challenged at Mfd, it was given clear support. MickMacNee (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Your disagreement with consensus doesn't negate it (especially when it comes to a page that you created and continually edit-warred to control in precisely the problematic manner discussed above). —David Levy 21:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- The statement that "it cannot by definition be no longer of relevance" is without grounding for a page that exists in project-space and is not a core policy. No single editor or group of editors owns the page or has the right to declare its status to be permanent or unalterable. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Rubbish. Essays are not core policies, you wouldn't dare to go around marking them as 'historical' on the strength displayed here. MickMacNee (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- We also wouldn't mark them as "open to editing only by people who agree 100% with our precise statements, with all other contributions prohibited and summarily removed." —David Levy 16:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Rubbish. Essays are not core policies, you wouldn't dare to go around marking them as 'historical' on the strength displayed here. MickMacNee (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- And you folks could have added this to centralized discussions or announced it in a more obvious place, or even could have noted this discussion on a number of petition talk pages. I agree with the comments above that there's not been much discussion. I would suggest taking it to RFC to get more input. Wikipedia consists of more than 4 or 5 editors all agreeing with each other! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Over 1500 people watchlist this page, and there was an RFC... (2, actually). But whatever. I'll write something up tonight and post another RFC. Another 30 days aren't going to really hurt, and I'm in no hurry. I'm not surprised anyway, since this is always what happens on Wikipedia. There's always some holdout, and it only takes one person to stop anything from changing.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)- As we've proven on this page, a regular open discussion format seems to only result in the same arguments repeated ad nauseum. The RfC MickMacNee pointed out above, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Self electing groups, might be of use as an example; an RfC subpage with separate statements that people can support seems to be a good way of succinctly determining consensus. This way, statements can be made once, and people can voice their support. Equazcion (talk) 04:42, 28 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- So what was the result of the RFCs? If there were a few, then it sounds like there was no consensus to move them to userspace. I believe that I actually took part in one, and a number of others agreed with me. So your characterization of there being only one holdout seems a little silly to me - if no consensus could be formed in the RFC are you really trying to say that there was only one editor who stopped the whole thing from going ahead? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- He meant one in this latest attempt, I think, and that "it only takes one", not that "there was only one". Let's disengage though and wait for the RfC. There'll be plenty of opportunity to sling mud at each other there. Equazcion (talk) 04:55, 28 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- Your comment is quite unhelpful, I'm not slinging any mud. Neither is V=IR. We can express disagreements if we so wish. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- I interpreted that remark as facetious. —David Levy 16:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Your comment is quite unhelpful, I'm not slinging any mud. Neither is V=IR. We can express disagreements if we so wish. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- He meant one in this latest attempt, I think, and that "it only takes one", not that "there was only one". Let's disengage though and wait for the RfC. There'll be plenty of opportunity to sling mud at each other there. Equazcion (talk) 04:55, 28 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- I've seen no Rfc on petitions, and certainly not two. This discussion, from Dealing with Petitions, is the first I've heard of it. MickMacNee (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Over 1500 people watchlist this page, and there was an RFC... (2, actually). But whatever. I'll write something up tonight and post another RFC. Another 30 days aren't going to really hurt, and I'm in no hurry. I'm not surprised anyway, since this is always what happens on Wikipedia. There's always some holdout, and it only takes one person to stop anything from changing.
- My objections to "petitions" (as they are called) is well-documented at the essay I started. I don't think the current wording at Wikipedia:PETITION or Wikipedia:List of petitions is really going to help much. Anyone pushing a petition can argue endlessly about "reasonable period of time". Likewise "should be avoided"; anyone starting a petition is going to believe their case is the exception. Ultimately, none of that really addressed the problem that led to the petition in the first place. I think a better solution is the one I advocate (of course): Anything created as a "petition" should be immediately reformed as a poll or (preferably) a discussion. This addresses whatever the issue is head-on, rather than letting it smolder, and hopefully allows some actualy progress towards consensus to be made. These "petitions" actively work against consensus, by splitting and polarizing discussion, and fighting compromise and mutal understanding. We should not let that subversion of Wikipedia:CONSENSUS prevail; we should encourage discussion. If someone thinks consensus "isn't working", they should strive to figure out why and address that, not start a page where only their side is allowed to be told. • Existing pages can be tagged as {{historical}} if they're inactive (just like any other inactive page). Active petitions (or petition pages where parties are resisting tagging) should be converted to discussions as described above. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Resurrected: Wikipedia:NOTNEWS, news belongs on Wikinews
It was very frustrating to see that this discussion ended up with only a bot caring enough to archive it, instead of someone implementing it or offering constructive criticism.This is, to summarise, changes to existing templates to direct people to write news articles where they belong - on Wikinews.
Impacted templates are:
- {{Recent death}}
- {{Current}}
- {{Current related}}
- {{Obituary}}
- {{Recentism}}
Examples of the changed templates
- Where Wikinews has an article (embedded titles link to nonexistent pages)
 | This article is about a person who has recently died or has recently been reported dead. Some information, such as that pertaining to the circumstances of the person's death and surrounding events, may change as more facts become known. Obituaries are not appropriate for Wikipedia; please consider contributing to the obituary on Wikinews. |
 | This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. Wikipedia is not a news site; please consider expanding Wikinews coverage, or writing a follow-up. |
| This article is related to a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. Wikipedia is not a news site; please consider expanding Wikinews coverage, or writing a follow-up. |
 | This article reads like an Obituary. Wikipedia is not a memorial site and articles should have a neutral point of view. Please help edit it to help achieve a neutral point of view, or discuss changes on the talk page. Wikipedia is not a news site; please consider expanding Wikinews coverage, or writing a follow-up. |
- Where Wikinews does not have an article:
| This article is about a person who has recently died or has recently been reported dead. Some information, such as that pertaining to the circumstances of the person's death and surrounding events, may change as more facts become known. Obituaries are not appropriate for Wikipedia; an obituary would be more appropriate on Wikinews, see here. |
| This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. Wikipedia is not a news site; in-depth news coverage is more appropriate on Wikinews. |
| This article is related to a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. Wikipedia is not a news site; in-depth news coverage is more appropriate on Wikinews. |
| This article reads like an Obituary. Wikipedia is not a memorial site and articles should have a neutral point of view. Please help edit it to help achieve a neutral point of view, or discuss changes on the talk page. Wikipedia is not a news site; in-depth news coverage is more appropriate on Wikinews. |
I see absolutely no points in the prior discussion that, to me, appear to make this an unreasonable request. Can this please be implemented? --Brian McNeil /talk 03:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds like a very good idea. Strong support. --Yair rand (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Strong supportCamelbinky (talk)
- Support also per something among the same lines as Yair rand. --Mikemoral♪♫ 04:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose current proposed wording. Some directing to Wikinews seems like a good idea, but some of that language seems to send a confusing message, as if the subsequent content on tagged pages is being criticized for being on the wrong wiki. Equazcion (talk) 04:40, 8 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem like that to me. Do you have a better wording? --Yair rand (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm certainly happy to try and improve the wording - if I can have specific actionable points. I think the proposed changes to {{Recentism}} is the only case where there may be 'active' criticism of Wikipedia content where the template is in use. ---Brian McNeil /talk 10:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with concerns about the wording. We don't want the template to send the message "don't add anything about recent events to this article," but rather "the article should reflect a long-term view of the subject." Dcoetzee 10:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, the current phrasing might be interpreted to "don't add anything recent". Instead of the current comment, "Wikipedia is not a news site; please consider contributing to the obituary/article", perhaps something along the lines of "Although Wikipedia permits content regarding recent events, it should have a historical perspetive, as this is not a news site. In-depth news-style coverage is more appropriate on Wikinews", with a link to Wikipedia:NOTNEWS? But I don't have any real objections to the current phrasing either. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm certainly happy to try and improve the wording - if I can have specific actionable points. I think the proposed changes to {{Recentism}} is the only case where there may be 'active' criticism of Wikipedia content where the template is in use. ---Brian McNeil /talk 10:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem like that to me. Do you have a better wording? --Yair rand (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose The existance of Wikinews has no bearing on Wikipedia content. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- This is a baffling view, to me. It's not as though we'll be creating links to Google news, or even something like the NYT with this. Wikinews is a fellow WMF project, so the statement that it has no bering on us is simply silly, to me. I'd be very interested in hearing a reasonable explaination, though.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 22:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)- Per Wikipedia:SISTER and longstanding co-operation between projects and our general view of 'we can't use this, but they'd love it over here' being a helpful way forward to violators of Wikipedia:NOTNEWS it does. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia should be the best encyclopedia possible. That a sister project also covers similar content does not matter. I you think Wikipedia should limit the content about recent events, then just say that instead of referring to Wikinews. These additions seems to imply that recent events should not be mentioned on Wikipedia because of Wikinews. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- We can only really agree to disagree here, I suspect. I have stated below that I believe this helps creates recruit better contributors to WP as well as WN. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think that we can do better then agreeing to disagree here though, which is specifically why I challenged this oppose. There's a bit of a disconnect between differing viewpoints here, and their not mutually exclusive (meaning that both the opposition to the proposal and the willingness to disagree are somewhat misplaced). The main issue here is exactly what you said yourself Apoc: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a news source. On the other hand, Wikinews is not an encyclopedia. It's generally a good thing to define goals and structure for participants, especially in a collaborative, "headless" environment such as our WikiMedia Foundation projects. What I'm really curious about is this: what is it about the proposed changes that makes you believe that the proposal is attempting to convey that "Wikipedia should limit the content about recent events"? I don't see that assertion being made myself (at least, not so bluntly), but as an advocate I'm perfectly willing to admit that my own bias may be affecting my judgment.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 19:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia should be the best encyclopedia possible. That a sister project also covers similar content does not matter. I you think Wikipedia should limit the content about recent events, then just say that instead of referring to Wikinews. These additions seems to imply that recent events should not be mentioned on Wikipedia because of Wikinews. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:SISTER and longstanding co-operation between projects and our general view of 'we can't use this, but they'd love it over here' being a helpful way forward to violators of Wikipedia:NOTNEWS it does. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- This is a baffling view, to me. It's not as though we'll be creating links to Google news, or even something like the NYT with this. Wikinews is a fellow WMF project, so the statement that it has no bering on us is simply silly, to me. I'd be very interested in hearing a reasonable explaination, though.
- Support The existence of Wikipedia policy does have bearing on Wikipedia content. (In case this isn't blatant enough: When content is inappropriate for Wikipedia according to Wikipedia policy, it is then appropriate to direct prospective constributors to the project where that content would be appropriate.) --Pi zero (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support per Brian McNeil and Wikipedia:NOTNEWS. The existence of Wikinews has direct bearing on Wikipedia and its content. Although I think articles on recent events are okay on Wikipedia, they should have a long-term view over the topic, and people should know that there is a more suitable venue if they want to add certain things, such as obituaries (if someone very famous dies, for instance). One suggestion - don't italicise "Wikinews", I think that looks a bit out of place. considering "Wikipedia" is never italicised. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support as a strong believer in decentralisation and promoting the sister projects :) --Skenmy(t•c•n) 17:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose; just seems to make the templates more obtrusive without offering any concrete advice for reader or editor. Any relevant Wikinews content should already be linked as a sister project link. None of the new links do much to explain how to write content in a manner appropriate for Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps a link to Wikipedia:NOTNEWS would solve that problem? Also, I'm not sure how adding a single small, barely visible line to the template makes it much more obtrusive than it already is. *shrugs* Tempodivalse [talk] 21:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think you miss the point of the templates in the first place Christopher; to tell people certain content is inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition is one line, one small line, suggesting where the content may be more appropriate. --Brian McNeil /talk 21:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support A fairly logical way forward with Wikipedia:NOTNEWS. It helps keep WP's content from spiraling into recentism without making contributors feel discouraged that their contributions are unwanted. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Strong support - This is good for Wikipedia, and good for Wikinews. We already tell people when content is inappropriate for Wikipedia; we should continue to do so. While we're at it, it's a good thing to tell them where the content really should go.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support It stikes a good balance between letting contributors know that their contributions are valued and finding the correct project for those contributions. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs 23:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support - the logical extension of WP:NOTNEWS. - Philippe 00:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support with an improved wording so people don't think that all information about recent events is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Reach Out to the Truth 14:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- At the risk of repeating myself, what are the proposals for an improved wording? I was, in crafting these changes, very concerned to keep the size increase on these templates to an absolute minimum. The proposed change by Tempodivalse above is really overly verbose; are there changes to the existing wording which I've not touched which might address this and keep the Wikinews-related small line a single line? --Brian McNeil /talk 15:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- The Wikinews line seems OK. I think that people are mostly complaining about (our own) text above that. People don't seem to realize that these templates already exist, and the only addition that you're proposing is the addition of one line, in small font, with a link to Wikinews in it.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 18:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- The Wikinews line seems OK. I think that people are mostly complaining about (our own) text above that. People don't seem to realize that these templates already exist, and the only addition that you're proposing is the addition of one line, in small font, with a link to Wikinews in it.
- At the risk of repeating myself, what are the proposals for an improved wording? I was, in crafting these changes, very concerned to keep the size increase on these templates to an absolute minimum. The proposed change by Tempodivalse above is really overly verbose; are there changes to the existing wording which I've not touched which might address this and keep the Wikinews-related small line a single line? --Brian McNeil /talk 15:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support Though I do fear that most people simple don't understand that they are writing an obituary into the Wikipedia article. I'd be interested to see if this would drive any measurable amount of traffic to Wikinews. It can never hurt to a least run an experiment with something like this. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose First, {{Obituary}} and {{Recentism}} are not only used on articles on recent events, so wikinews is irrelevant. Second, we shouldn't use our articles as proxy for wikinews per our policy of neutral point of view. We already grant enough leeway to post relevant sister links, but prominently linking to wikinews on articles related to recent events, which gamer lots of views, would be way over the top. Third, the first three templates are principally directed for readers, not editors; they're some sort of disclaimer to alert people that the information can change; so saying that 'Wikipedia is not a news site' out of the blue is totally inappropriate. It gives the impression that the article may somehow content inappropriate 'news content' while it may not be the case at all; and Wikipedia sometimes contain completely appropriate in-depth coverage of recent events, much more developed than wikinews (such as sport events, elections and so on), so linking to wikinews would be a disservice to readers, and unhelpful and confusing to editors.
Finally, there seems to have been some inappropriate canvassing, see http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/wn:Water_cooler/miscellaneous#Wikipedia.2C_again, which explains why several wikinews admins, Jimbo Wales and Philippe came here to support the proposal. Cenarium (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please provide examples where {{Obituary}} or {{Recentism}} are not used on articles related to recent events.
- As you apparently seem to be wilfully ignoring, Wikinews is a Wikimedia Foundation project and all projects are subject to a Neutral Point of View policy (see http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:NPOV).
- I strongly object to your characterisation of the solicitation of input from people who care about projects other than Wikipedia as "inappropriate canvassing". I would ask you to retract that accusation, and the implication that Wikimedians who are not primarily active on Wikipedia are not acting in good faith; all have justified their reasons for supporting this proposal and you are suggesting that such votes, including that of Jimmy Wales, be discounted on your say-so alone. --Brian McNeil /talk 20:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Would you care to explain in what way WP:CANVASS is violated? Cross-project co-operation is a cross-project issue. That's like notifying a WikiProject of an AfD. It is in each project's interests to know how they are used by each other. As for Jimbo, he had already expressed an opinion and hence an interest. Does my opinion cease to count because I contribute somewhere this affects? I have edited here since 2006; I am a long-serving WP admin. I am also a WN admin and Arbcom. Do you really view these as incompatible where interlinking and Wikipedia:SISTER/Wikipedia:NOTNEWS is discussed? Surely contributors to both projects are best suited to appreciating the intricate differences - and overlaps - in their respective missions. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would have no problem with letting know wikinews editor of this, if it were done in a more neutral manner (cf the diagram or the section 'campaigning' from the guideline) and not be emphasizing Jimbo's opinion (sought off-wiki). I's been some time since those changes are proposed (cf http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_talk:Obituary_from_Wikipedia#Promotion_on_Wikipedia) and it's not this way that you'll make a difference (nor by calling naysayers those who disagree). The way it's carried out just doesn't inspire confidence or look like collaboration, but rather like campaigning. I point this out so that consensus can be appropriately weighted, it has no other implication. I'm not 'against' sister projects or whatever (I use and add links to wiktionary quite regularly for example).
- See Category:Articles slanted towards recent events which includes articles tagged as far back as January 2008 (so the recent events are anterior to that). Those recent events could be from the previous decade or before; most of the time this tag is applied considerably after the related events. Recent can mean decades ago in a historical perspective, there are many examples (here's one). As for obituary, this is not even event-related (though it implies the person has died), and could be applied to any dead person (example from a 1998's death). So for those two templates, mentioning that wikipedia is not a news site or wikinews wouldn't make sense.
- I've argued this point a bit quickly. We've extended NPOV far beyond its original intent, for example Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a mean of promotion. Of course we have a special relationship with other wmf projects, but we should keep the former in mind nonetheless. In my opinion, we should not use our articles (and templates therein) as a mean to promote sister projects. Promotion is not the intent of sister links (though in effect it does..). Linking at the top of articles or sections on recent events to a particular news source doesn't go well with our policy of neutrality. For another example, if the Wikimedia foundation were to advocate for some issues (see strategy:Task force/Advocacy Agenda), then Wikipedia should remain neutral on those issues nevertheless; in any case we would as a community. I appreciate that those proposed changes are primarily aimed to direct editors to more 'appropriate' places and wouldn't mind to stop arguing in this sense to appease the debate, but my first and third points remain.
- You didn't address my third point, which is similar to what said other commentators in prior discussions: the recent events templates are disclaimers for readers, they're not there to remember policy; they are applied to pages where the content can be in full conformity to the policies and guidelines on recent events. Suggesting that there is a problem where there is none is bad; for our readers who are confused, and even more for our editors. It may even discourage editing. Cenarium (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Just out of curiosity, do you also object to notices in articles that say things like "Please help improve this article by expanding it.", "This page is a candidate to be copied to Wikibooks", or "This article contains instructions, advice, or how-to content. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to train. Please help improve this article either by rewriting the how-to content or by moving it to Wikiversity or Wikibooks."? Do you see these as "promotion" and a violation of NPOV? --Yair rand (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- (Disclaimer, for what it's worth: I am an arbcom member and bureaucrat at en.wikinews) Indeed. I fail to see how this proposed template is any more "promotional" than is {{transwiki}}. By the same reasoning, we should not promote ourselves either, or even encourage people to edit our articles such as in the templates {{cleanup}}, {{expand}}, etc. Also, I understand and agree with your argument that certain templates like {{recentism}} doesn't always refer to events that have happened within the last few days (and perhaps we shouldn't add the wikinews notice to them), but there are many others, such as {{current}} and {{recent death}}, that do. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- FYI: the criticism with respect to {{recentism}} (and elsewhere, for that matter) is easily addressed with the addition of a named parameter which could turn off the Wikinews message anyway. This whole line of criticism is really a completely irrelevant red herring, although it at least brought the subject up now so that we could talk about the issue prior to implementation. I don't think much of the other criticisms either, personally, but I found the point about the message possibly being irrelevant to be particularly artificial.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 04:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)- Yair rand: I don't 'object', I say that we should consider the issue of promotion, intended or implied. I think that the cleanup templates asking to edit wikipedia, or to transwikify, are in their current state not overly self-promoting and appropriate for our projects which rely on user participation. However, I would have a problem if it were overly promotional (e.g. "Wikipedia is the number 4 site on the web, you should edit it too!" and such). I think this is an aspect to consider in fund-raising campaigns too: not being overly self-promotional, and there's actually been much criticism on those grounds in the latest campaign. We should apply policies with due diligence and not indiscriminately, but it doesn't mean we should completely disregard them in some instances when it comes to us (for another example, undue weight given to some events where wikipedia is involved comes to my mind).
- Tempodivalse: By the same reasoning, we should consider (self-)promotion in regard to those templates, which is very reasonable, and as I said above, I would have a problem with such templates if they were overly self-promoting; but in their current state, they're OK to me. Policies should be applied on a case by case basis, neither indiscriminately, neither wholly ignored, and never on their sole basis.
- Ohms law: Not addressed like this, see unindented comment.
- Overall, in the present case, I do not believe that we should use recent events templates for promotion of wikinews, as too opportunist; however this is a reason among others for me to object, and the least - no need to make a big deal out of this. Cenarium (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- FYI: the criticism with respect to {{recentism}} (and elsewhere, for that matter) is easily addressed with the addition of a named parameter which could turn off the Wikinews message anyway. This whole line of criticism is really a completely irrelevant red herring, although it at least brought the subject up now so that we could talk about the issue prior to implementation. I don't think much of the other criticisms either, personally, but I found the point about the message possibly being irrelevant to be particularly artificial.
- (Disclaimer, for what it's worth: I am an arbcom member and bureaucrat at en.wikinews) Indeed. I fail to see how this proposed template is any more "promotional" than is {{transwiki}}. By the same reasoning, we should not promote ourselves either, or even encourage people to edit our articles such as in the templates {{cleanup}}, {{expand}}, etc. Also, I understand and agree with your argument that certain templates like {{recentism}} doesn't always refer to events that have happened within the last few days (and perhaps we shouldn't add the wikinews notice to them), but there are many others, such as {{current}} and {{recent death}}, that do. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Just out of curiosity, do you also object to notices in articles that say things like "Please help improve this article by expanding it.", "This page is a candidate to be copied to Wikibooks", or "This article contains instructions, advice, or how-to content. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to train. Please help improve this article either by rewriting the how-to content or by moving it to Wikiversity or Wikibooks."? Do you see these as "promotion" and a violation of NPOV? --Yair rand (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- I really don't see the problem. The Wikinews discussion has been done from a Wikinews viewpoint, and it has been agreed that WN would easily benefit from receiving such unwanted contributions from Wikipedia. With that out of the way, I come here to consider an entirely different question: What is right for Wikipedia? Had I honestly believed this was not in WP's best interests then with my WP hat on I would have opposed what I supported on Wikinews. Naysayers has no negative connotations; I am proud to be a naysayer on many subjects. I have, in fact, carefuly steered clear of the benefits to WN in this thread; they are irrelevant here. Obviously, since the idea initiated in The Other Place the benefits to WP were of relevence on loose terms over there ('is there any reason they require this?' - otherwise developing further would have been pointless).
- Is constructive. I have no further comment on that, other than that some slight reword may be required on the appropriate templates.
- That is largely already responded to earlier in this reply; although I again draw attention to Wikipedia:SISTER and Wikipedia:NOTNEWS in combination, noting my previous description of how these apply.
- Wikipedia aims to attract new contributors. That is fundamental to WP - and to all the projects. How discouraging is it to someone who sees 'may change rapidly' and thinks "wow cool!" and races to update with the latest, only to see Wikipedia:NOTNEWS chop it out? That is very sad, and means someone who would be interested in both projects would be end up a member of neither. I can't see this 'poaching' editors; rather, I see this as forming more users who are able to do as I do, and straddle accross both projects, trying to help them compliment each other the way they are supposed to. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- As far as Cenarium is concerned, I will debate no more on the points Xe raised; I feel others have cast reasonable doubt on Xe's interpretation of the purpose of the templates I propose modifying. Incidentally, good luck getting Flagged Revisions on Wikipedia – if you look into my background on Wikinews you'll see I've been involved for over five years; I was the driving force in getting FlaggedRevs implemented there, as well as a project 'crat, Arbcom member, checkuser, Wikimania 2008 attendee, press corps member & speaker. And, I recently resigned from the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee rather than play politics and toe a partei line (just since this seems the section for willy-waving). I'm not out to discourage people from contributing to Wikipedia, quite the contrary. Wikinews and Wikipedia are meant to be complimentary projects – as, in fact, are all WMF projects. I feel I am entitled to be proud of my contributions to Wikinews, which include several featured articles. Over the years I would estimate I've spent well over $1,000 of my own money supporting Wikinews - not including donations to the Wikimedia Foundation's general fund; I'm the first member of Wikimedia UK based in Scotland, and every single person in WMUK knows full-well where I stand and what I think. Too young to 'technically' qualify for the moniker curmudgeon; too old to still qualify for the once-applied label of "angry young man". Yes, I am impatient, I am unreasonable; to quote George Bernard Shaw, "[t]he reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." --Brian McNeil /talk 23:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Right, I'll tell you something of my experience too (I'm just a sysop here, fwiw). When you bring up some proposal, of course you'd like that everyone support it right away and that it gets implemented as soon as possible. But in most cases, there's going to be problems and such after the implementation, it's going to need some fixing, and it may well end up in complete failure; because you needed an outside point of view, that some other people made a real, serious review of your proposal, find potential problems, possible improvements and so. From my experience, criticism is good. I'm probably the only one commenting here who made an in-depth review, I actually spent hours on this by now. I've decided to oppose those proposed changes, I've given my justifications, this is fair and helpful. I've pointed out some pretty obvious flaws that would have gone unnoticed otherwise. Interestingly, sometimes when someone reviews an issue for real, rather than taking a cursory look and giving some nice but useless comments, their intentions (or more) are attacked.
- Re unrelated FlaggedRevs: My proposal (wikipedia:FPPR) is quite different from 'classic' flaggedrevs; there's consensus for a two-month trial but we're still waiting for the implementation. Cenarium (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- (unindent for clarity) I've checked all of the transclusions of {{obituary}}, here, and there is not a single one used on an article on a person who died in the latest few months, most of them died years or decades ago. So it is totally irrelevant that wikipedia is not a news site or that people can contribute to wikinews.
- I've checked all uses of {{Recentism}} in the recent months to see if it had been applied because of recent related news. The vast majority of uses are for articles or sections which put too much emphasis on the 2000s or latest decades. When it's been applied because of recent news, it's mostly trivial things like sport performances which then tend to accumulate, that's insufficient for a wikinews article. And in all cases, wikinews can be relevant only for the time just after the events, so you'd need a separate template to subst (like prods) so that it's hidden after some time. However, I'm still to find an example where it would be relevant. Incidentally, Wikinews is mentioned at Wikipedia:Recentism.
- In the situation Blood Red Sandman describes, then I'd better see him/her editing, being bold is actively encouraged. There's only going to be a small minority of cases where Wikipedia:NOTNEWS will be a reason in and of itself to revert the edit. That person could be made aware of wikinews, which is mentioned in the relevant guidelines anyway. We should not discourage people from editing by citing potential but very theoretical policy violations. Only when there's actually a problem we should say it, while those templates take the position by default that something is wrong, and this is not acceptable, per Wikipedia:BOLD, and because our policies are non-prescriptive. Cenarium (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- What about instances where these templates are applied, then the article is edited and the tag is removed? I think that it'd be a fairly obvious sample bias to use currently in use template instances as being completely representative here. Regardless, {{Current}} doesn't seem to suffer from any of the criticisms that you're bringing up, which begs the question: is your opposition centered on adding it to only a few of the templates, or is it a general objection? Do you criticize adding a link to Wikinews (or any other sister project) in general? How do you feel about the use of {{Wikinews}}, {{wiktionary}}, and similar templates? (Incidentally, User:Blood Red Sandman does plenty of content editing, from what I've seen. It'd be nice if we could avoid the personal stuff here).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)- If you read more carefully what I said you'll see that I was referring to the hypothetical person in the situation which Blood Red Sandman described (otherwise it wouldn't make any sense..). My objections are specific: my first point was about {{obituary}}, the second one about {{recentism}} and the later about the current events templates. The representative bias you allege (which I had considered) is negligible with obituary and recentism, since the removal of those templates is largely independent of the characteristics I evaluated, plus I had the time to check several times for new ones in the last few days and it didn't differ; and my objection for the current events templates was not based on a statistical analysis but on the non-disputable fact that not all content about recent events is removable per Wikipedia:NOTNEWS (probably only a small minority, but even if were half of it, it would not justify a default position against the coverage of recent events; said otherwise, we should not assume that any content on recent events is bad/to be deleted). I said already that I had no issue with sister links but I prefer them at the bottom of articles for consistency and because wikinews links become outdated very quickly. I use wiktionary often, and place the template and edit the project from time to time; fwiw I've redesigned Template:Wi. Really, I've no issue with sister projects... Cenarium (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Lies!
Seriously though, I'll re-read through the above tomorrow. It would be interesting to hear a counter-proposal and/or a suggestion to make this more acceptable, though.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)- The results are comforted by a very simple analysis of the situation: there are many articles about dead persons, and among those where {{obituary}} is applicable at a given time, a very small minority will be dead recently (in the last few days). Actually it's much more likely for such an article to be created in the form of an obituary initially, and much after the death, rather than existing prior to the death and being transformed to the point of reading like an obituary thereafter (this can be 'statistically' verified, :). For recentism, it's very similar: there are many articles covering content which can be subject to recentism (which can go from the latest hours to the latest decades or more), and at a given time, only a small minority will be about events from the last few days (so be relevant to wikinews).
- For the recent events templates, a possibility to make this more acceptable would be to create an option to enable the warning about NOTNEWS and wikinews (default not shown), which was the initial proposal, and would be much less problematic, however it should be enabled only when the content is found to be in violation of that policy (cf my objection that warning about policy should be done only when presently justified). Although in such cases, a template like recentism would probably fit, so there's no real need for this.
- Thus my suggestion would be to use an option in recentism which can be enabled to show the message about wikinews, but only for, say, 5 days after the given timestamp (which is supposed to be the date of the event), since after a few days wikinews is no longer relevant. A secondary template could be substed, so that we can quickly enter the current time as timestamp (like we do with Template:Prod). Cenarium (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Lies!
- If you read more carefully what I said you'll see that I was referring to the hypothetical person in the situation which Blood Red Sandman described (otherwise it wouldn't make any sense..). My objections are specific: my first point was about {{obituary}}, the second one about {{recentism}} and the later about the current events templates. The representative bias you allege (which I had considered) is negligible with obituary and recentism, since the removal of those templates is largely independent of the characteristics I evaluated, plus I had the time to check several times for new ones in the last few days and it didn't differ; and my objection for the current events templates was not based on a statistical analysis but on the non-disputable fact that not all content about recent events is removable per Wikipedia:NOTNEWS (probably only a small minority, but even if were half of it, it would not justify a default position against the coverage of recent events; said otherwise, we should not assume that any content on recent events is bad/to be deleted). I said already that I had no issue with sister links but I prefer them at the bottom of articles for consistency and because wikinews links become outdated very quickly. I use wiktionary often, and place the template and edit the project from time to time; fwiw I've redesigned Template:Wi. Really, I've no issue with sister projects... Cenarium (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- What about instances where these templates are applied, then the article is edited and the tag is removed? I think that it'd be a fairly obvious sample bias to use currently in use template instances as being completely representative here. Regardless, {{Current}} doesn't seem to suffer from any of the criticisms that you're bringing up, which begs the question: is your opposition centered on adding it to only a few of the templates, or is it a general objection? Do you criticize adding a link to Wikinews (or any other sister project) in general? How do you feel about the use of {{Wikinews}}, {{wiktionary}}, and similar templates? (Incidentally, User:Blood Red Sandman does plenty of content editing, from what I've seen. It'd be nice if we could avoid the personal stuff here).
- Would you care to explain in what way WP:CANVASS is violated? Cross-project co-operation is a cross-project issue. That's like notifying a WikiProject of an AfD. It is in each project's interests to know how they are used by each other. As for Jimbo, he had already expressed an opinion and hence an interest. Does my opinion cease to count because I contribute somewhere this affects? I have edited here since 2006; I am a long-serving WP admin. I am also a WN admin and Arbcom. Do you really view these as incompatible where interlinking and Wikipedia:SISTER/Wikipedia:NOTNEWS is discussed? Surely contributors to both projects are best suited to appreciating the intricate differences - and overlaps - in their respective missions. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- (Unident) So, can we all be in agreement that it is essentially a good idea, but there may be issues with ensuring the text appears only when relevant? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Strong support. Very sensible. Wikinews exists for a reason. Durova409 16:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Strong support - I can't see why anyone would oppose the general principle of this, to be honest. Wikipedia and Wikinews are sister projects, with the same fundamental goal - to spread knowledge freely. If we don't want content on one Wikimedia project, then why not direct that attention to a project that does want that content? We can haggle over the details as problems emerge, but let's give this a go and see what comes out of it. Mike Peel (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- I am fundamentally opposed to templates which take the default position that there is something wrong in writing about recent events, and mentioning wikinews while most of the time, it will be irrelevant because the event was days ago. However, I have nothing against collaborating with Wikinews. Cenarium (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Srong oppose. This is a solution looking for a problem. If people are worried about recentism, we should add Wikipedia:BLP1E to the speedy deletion criteria: that would solve several problems all at once! If a page reads like an obituary, it should be tagged with {{inappropriate tone}}; but let's not forget that obituaries are often useful sources of information for biographies, and that includes obituaries written fifty years ago. There appears to be some idea that an item cannot have a Wikipedia article just because it happens to be in the news, which is, frankly, ridiculous: it is ignoring our readers for the sake of an artificial criterion. Physchim62 (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. Unless you're saying that no recent news should be in articles, which I consider absurd, the new text is inappropriate for most of the templates. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I must ask both the users above to avoid creating strawmen. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Strongly support the principle even if language may need to be adjusted. Speaking with my Wikipedia hat on (before someone brings up the fact that I am indeed an admin on Wikinews), policy is very clear that Wikipedia is not a news site. There is nothing wrong—quite the contrary—in having the most recent information available on Wikipedia; however as an editor I am aware of the huge difference in writing styles between an encyclopaedia and a news site. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support - Directing people to the right Wikimedia project is a good thing, and the other projects do need more
advertisingexposure. But the wording should probably be tweaked, since the main purpose of the current events templates is to inform readers that those articles might be rapidly updated at the moment. We don't want to discourage people to edit those articles. --David Göthberg (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
News belongs on Wikinews, section break
- Comment This template is, once again, not intended to discourage people from adding information about recent events. It is about *how* the information is presented. On Wikipedia, things can be written on things that have happened, heck, several minutes ago, but should be written from a historical perspective, whereas on Wikinews, they are written from a very recent perspective, like what one would find in a newspaper. The latter style is inappropriate for Wikipedia, according to Wikipedia:NOTNEWS; if people want to write things from a more "recent" point of view, as i've seen many Wikipedia newbies do, it *is* more appropriate at Wikinews and I feel that contributors should know that there is a place where certain info is more appropriate so they can contribute there, rather than their contributions be lost/reverted altogether. I frankly don't see what's "discouraging" about the template; for instance, we indicate that many other types of writing styles are not appropriate for Wikipedia (such as Wikipedia:NOTHOWTO and Template:Howto), and actually redirect people to Wikiversity/Wikibooks to write about topics in that manner, so why not extend that to Wikinews as well? If you believe the proposal implies that *no* recent events coverage is appropriate, please suggest a better way to phrase that. I think my original suggestion of the statement "Although Wikipedia accepts coverage of recent events, it should be written from a historical perspective; in-depth, news-style reportage is more appropriate on Wikinews" with a link to Wikipedia:NOTNEWS solved this rather well.
The "It's irrelevant because the templates don't always refer to very recent events" argument doesn't make much sense either to me; sure, templates like {{obituary}} aren't necessarily used on such (and perhaps we shouldn't add the wikinews notice to them, or just make it an optional parameter), but there are many others, such as {{recent death}} and {{current event}}, that always do; imho that negates that argument. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)- That last argument was specific to recentism and obituary.
- The big difference is that Template:Howto and other cleanup templates like recentism are applied only when it has been observed that in the current state, the article doesn't respect policies or guidelines. While if we put this in current events templates, then it assumes that there is something wrong inherently, initially, with writing about recent news. This is incompatible with Wikipedia:BOLD and the nature of our policies which are not prescriptive. The policy message of your proposed rewording is strikingly similar to that of recentism, so it would be akin to put a recentism template with mention of wikinews after all recent events templates. Again, this assumes that there's something wrong while there's not in most cases. Only when justified we should make prominent mention of policy, and never suggest that there is a problem where there is none.
- It may not be intended to discourage people from editing, but in effect, it will do it. As I said, I wouldn't object to mentioning wikinews in the template recentism, but only when relevant, not days or more after the event; now that would be in line with what we do with other sister projects. It only just require some template magic similar to Template:Dated prod so that the message about wikinews is displayed only for a few days after the event (if we simply put it in option, then people would forget and it would remain there). Cenarium (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have to say, the one thing that this has started me thinking about is the possibility that we should probably TFD {{obituary}}. Being worried that a link to Wikinews is incompatible with Wikipedia:BOLD, or that it would somehow discourage people from editing, strikes me as a preposterous argument. The wording could certainly be tweaked, and the templates that the statement would be used on could definitely be changed, but to take those criticisms in order to use them for panning the entire proposal is unnecessarily dramatizing the issue. The idea is simply to provide a link and a nudge, saying: "if you want to, we have a content space over here for news items".
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)- User:Ohms law pretty much sums up my position on it, although he phrased it much better than I could have. I just *don't* see how the inconspicuous link, quitetly informing readers that certain styles of writing are inappropriate for Wikipedia, can be that harmful. I still think the proposed wording in my above posts solves any concerns with "discouraging editing" that some people perceive. It seems that it would be a good thing, and easier on us, not to have to bother with perpetually reverting newbies' obituary-style additions to our articles regarding recently deceased people (which I've seen quite frequently) by instead pointing them to a sister project where said additions are appropriate. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to any link in any form, in fact I have proposed an alternative. To say it differently, I think the policy message driven by the proposed wordings is uncalled for in general. Making pre-emptive mention of policy, such as by alluding that something is more appropriate at some other place that on Wikipedia, will deter some editing, some of which could be bad, but some of which could be good too. That's why we make mention of policy only when justified and not indiscriminately, and why we have specific templates like recentism, obituary and so on instead of a list of things to do and not to do that all editors must read prior to editing. Bringing up Wikipedia:NOTNEWS for all articles on recent events seems indiscriminate, and I fail to see a wording which could be appropriate. For example 'in-depth' can be misleading: for 'news' events, Wikipedia often serves as a source for 'background' information, and presents a wider view of the topic, which could be considered 'in-depth' (and Wikipedia is often applauded for this), while news reports are more superficial, on the moment. Well that's the difference between encyclopedic style and news style which you try to point out, but it's not really feasible in a one-line sentence, and can give impressions that were not intended, that can be wrong or contradictory, especially when used indiscriminately. Instead, I propose to continue using {{recentism}}, when justified; with an option for temporarily mentioning wikinews. Cenarium (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- User:Ohms law pretty much sums up my position on it, although he phrased it much better than I could have. I just *don't* see how the inconspicuous link, quitetly informing readers that certain styles of writing are inappropriate for Wikipedia, can be that harmful. I still think the proposed wording in my above posts solves any concerns with "discouraging editing" that some people perceive. It seems that it would be a good thing, and easier on us, not to have to bother with perpetually reverting newbies' obituary-style additions to our articles regarding recently deceased people (which I've seen quite frequently) by instead pointing them to a sister project where said additions are appropriate. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have to say, the one thing that this has started me thinking about is the possibility that we should probably TFD {{obituary}}. Being worried that a link to Wikinews is incompatible with Wikipedia:BOLD, or that it would somehow discourage people from editing, strikes me as a preposterous argument. The wording could certainly be tweaked, and the templates that the statement would be used on could definitely be changed, but to take those criticisms in order to use them for panning the entire proposal is unnecessarily dramatizing the issue. The idea is simply to provide a link and a nudge, saying: "if you want to, we have a content space over here for news items".
- Comment - Yesterday we added a line about Wikinews in the system message that is shown when creating a new article: MediaWiki:Newarticletext. (Note, that message looks very different in different namespaces.) See the discussion on its talkpage. --David Göthberg (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support
People seem to think here that sister projects must be treated like any other site and that linking to them must follow standard linking guidlines. Wikipedia:SISTER as it stands does not say that and in fact encourages linking whenever useful. All the foundation projects function together, NPOV only applies where the project is talked about and discussed (see Wikipedia:SELF), rather than merely linked. I agree that promoting Wikinews on an editorial level (not on a content level) would help their cause and reduce recentism here.--Ipatrol (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)- This is an important distinction, but we've extended our pledge for neutrality beyond the content level. For a recent case, see Template talk:Refimprove#RFC: Should a link to a commercial search engine be included in the template Refimprove. The issue is on whether it's actually useful, it may be good to let people know of wikinews but not at the expense of discouraging editing. Cenarium (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Does it matter? NPOV has no real bearing except to the actual wording should we decide to implement. Wikipedia:SISTER is pretty clear; where appropriate, do it. If you interpreted NPOV in that way, WP:SISTER would have to be nominated for deletion. While the link is interesting (thanks!), I do think the distinction is big enough that it probably has no direct bearing. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)
- Yes, it has no direct bearing. Neutrality would matter more if promotion were the only or major intent, but this is not the case. Here it's to point readers to more appropriate venue for some content, and for sister links, it's to provide related content. Cenarium (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Does it matter? NPOV has no real bearing except to the actual wording should we decide to implement. Wikipedia:SISTER is pretty clear; where appropriate, do it. If you interpreted NPOV in that way, WP:SISTER would have to be nominated for deletion. While the link is interesting (thanks!), I do think the distinction is big enough that it probably has no direct bearing. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)
- This is an important distinction, but we've extended our pledge for neutrality beyond the content level. For a recent case, see Template talk:Refimprove#RFC: Should a link to a commercial search engine be included in the template Refimprove. The issue is on whether it's actually useful, it may be good to let people know of wikinews but not at the expense of discouraging editing. Cenarium (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Unless I'm mistaken (which is a significant possibility), there seems to be pretty clear consensus at the moment to have some kind of Wikinews link in at least some articles with these templates. There are some concerns that the wording could have unwanted effects and that an option to show the extra note with the default being the current version would be better than having the extra note shown by default, but there's pretty clear consensus that something like this should be done. Would it make sense to temporarily change the templates to have a switch-on version of the added note for now, until someone can think of a better wording and we can figure out whether having a switch-on or switch-off addition is better? --Yair rand (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- I say yes, that would make perfect sense, but then I'm a partisan here...
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)- I too say consensus seems pretty clear. I attempted to clarify that above, but I think people missed it in the midst of the long discussion. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 09:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think the reasons for not adding it on obituary and recentism (without time option) have now been agreed upon. If we add an option to the recent templates, then we should think of when it should be used. I'd say when the adding editor feels that the article contravenes Wikipedia:NOTNEWS, similarly to when we add cleanup templates. Cenarium (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- So... any news (pun completely intentional)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)- Yeah, this discussion has stalled; any chance we can work on getting this implemented in some form, as consensus generally seems to be to do so? Tempodivalse [talk] 03:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- So... any news (pun completely intentional)
- I think the reasons for not adding it on obituary and recentism (without time option) have now been agreed upon. If we add an option to the recent templates, then we should think of when it should be used. I'd say when the adding editor feels that the article contravenes Wikipedia:NOTNEWS, similarly to when we add cleanup templates. Cenarium (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- I too say consensus seems pretty clear. I attempted to clarify that above, but I think people missed it in the midst of the long discussion. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 09:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- I say yes, that would make perfect sense, but then I'm a partisan here...
- I think the template(s) should be used in this manner on any event that is still unfolding and where it is already suitable to have the template(s) in the present form. There could be a date set and this could be reset whenever there were upadates; at such time as we reached 2-3 days from that date the Wikinews section of the template would 'expire' and disappear. This is why we are having the wording issue; doing it only where there may be a Wikipedia:NOTNEWS vio substantially changes the proposal. However, I do like where you're going with that; perhaps a better idea would be to create a brand-new {{Notnews}}, which would be a tag for when there was a perceived problem and would read something like:
It may be more appropriate to cover this event in detail on Wikinews instead, to prevent issues with recentism. If you are unsure if it is appropriate on this article, please be Wikipedia:BOLD and try it or ask at the talk page.
Again, the Wikinews bit would expire 2-3 days after whatever date was given. How does that proposal strike everyone? To be clear, this idea is not intended as an alternative to the above - which consensus is generally for, with a nod to wording - but to compliment it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- I really tend to agree with Blood Red Sandman here; yes, I do have a somewhat 'selfish' issue of trying to promote contribution to Wikinews. It strikes me as a good compromise to have a Wikinews-specific message be time related. If there is an "added=<date>" parameter then, addition of such cautions can appear for a limited time. I'd wonder about having an alternative parameter "reported=<date>", and possibly even a "wikinews=suppressed". The contexts within which such templates may be used would merit all three of these options. For example, labelling someone's hagiographic bio as an obiturary may have no relevance to Wikinews if the death was decades ago; however, it could be as a result of a new report into the circumstances of someone's death decades ago, and be news - meriting a "reported=" parameter.
- My template-fu is not at expert level, I'd be delighted to see someone take the copies of these templates I've created and work in solutions for more complex situations. I do, based on many of the above comments, think there's a need for those contributing significantly on Wikipedia to go back to the original templates and think through the wording they have. It's frustrating to me how slowly some things work on Wikipedia, but I'm happy to see that hashed about and sooner (please, rather than later) some proposal that has a reasonably wide consensus be put forward.
WP:NOTNEWS->Wikinews Break
- As I say, take copies of the templates and, well, be bold!. --Brian McNeil /talk 19:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Having a timer automatically eliminate the message after a certain time limit is not possible because of the way pages are cached; the template will only be re-processed when the page is edited. A wikinews=suppressed option could be done by putting {{#ifeq:{{{wikinews}}}|suppressed||Wikipedia is not a news site; in-depth...}} in the template. --Yair rand (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- We manage it somehow on http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Template:Abandoned, although you can subst it as well. Then here there is {{Prod}}, which only works when substed unless I'm very much mistaken (I rarely use PROD, prefering AfD since low-traffic articles can just vanish under PROD without anyone realising). Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know exactly what those templates do, but I'm pretty sure that #if,# ifeq, and #switch functions are only recalculated when the page is edited. To have a specific message go away after a certain amount of time (which is what I'm assuming Brian McNeil was suggesting) the page would have to be edited or purged after the set time for the timer to update the message. (There's a decent possibility that I'm wrong about this, though.) --Yair rand (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- An awful lot is done by bots following recent changes. In such a way it is possible to have a log of pages to recheck, do a null edit, and expire the template - or section thereof - as required. --Brian McNeil /talk 19:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know exactly what those templates do, but I'm pretty sure that #if,# ifeq, and #switch functions are only recalculated when the page is edited. To have a specific message go away after a certain amount of time (which is what I'm assuming Brian McNeil was suggesting) the page would have to be edited or purged after the set time for the timer to update the message. (There's a decent possibility that I'm wrong about this, though.) --Yair rand (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- We manage it somehow on http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Template:Abandoned, although you can subst it as well. Then here there is {{Prod}}, which only works when substed unless I'm very much mistaken (I rarely use PROD, prefering AfD since low-traffic articles can just vanish under PROD without anyone realising). Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Having a timer automatically eliminate the message after a certain time limit is not possible because of the way pages are cached; the template will only be re-processed when the page is edited. A wikinews=suppressed option could be done by putting {{#ifeq:{{{wikinews}}}|suppressed||Wikipedia is not a news site; in-depth...}} in the template. --Yair rand (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
So... Who might be willing to operate such a bot? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Bump thread to avoid being archived. This needs to be implemented ... Tempodivalse [talk] 20:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Why doesn't someone just add the stuff to the templates and then put in a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests? --Yair rand (talk) 05:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete all lowercase -> uppercase redirects
I'd like to propose that all redirects of lowercase terms to their uppercase (often proper noun) equivalents be deleted. Possibly a bit extreme, but bear with me.For example, if I type "George w. bush" into the search field and click Go, my address bar will say ".../wiki/George_w._bush" and the article will be titled "George W. Bush", but with a subtitle saying "(Redirected from George w. bush)", because there is a redirect from "George w. bush" to "George W. Bush". However, if I type "rick perry" and click Go, I will be taken directly to Rick Perry because the article Rick perry does not exist. In my opinion, this is the preferred behaviour.
MediaWiki automatically makes the change, and does so more neatly and seamlessly than we do manually by adding such a redundant redirect. There must be thousands of such redirects, mostly for major subjects with proper nouns, which are not only unnecessary but actually negatively impact, if only in a small way, the Wikipedia experience. Furthermore, they would have to be manually updated should the proper noun article be moved, adding an extra layer of unnecessary annoyance. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 04:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- "they would have to be manually updated" I take it you haven't encountered the double-redirect fixing bots. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- These redirects came from somewhere. Presumably people are under the false impression that they're needed. I don't see that changing, so if we deleted the existing ones, they'd keep getting created. Unless I've missed something.Equazcion (talk) 06:32, 26 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- If we could have a bot perform the proposed task (i.e., identifying unneeded lowercase redirects and either listing them for deletion or, in the case of an adminbot, deleting them), then that might address the issue of continuing creation of such redirects... In light of Ohms' point above, I should probably amend my comment to include: "as long as the bot is active". :) -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Redirects also support incoming external links; I don't see the problem with leaving them in place. Josh Parris 06:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- As well as internal ones, I notice. Maybe it's better to keep mistakenly-cased links blue rather than red? Not sure myself. But the external links are probably a better point anyway. Equazcion (talk) 06:47, 26 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- For "normal" redirects this obviously applies (and is embodied in the RFD policy). In this particular case, since the software itself takes care of the problem, it's probably actually better not to have a redirect. That's why the OP actually made the proposal.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 06:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)- The software only takes care of it for article titles typed into the Go box. Internal and external links don't work without correct casing. Equazcion (talk) 07:40, 26 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- For external links, I've personally always discounted this criticism. If our pages change, then that should break hard-coded links to the page from outside of the site. Keep im nind that visitors to such a "broken" external link won't get anything like a 404 error, they will land on the search/edit new page, so it's not as though they'll be lost. For internal wikilinks... in this particular narrow case, I really wonder if we would be better off if these sorts of links were redlinked. I mean, it's not as though the example above for rick perry is grammatically correct, after all. This is the only aspect of this proposal that gives me pause in actually supporting it, though.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 08:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- For external links, I've personally always discounted this criticism. If our pages change, then that should break hard-coded links to the page from outside of the site. Keep im nind that visitors to such a "broken" external link won't get anything like a 404 error, they will land on the search/edit new page, so it's not as though they'll be lost. For internal wikilinks... in this particular narrow case, I really wonder if we would be better off if these sorts of links were redlinked. I mean, it's not as though the example above for rick perry is grammatically correct, after all. This is the only aspect of this proposal that gives me pause in actually supporting it, though.
- The software only takes care of it for article titles typed into the Go box. Internal and external links don't work without correct casing. Equazcion (talk) 07:40, 26 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- For "normal" redirects this obviously applies (and is embodied in the RFD policy). In this particular case, since the software itself takes care of the problem, it's probably actually better not to have a redirect. That's why the OP actually made the proposal.
- As well as internal ones, I notice. Maybe it's better to keep mistakenly-cased links blue rather than red? Not sure myself. But the external links are probably a better point anyway. Equazcion (talk) 06:47, 26 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Support. I've been meaning to suggest the same thing myself for months.
(Mixed case redirects would need to be left in place, eg The Ascent of Man needs a lowercase redirect (The ascent of man), but all-uppercase targets don't need all-lowercase redirects, eg My bloody valentine)-- Quiddity (talk) 07:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)- Not so. I had some trouble finding an article where there was no such redirect in place, but try searching for "barefoot in athens". No redirect, mixed case, and yet the correct article still appears. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 08:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- The software automatically fixes case mis-matches for searches; it doesn't take care of the problem for someone actually making an internal link with faulty capitalisation... Shimgray | talk | 08:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- If an editor adds to an article a link to an incorrect capitalization of another article's title, is it better for that link to appear blue (and thereby give the impression that all is right) or red (and thereby indicate that the linked title does not exist)? In my opinion, it would be better for the link to be red, which would prompt the editor to fix it. -- Black Falcon (talk) 08:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. Nobody should be referring to proper nouns in lowercase in our articles, either. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 08:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- If this is your concern, don't worry about it. Tag these redirects with {{R from incorrect name}} and a bot will fix them - see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WildBot 4. Josh Parris 08:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- How does that address the concern that the redirect is actually getting in the way, in this narrow case? That's the whole reason that WildBot could gain approval for that task, is that those redirects are somewhat harmful. As a matter of fact, seeing as how WildBot already has approval to fix cases that have been identified as using these sorts of redirect links, that tends to push me even further into the support camp for this proposal.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 08:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC) - Yes, I think this is a good idea (though not an urgent priority). But the bot should always check that there are no incoming internal links for a particular capitalization before deleting it. (The bot won't be able to distinguish between legitimate and erroneous alternative capitalizations, so it shouldn't make any existing links go red.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe we could have a template to add to the redirect to tell the bot "no, we've given this some thought, and it really should be here"... —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 09:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- It should be fairly simple for such a bot to: (1) generate a list of all targeted redirects with incoming links, and avoid touching any that do have such links (a human editor could check them); and (2) avoid touching other redirects on a Whitelist. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- You appear to misunderstand the bot. It bypasses all valid redirects marked with {{R from incorrect name}}, altering the originating wikilinks to point instead at the redirect target. So, if someone linked to George w. bush and that redirect was marked with {{R from incorrect name}} the bot changes the article to read George W. Bush. Editors can use incorrect names, the encyclopedia remains robust until the bot fixes the link, and incorrect names are generally not used. Everybody wins. Josh Parris 05:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Putting a tiny hatnote of text at the top of the page is hardly getting in the way. Josh Parris 05:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe we could have a template to add to the redirect to tell the bot "no, we've given this some thought, and it really should be here"... —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 09:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- How does that address the concern that the redirect is actually getting in the way, in this narrow case? That's the whole reason that WildBot could gain approval for that task, is that those redirects are somewhat harmful. As a matter of fact, seeing as how WildBot already has approval to fix cases that have been identified as using these sorts of redirect links, that tends to push me even further into the support camp for this proposal.
- If this is your concern, don't worry about it. Tag these redirects with {{R from incorrect name}} and a bot will fix them - see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WildBot 4. Josh Parris 08:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Objection - not everyone uses the search for finding articles. :) Until we get to such a point that Rick perry will automatically point to Rick Perry in wikilinks and links to the full URL too, then we should keep these redirects in place. I'm happy for bots can go around and update the links as appropriate to avoid the redirects, but that doesn't help for new ones. Note that sometimes it's not particularly obvious that the capitalization in a link is wrong - not every case like this is a person's name. Mike Peel (talk) 09:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- There are a very few cases where capitalization is ambiguous, and redirects are warranted there. I'd say 95%+ of these redirects are unnecessary per my original argument, though. One case where it might be warranted is in various capitalizations of in/the/and/etc., like the example I mentioned earlier, where both "Barefoot in Athens" and "Barefoot In Athens" would be acceptable. However, these are not lowercase redirects, since the redirect title has some capitalized words as well, so it need not be effected by the change. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs)
- Objection redirects are useful and redirects are cheap. Though where there are incoming links from an incorrect capitalisation as opposed to a correct one I can see a case for fixing them. In some cases there are edit histories behind the redirect or disputes that have only been resolved by making redirects for all valid permutations of the casing. ϢereSpielChequers 09:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- These last two replies seem to have ignored the commentary above...
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 10:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)- The one where you said changed article names should break external links, and improperly-cased internal and external links shouldn't rightly work to begin with? I don't really follow your reasoning there. If Wikipedia is less finicky about links than other websites are, I'd see that as a good thing, rather than something that should be fixed so that links become broken just as often as they do on other sites. Equazcion (talk) 13:48, 26 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- These last two replies seem to have ignored the commentary above...
- Oppose any blanket deletion, and this should really be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirect. –xenotalk 18:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Probably true. Since discussion is already established here, I'll just post a link to this section on the talk page over there. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 00:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Terrible idea. Redirects are cheap and they don't hurt anyone. And you risk breaking links people might have put on their sites, bookmarks, etc. All because you want the title to redirect transparently. And remember: the auto-fixing of links on 'Go' only works for go. Type 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_perry' into your browser and you'll go to a dead page. Of course it could be fixed, but I wouldn't count on it anytime soon. ^demon[omg plz] 01:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose this will mess up too many internal links and as mentioned could screw up attribution requirements and so be a copyright infringement, removing people's attributions. For some titles it is not clear what is correct, so both should be kept, eg Blue wren or Blue Wren. Manual more careful deletions can be done if there are no incoming links or history. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't use the search bar. Plus redirects are cheap and that bit of text on the top of the page does not detract from the reader's experience. Tim1357 (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- An alternative solution... If people are deeply concerned that capitalisation redirects cause a problem in one specific circumstance, viz the searchbox, then the best approach would be to find a way of getting around them in that specific circumstance. Rather than delete all capitalisation redirects, for example, we could ask someone to write a piece of code to suppress them in the search-box autocomplete code. Problem solved without producing further problems. Shimgray | talk | 11:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support Let's do it now before we end up with 10 billion redirects. These redirects served a purpose before search box becomes case sensitive. Of course they can be some exceptions but for person names we certainly should do that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose and question/alternative proposal. I've thought about it a while. It looks like a neat idea, but it is true that it could break links (within WP and elsewhere) and it doesn't seem worth the hassle. There is a real -if small- problem, that is: redirects do not really "redirect": the URL is indeed unchanged. This can be somehow annoying when one wants, say, to copy and paste somewhere the correct URL to the Wikipedia page. Why aren't redirects real redirects? Can we propose to the developers to make them so (maintaining the reidrect subtitle)? --Cyclopiatalk 13:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose any blanket deletion. Use for wikilinks, exernal links, tracking the history of a redirect (when ambiguous), maintaining discussion for the redirects (when ambiguous), etc. Well worth their cost. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose blanket bot fix but Support as a general principle - The example given by the nominator holds up for the names of many people but not for other things (or all people e.g. Bell hooks, where many will spell her name as Bell Hooks in wiki links). An example of an appropriate redirect that a blanket ban or "fix" on such redirects would break is Irish Nationalism vs. Irish nationalism. Both capitalisation are correct. The current manual of style is to use the non-capitalised version but a redirect from the capitalised version is necessary because it is quite common for editors to spell it like that (and equally correct). -- RA (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose proposal, I really don't see how this will help. How does it hurt for there to be a redirect? Our hit counter shows that George w. bush typically gets over ten thousand hits daily; why would you want to tell those 10,000+ wannabe readers that "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name"? Nyttend (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- I believe the hit counter automatically follows redirects, the properly capitalized page has the same numbers. Mr.Z-man 18:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Per Nyttend. Useight (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Who apparently doesn't understand the proposal - no redirect is needed in order to get from george w. bush to George W. Bush, so those 10,000 people would still get to where they are going.--Kotniski (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would oppose deleting current redirects since this would just be arbitrarily breaking links. But I would support a prohibition or restriction on future redirects like this for proper nouns. Mr.Z-man 18:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per ^demon. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 10:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose I have recently created a new page which redirects to S-L-M, but if that was moved (Which I might do in a moment), that would explain my reason. Minimac (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose, no real advantages (who cares that there is a small "redirected from X" link at the top?). Incorrectly capitalized names are a problem with e.g. Flemish and Dutch names (Flemish generally capitalize intermediate "Van" or "De", Dutch don't), so the incorrect Jan Van Eyck has over 30 article links, and the incorrect Vincent Van Gogh has more than 100. Bob de Moor is the name used on the English Wikipedia, but the Dutch (who should know how it is) use Bob De Moor([3]). If (as suggested above) people see a redlinked incorrect name, there is as much chance of them correcting the redlink as of them creating a new (duplicate) article at the incorrect spelling instead. With the redirects, we avoid the duplicate article at incorrect names. Fram (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. This has been discussed before and rejected. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 4/template:R from other capitalisation. -- Ϫ 14:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- No offense, you are completely wrong about this. Redirects are not copies of the original article, and they do not take up excessive space. But even if they did there is a general principle Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- I was talking about the squid (cache) servers. See a discussion here. ManishEarthTalk • Stalk 03:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- It's true that having copies of redirects in cache may increase the miss rate for other articles, but the site admins will be the ones to complain if the miss rate is too high. As a regular user, when was the last time that you looked to see what the cache miss rate on the squids is? This is why it's better to simply not worry about performance. Even if the miss rate was too high, the site admins have lots of ways to fix is (allocating more storage for the cache, or adding an additional tier of squids, for example). — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- I was talking about the squid (cache) servers. See a discussion here. ManishEarthTalk • Stalk 03:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- No offense, you are completely wrong about this. Redirects are not copies of the original article, and they do not take up excessive space. But even if they did there is a general principle Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- comment What was the original rationale, does anyone know, for making article-name-matching case-sensitive in the first place? In my opinion, whatever the reason was, experience has shown that it's more trouble than it's worth; when two pages have names distinguished only by case this is almost always a bad thing and should be fixed by renaming or disambiguating one or both of them. I know this is radical and would entail considerable work on the part of both developers and editors, but — how about just making the names case-insensitive? --Trovatore (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia started off using CamelCase!
As for your question, I think we generally redirect case-variations to the main article, but the only example I can think of offhand is Pattern Recognition. Hmmm, Dead air vs Dead Air vs Dead air (disambiguation) doesn't follow that. Odd.... -- Quiddity (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)- That was before I knew about Wikipedia, but yes, I know about the CamelCase legacy. Surely that can't be very important anymore, though. In some cases there are GFDL attributions encoded in the histories yada yada yada but the abstract question should be, Is case sensitivity still worthwhile? If it isn't, then the question, What if anything should we do about it? would be the next one.
- My assertion is that pairs like Dead air/Dead Air are bad and should be fixed. In this case I think Dead Air should be moved to Dead Air (novel) — either that, or Dead air, which seems a rather marginal article, should be merged somewhere. --Trovatore (talk) 03:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia started off using CamelCase!
- I also don't agree with the proposal. I don't use the search bar; I usually simply re-type the article name into the URL bar. Until the software accepts that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_washington without a redirect, the redirect needs to stay. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have to say that seems like doing it the hard way. Are you using a text-based browser or something? --Trovatore (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- No, but the search bar is not always the most convenient place to type. I have to scroll to see the search box, but the URL bar is always there. Also, there are web tools that make links of that form. Also, I can type the title into the search box and type "Go" instead of "Search", and that will make the link above. This makes sense since I don't want to search for an article; I know we have the article, and I want to "go" to it. I agree that it would be nice if the software tried a case-insensitve match if a case-sensitive match fails. This is discussed at Case sensitivity of page names. There seems to be some issue that Tim Starling was worried about with that, but I don't understand it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oh yes, of course I meant using "Go", not "Search". I use the "Go" button easily twenty times as often as the "Search" button. The "Go" button does in fact fall back to case-insensitive matching. It's only URLs and internal links that don't. --Trovatore (talk) 03:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- (Well, that is, I don't literally use the "Go" button. I enter text into the search box and hit the "Enter" key. That's the same as using the "Go" button.) --Trovatore (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- About scrolling to see the search box.. you can simply use a keyboard shortcut to bring the cursor directly into the search box from wherever you are on the page.. so you don't need to scroll to it. -- Ϫ 16:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I can see the shortcut keys don't work on my browser (vector skin on firefox 3 on linux with a sun type 6 keyboard), and I am not going to spend much time investigating how to set up modifier keys in order to access the shortcuts. The URL bar is conveniently at the top of the browser all the time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- No, but the search bar is not always the most convenient place to type. I have to scroll to see the search box, but the URL bar is always there. Also, there are web tools that make links of that form. Also, I can type the title into the search box and type "Go" instead of "Search", and that will make the link above. This makes sense since I don't want to search for an article; I know we have the article, and I want to "go" to it. I agree that it would be nice if the software tried a case-insensitve match if a case-sensitive match fails. This is discussed at Case sensitivity of page names. There seems to be some issue that Tim Starling was worried about with that, but I don't understand it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have to say that seems like doing it the hard way. Are you using a text-based browser or something? --Trovatore (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Soft-block of school IPs.
School IPs are a huge problem: for every one good edit from an IP (if we get one at all), we get about 50 vandalism edits. Sure, they can be blocked for upwards of a year or two at a time, but by then , they've already made a massive nuisance of themselves. So, I suggest identified school IPs be soft-blocked. They can still edit, if they want to create an account. Since practically every edit from a school IP is Johnny Nosepicker killing time by replacing random pages with 'FUCK' 500 times, they probably won't even bother creating an account; they only log on because they can do it anonymously.This isn't an question of assuming bad faith, this is a question of putting our foot down and saying 'enough'. Soft-blocking school IPs would literally cut vandalism in half. HalfShadow 19:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- How could pre-emptive blocking ever possibly not be assuming bad faith? --Cybercobra (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose, per Wikipedia:5P. –xenotalk 22:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- I am relatively new here, but already I have found an instance of a registered user connecting (from school, or course) without logging in so he wouldn't be tarnished by his wilder edits. Quite aside from the question of whether anonymity is a good thing or a bad thing, schools (I am shocked to observe!) seem to be a plague of hit-and-run immaturity. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. If a school is a real problem, do as I have done and contact the school with the diff. They act on the information in my experience. Getting your retaliation in first is using a sledgehammer to do something or other inappropriate. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Xeno. We can handle individual schools if and when needed but we should never simply block an institution just because their members might vandalize. The project is built on the very idea that everyone should be able to contribute easily without having to create an account and the proposal here conflicts with this basic principle. If we start now with schools, how long until someone says "well, it worked for schools, let's just ban IPs altogether and we can get rid of much more vandalism that way"? That anyone can edit is a founding principle after all. Regards SoWhy 22:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Support It's not a block-- anybody can edit by merely picking out a password, making ten good edits, and waiting 4 days. Of course, that's not good for vandals who are into immediate gratification. The real problem, of course, is that we don't treat school IPs like other IPs, and we don't treat IP-users like we do nameusers. It's rare to find ANY kind of long block (more than 48 hours) on IP users, even when not identified as shared or school. So it's already vandal paradise. A nameuser can be indef blocked for being rude to an admin, but I've seen IP users respond to block threats with "suck my *&^%". And you know what? It still doesn't earn them a long block. My personal advice for wiki-vandals: whatever you do, just don't register a name. Don't put anything on your userpage, and don't put anything on your TALK page that suggests you might NOT be a school library. Let admin imaginations run wild, thinking they're about to harm a whole junior high full of inquiring minds. And there you are: more or less immune. That's the only rule for success. Example: [4] SBHarris 22:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. School IPs should not be blocked simply because they are school IPs. IPs should be blocked when there's enough of a pattern of vandalism that a block is clearly preventing further disruption. (And yes, I've seen several IPs—some of which are schools—with blocks of anywhere from 3 months to 2 years, based on the amount of recurrent vandalism from the source.) The distinction is that with a school/shared IP, the block should be soft, because there's a more likely chance of multiple users of that IP. With a static IP, you can build a case that it's a single person making the edits, so a hard block is warranted. —C.Fred (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - what is the proposal concretely suggesting? Soft blocking all known school IPs indefinitely? Quite a few school IPs are more or less there anyway, being soft blocked for 6 or 12 months at a time, til the vandalism starts again (school year...) and another block comes. So not much difference for those. Other known school IPs are presumably not blocked because they're not enough of a problem, or there's enough good edits in there to let it go. In general, a common argument against blocking IP edits is that IP vandalism is easier to spot and new accounts are too easy to create. This certainly applies here. Even for the current soft blocks, how much of that vandalism is popping up elsewhere in harder-to-spot form? Rd232 talk 23:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per C.Fred and xeno. The problem looks worse than it is because we only notice the problematic ones. Timtrent makes a good point as well. ISPs don't give a crap about normal vandalism, but schools will actually take action, and in some cases do so proactively. Mr.Z-man 00:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- LOL. By doing what, exactly? Disabling access to Wikipedia? Disabling outgoing mail from their SMTP? These are far more draconian solutions than what is proposed! If your goal is to allow individual students as much access as possible while still differentiating the good from the bad, you will force the creation of student individual accounts. A teacher can stand and watch to see that this is done (good luck) or you can do it using a computer! It's called a "soft-block." It can be done from the WP end, but I doubt many secondary schools have the sophistication to program it from THEIR end. If the schools do LESS than this, the policy has failed, since they should be doing at least this much. So the argument that it should be left to schools fails on all counts. Schools aren't the experts on how to limit editing from a single shared IP to WP. Wikipedia is. If we abbrogate our own expertise and responsiblity, the job will be done FOR us, by people who don't know what they are doing. With less than optimal results, no matter what they do. Sorry, but this is a responsiblity you can't just pass off in the usual wiki-way. It ends up hurting both the good students AND Wikipedia. And by the way, any security system of ANY kind assumes some amount of bad faith from somebody in your society (sorry). There's difference between doing it on an individual basis, and doing it on a population basis. SBHarris 01:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Schools actually can prevent specific students from editing, something that we cannot do. I fail to see how contacting problematic schools is worse than just blocking all of them. I'm pretty sure it is the school's job to make sure that students aren't misbehaving during schools hours while using school property. And "responsibility"? What? Just because someone started a discussion about it means that we all of a sudden have a "responsibility" to prevent vandalism from schools? I'm a volunteer, I don't have a responsibility to anything like that. Mr.Z-man 02:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Support soft-blocking every school IP. I see very few good edits from school IP addresses. Fences&Windows 01:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Support soft-blocking. About half of volunteer energy is consumed with censorship matters, it seems. Let's put the bureaucrats out of work by eliminating much of the problem at the source. Carrite (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Suggestion - A specific, more aggressive anti-vandal bot for problematic IP ranges. Sole Soul (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Good Suggestion - I'd support this. --Ludwigs2 02:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- That could work - an anti-vandal bot that works differently for schools. What exactly would it do differently though? Possibly a lesser version of this proposal would be for such a bot to (among other things, like reverting more readily) automatically impose softblocks on known school IPs under certain conditions. Also, maybe an aggressive school edit filter could be made, preventing some behaviours from being saved in the first place. Rd232 talk 08:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Cluebot has nearly no false positives, but that is because it is too cautious. You have to raise many red flags to be caught by Cluebot. Sole Soul (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how the vandal-bots work, exactly. if they only look at individual posts, then you'd need to add the range IPs in as requiring a higher level of suspicion. if the bots keep track across multiple posts (looking for patterns) then you need to tell them to treat the range IPs as a single user. Either change should produce faster response and lower threshholds. --Ludwigs2 16:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Cluebot has nearly no false positives, but that is because it is too cautious. You have to raise many red flags to be caught by Cluebot. Sole Soul (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose blocking, we should treat school IPs the same way as we treat all other non-open-proxy IPs. However, I'd like to see a more thorough use of warnings: it seems that we issue a level 1 warning for virtually any vandalism if it's more than about a week after the last warning. We shouldn't restrict editing from IPs whose users haven't caused problems, but we should have a more effective response to IPs whose users have caused problems. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Nyttend has a point about how we use warnings and the warning texts themselves. I would support adding text to a level 2 warning for repeat IP vandals pointing out that there is a history of vandalism for the address, and a level 3 warning that includes something along the lines of "If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you—and all other users of this server for some time to come—will be blocked from editing."
- (On the flip side, my personal practice is to give an IP whose sole contribution to Wikipedia is a mild vandalism "one free bite." I'll revert it with no warning (or just an anonwelcome). If they commit a second vandalism, especially to a different article, now they've shown they intend to cause trouble—and I go straight to a level 2 warning.) —C.Fred (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Suggestion - Instead of blocking schools when they are a source of vandalism, dispatch a hit team to find the little vandals and give them a nice thorough spanking. We'll need volunteers with the ability to violate habeas corpus and a large amount of ready cash to buy plane tickets on short notice. - Denimadept (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- oh, I don't know... I think the foundation would be willing to pay for professions spank-squads, don't you? some things just shouldn't be trusted to amateurs. --Ludwigs2 17:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&user=Xeno , CTRL-F for "1 year". (P.S. your fourth example is serving a 6 month block as we speak. The others should be reported to Wikipedia:AIV if they are actively vandalizing.) –xenotalk 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- I straddle a middle ground, I am no stranger to throwing up an
Insufficient recent activity to warrant a block or whatever. –xenotalk 19:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- The contributions page shows active blocks, you can also look at the block log. As for the Edgar example, looks like he handled it fine. Personally I always use a sliding scale something like 31h, 72h, 1-2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year. –xenotalk 19:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Support soft blocking after some defined level of disruption (perhaps 10 bad edits in a period of more than 7 days). I do some vandal reverting and I always warn the editor and check their other contributions but not if it's a school. When it's a school, I just move on because: (1) how stupid do I want to look adding "at least one of your recent edits ... did not appear to be constructive" after a string of level 3 or 4 warnings?, and (2) it's pointless with the current system. Johnuniq (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose174.3.110.108 (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose pre-emptive blocking of any sort. Many people begin contributing to Wikipedia at school, and the higher the barrier to initially contribute, the more new contributors we'll lose altogether. Vandalism is a problem, but I'm not sure that's a price worth paying. Dcoetzee 06:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Support.
Content dispute jury composed of featured articles writers
This is a proposal for discussion, not for support, oppose votes. I'm not sure even I would support it at the end.The proposal:
- The Mediation Committee would randomly choose, when needed, an odd number of users who serve as a content dispute jury for a specific case.
- The users selected must have at least three featured articles written by them (and may be other criterias)
- The jury would vote on specific content dispute options presented to them by the Mediation Committee.
- Sorry, too much bureaucracy. Maurreen (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Too much bureaucracy, and the second point is so ridiculous as to be almost offensive. Physchim62 (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Former member here, and I don't think this is particularly a good idea. MedCom is designed to be a medium for non-binding mediation in which all parties consent (hint: they try to achieve consensus). It's not within their mandate to form juries and have the decisions of those juries be binding. And if you're looking for non-binding options, you can always ask for a 3rd opinion. ^demon[omg plz] 18:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- I know that. The question is: is the current process working? This proposal will be triggered if consensus fails. I for long believed that the current process is a kind of article ownership for the disputing parties. Sole Soul (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Any process for making final content decisions is against the Wikipedia spirit and not likely to gain consensus. No party can have more power than another in deciding content. The fact that content arguments never end, or even if they do can be started up again on a whim, is part of our charm. Equazcion (talk) 19:55, 5 Mar 2010 (UTC)
- The idea of content ArbCom is not new, some people oppose it fundamentally and I respect that, some are more open to it. It is not necessary a final decision, it can be changed by a new consensus or lack of objection to a change, currently this what happens anyway, in contentious areas you have to establish a new consensus. Sole Soul (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Again I don't think this has any chance, but food for thought: If it's not a final decision, what's to stop someone from suggesting consensus may have changed a week after a decision? Are you proposing that the decisions of this committee are final for at least some specified period of time? And if not then what purpose would their decisions serve? Equazcion (talk) 20:40, 5 Mar 2010 (UTC)
- May be this is a very bad idea, but we let ideas with potentials to die quickly because how we approach new ideas. "what's to stop someone from suggesting consensus may have changed a week after a decision" Consensus do not change by simply suggesting that it had changed, it changes by establishing new consensus. Sole Soul (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Writing featured articles does not turn anyone into an all-purpose expert, capable to mediate at any topic. For example, a student of medicine from Australia may write a perfect article about a certain disease, medicine or human anatomy. A great asset for Wikipedia, but he may barely know who is who in the conflicts at the Middle East, or don't even know to begin with about the territorial conflicts between Bolivia and Chile for the corridor to the Pacific Ocean. What authority would he have to mediate in conflicts of such topics? MBelgrano (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Content writing is one of the most cited reasons to support or oppose candidates in RFA, ArbCom and MedCom although the admin and ArbCom work is not directly related to content, this one is. Sole Soul (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with MBelgrano, writing featured articles does not turn one into an expert on everything, nor does it mean that they will have any particular arbitration skills at all (since what you're proposing seems to be more arbitration than mediation). Having the skills to write an article on a certain topic does not necessarily mean they have the ability to understand and pass judgment on a dispute in a totally different topic. Mr.Z-man 22:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Writing FA has a knowledge part that is irrelevant here, and an editorial part that is very relevant. They will be deciding based on Wikipedia policies like NPOV, NOR, RS and verifiability. Expertise is not a requirement in Wikipedia; anyone can participate in RFC or any of the content noticeboards. Sole Soul (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with MBelgrano, writing featured articles does not turn one into an expert on everything, nor does it mean that they will have any particular arbitration skills at all (since what you're proposing seems to be more arbitration than mediation). Having the skills to write an article on a certain topic does not necessarily mean they have the ability to understand and pass judgment on a dispute in a totally different topic. Mr.Z-man 22:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Content writing is one of the most cited reasons to support or oppose candidates in RFA, ArbCom and MedCom although the admin and ArbCom work is not directly related to content, this one is. Sole Soul (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Again I don't think this has any chance, but food for thought: If it's not a final decision, what's to stop someone from suggesting consensus may have changed a week after a decision? Are you proposing that the decisions of this committee are final for at least some specified period of time? And if not then what purpose would their decisions serve? Equazcion (talk) 20:40, 5 Mar 2010 (UTC)
- The idea of content ArbCom is not new, some people oppose it fundamentally and I respect that, some are more open to it. It is not necessary a final decision, it can be changed by a new consensus or lack of objection to a change, currently this what happens anyway, in contentious areas you have to establish a new consensus. Sole Soul (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Any process for making final content decisions is against the Wikipedia spirit and not likely to gain consensus. No party can have more power than another in deciding content. The fact that content arguments never end, or even if they do can be started up again on a whim, is part of our charm. Equazcion (talk) 19:55, 5 Mar 2010 (UTC)
- I know that. The question is: is the current process working? This proposal will be triggered if consensus fails. I for long believed that the current process is a kind of article ownership for the disputing parties. Sole Soul (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- The sort of "merit" that gets articles to featured status is almost entirely unrelated to the sort that would make you a good arbitrator of content. Featured status really isn't about content.
- (Off-topic to original poster: There is no such word as criterias. Criteria is already plural, the singular being criterion.) --Trovatore (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Tweak of identifier in print
I've been making some template cleanup for the print version of articles, and TheDJ suggested that I came here before continuing these tweaks. Neither of us considers them controversial, but he thought that it would be a good idea to come here to explain the rationale behind them, and see if these are indeed uncontroversial.The general situation with urls in print version of articles is that they are expanded next to what is linked. For example, if in an article you see
Bob Smith is a member of the American Association of Bobs.In print this will be either be
Bob Smith (http://www.bobsmith.com/example1) is a member of the American Association of Bobs (http://www.aab.com/example2).or
Bob Smith[1] is a member of the American Association of Bobs[2].with
[1] http://www.bobsmith.com/example1
[2] http://www.aab.com/example2
in the reference section, depending on certain factors which are complex to sum up. For links like these, this is perfectly fine, if a bit ugly. These links both add value to the article and contain some additional information about Bob Smith and the American Association of Bobs. Thus they should be shown, even in print.
Now when it comes to identifiers (mostly in the references, but elsewhere too), urls do not add any information. For example
S. Bethke (2007). "Experimental tests of asymptotic freedom". Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 58: 351 . doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2006.06.001. arΧiv:hep-ex/0606035.does not contain any more information than the url-expanded version
S. Bethke (2007). "Experimental tests of asymptotic freedom". Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 58: 351. doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2006.06.001 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2006.06.001) arxiv:hep-ex/0606035 (http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0606035).or
S. Bethke (2007). "Experimental tests of asymptotic freedom". Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 58: 351. doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2006.06.001[1] arxiv:hep-ex/0606035[2].with
[1] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2006.06.001
[2] http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0606035
or the even more ridiculous
[1] S. Bethke (2007). "Experimental tests of asymptotic freedom". Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 58: 351. doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2006.06.001[2] arxiv:hep-ex/0606035[3].
[2] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2006.06.001
[3] http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0606035
The whole point of identifiers is that you can look them up (for example, look up "doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2006.06.001" or "arxiv:hep-ex/0606035", on either your favourite search engine, or doi/arxiv server) and be guaranteed to land on the page you were looking for. Links of convenience are nice on Wikipedia, but in print these don't make much sense since you can't click on a sheet of paper.
So basically that is why I'm tweaking appearance of identifiers in print. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- To clarify, I would only be removing these links in print. The online version of articles would remain untouched. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Some of the templates to which this applies would be: {{ISSN}}, {{doi}}, {{OCLC}}, {{UPC}}, {{PMID}}, {{bibcode}}. Basically, all templates that create identifiers that are prefixed with the identifier standard they are part of. It will not be implemented for something like {{ISSN search link}}, because that template does not prefix the number with "ISSN" (unlike the ISSN template). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- The list is longer that than, but these are the big ones. For {{ISSN search link}}, it depends on how it's used. It's very likely that the links it gives are of the same use as those from {{ISSN}}.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- "Depends on how it is used" is exactly why it cannot be extended to {{ISSN search link}}, because this template cannot know how it is being used. It just produces a link and a number, omitting "ISSN". Wether that omission is intentional or not cannot be determined, and thus we should probably not interfere. If people want to write "ISSN number", they should use {{ISSN}}, if people are using {{ISSN search link}} on its own, then we cannot know what their intention is. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- I've reviewed the first 25 use of {{ISSN search link}} and it's only used in references, infoboxes, or where {{ISSN}} could have been equivalent. I really can't think of any use for an explicit ISSN link in print. But that can be settled later. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- "Depends on how it is used" is exactly why it cannot be extended to {{ISSN search link}}, because this template cannot know how it is being used. It just produces a link and a number, omitting "ISSN". Wether that omission is intentional or not cannot be determined, and thus we should probably not interfere. If people want to write "ISSN number", they should use {{ISSN}}, if people are using {{ISSN search link}} on its own, then we cannot know what their intention is. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- One happy editor here. Only have one question: What is "paper"? Paradoctor (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- The ... stuff that you print things on ... ? Not sure I understand your question 100%. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Aaah, I think I get it: Thin, flexible, fibrous mats, often stained in various complicated patterns ("printed"?) in order to create primitive optical WORM storage devices. Kind of like the display during a hang. I had no idea that prehistory was so fascinating. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Mostly with the use of {{hide in print}} and {{only in print}}. See {{arxiv}} for example. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- I was slightly confused at first but yea that sounds good ;) James (T|C) 19:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- No problem with this. Sounds great. Excellent proposal. -- RA (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Alright well there doesn't seem to be any opposition to this, so I'll just carry on with it. Things can always be reverted if there's a sudden wave of opposition. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Biography Of Living Persons
Now that we have a full fledged policy, we should lift the article creation ban.174.3.110.108 (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)- For IPs? I don't see the community approving that change following the Wikipedia biography controversy. The mood is to tighten up editing, e.g. Wikipedia:Flagged revisions and deleted of unsourced BLPs; I don't think a liberalisation of editing to allow unregistered users to create articles is going to happen. Fences&Windows 18:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and you can start an article via Wikipedia:AFC if you don't wish to register. Fences&Windows 18:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well the controversy is with bios of living persons. We have a stringent policy on that. We shouldn't bar ips from creating articles. This was only an experiment.174.3.110.108 (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- The community might not allow it because of it's systematic bias.174.3.110.108 (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds like you've got an axe to grind. What systematic bias is served by not allowed IPs to create new articles? Fences&Windows 22:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm just saying that most people would oppose this because they are not IPs.174.3.110.108 (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Just register. There's really no valid excuse. It takes like 5 seconds. Gigs (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes there is a valid excuse. I just don't want to waste my time logging in, I don't want to waste my time signing up, I don't want to give up private information.174.3.110.108 (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- You give up a lot more private information by editing as an IP. And you don't want to waste a few seconds of your time logging in, but what about taking our time to respond to you? Crum375 (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- That is fine.174.3.110.108 (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- You give up a lot more private information by editing as an IP. And you don't want to waste a few seconds of your time logging in, but what about taking our time to respond to you? Crum375 (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes there is a valid excuse. I just don't want to waste my time logging in, I don't want to waste my time signing up, I don't want to give up private information.174.3.110.108 (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Just register. There's really no valid excuse. It takes like 5 seconds. Gigs (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm just saying that most people would oppose this because they are not IPs.174.3.110.108 (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds like you've got an axe to grind. What systematic bias is served by not allowed IPs to create new articles? Fences&Windows 22:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
New robot to warn users
I have registered the user WarningBot, because I would like to write my first bot. I am experienced in Java and would like to use the Java API that is offered to make WarningBot.Look at the user page for details on it's purpose, but in short, this bot will warn vandals when Recent Changes patrollers or casual reverters have forgotten. If it gets accepted, it may warn users for other things, too.
What are your opinions on this bot? Do you think it is worth it? Or should I pursue a different idea? Awesomeness talk 12:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- To get approval for a bot you need to propose it through Wikipedia:BAG. Not sure if you were aware of that already, just letting you know. On the warning bot, warnings depend on the reason an article was reverted, which isn't necessarily clear from the edit summary. I'm not sure how the bot would determine which warning to issue, unless you plan on only issuing them for rollbacks and Twinkle vandalism reverts, for instance. Equazcion (talk) 13:49, 5 Mar 2010 (UTC)
control room design
Greetings,I have searched your site and did not see anything about Control Room Design Has the topic come before? I would like to start the topic, but I'm unable to do the editing. Is there anyone that can take an electric file and enter the information we have created in paper. Control Rm Design (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- We don't have any way of making paper documents into articles, as far as I know. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Starting an article for more information. Equazcion (talk) 19:37, 5 Mar 2010 (UTC)
- Also, there is Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Paradoctor (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Standard article creation message follows:
A Wizard is available to walk you through these steps. See the Article Wizard. —Thank you. |
- Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines with which all articles should comply. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.
- Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.
- If you still think an article is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Your first article. You might also look at Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is also available to walk you through creating an article.
- Also please bear in mind our conflict if interest guidance and our user name policy. – ukexpat (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- We already have a Control room article, so if you wish to add information about the generic topic of control room design then it would be best for you to add it to this article. If, however, you are looking to add information about Control Room Design, LLC then you should be aware that any attempt to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes is unacceptable, so the article needs to be worded neutrally, to be based on independent reliable sources such as academic books or papers or reputable newspapers, and to provide evidence that the company passes our guidelines for notabilty described at Wikipedia:CORP. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Temporary Autoblocking of Probable Vandalism Only addresses
Discussions are on here ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 19:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Can I add a "back to top" button alongside section headers (through "preferences")?
If not, then, that's my proposal. Andrew Gradman talk/Wikipedia:Hornbook 23:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)- If you want to do this just for yourself, you can add the following code to your user Javascript:
addOnloadHook(function()
{
elems = document.getElementsByClassName('editsection');
for (i = 0; i < elems.length; i++)
elems[i].innerHTML = '[<a href="#top">top</a>] ' + elems[i].innerHTML;
});
Use of the word "current" or "currently" etc
There is widespread use of the words "current" or "currently" in wikipedia articles, which of course gives the reader no information at all, and can be misleading if the article hasn't been updated recently. I propose a bot adds a "when" tag to every occurrence of these words in wikipedia. Hellisess (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)- Other words to automatically tag are "recently" and "new". Hellisess (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- How about replacing occurrences with "as of", and then the month/year the edit was made where the word was added? Equazcion (talk) 03:34, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)
- {{as of}} --Cybercobra (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- It would be very difficult to program a bot that could differentiate between this meaning of "current" and the meaning of "flow" (such as oceanic, atmospheric and electrical currents). We already have advice for human editors to avoid statements that will date quickly. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Something related that already exists is Template:As of. More info is at Wikipedia:As of. Maurreen (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- A search for "currently" gives 1. Currently, 2. 2006, 3. 2005, 4. 2007, etc. I think the years result from wikicode like
X is [[2006|currently]] Y's top scorer. Should the hypothetical bot change these to {{As of}} as a first step? Certes (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)- The use being problematic or not depends on context, how likely is it that the current context may get outdated soon, and the chances of such outdating remaining unnoticed. For example, let's say an article gives a summary of the timeline of states of the United States that joined the union. There's hardly a problem if we say at the end of such timeline that "currently" the US has 50 states. MBelgrano (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Cheat-sheets/Reference Cards + Example Requests
I was thinking of doing cheat sheets related to different things to do with wikipedia such as a cheatsheet for Tables and a cheatsheet for general editing etc. These would include examples so as to show what wikitext does what in a more concise and detailed format.Also I was thinking of making articles showing examples of Rfa's, RfB's, AfD's etc. etc. to explain them more and shoew different outcomes that would be possible to acheive such as for example: a unsuccessful RfA or a AfD that results in deletion. The examples would use User:Example as the username.
An example for the cheatsheet would be:
| Description | You Type | You Get |
|---|---|---|
| Headings | ==Sub Heading 1== ===Sub Heading 2=== ====Sub Heading 3==== | Sub Heading 1Sub Heading 2Sub Heading 3 |
| Bold | '''Bold''' | Bold |
Any other ideas on this topic are welcome. Paul2387 12:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Like Wikipedia:Cheatsheet? You probably want to discuss this at Wikipedia:Help Project. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Nicholas J. Conard
Translate from wp:de and wp:fr --MIKEREAD (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)BLP help template
Template:BLP help is proposed to help subjects of BLPs and other learn how to address concerns about the article. It would be placed at the bottom of the article page. This follows a discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biographies_of_living_persons#Helping_non-editors_fix_BLPs. Please discuss at Template talk:BLP help. Maurreen (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)IMDB as a source?
This issue is coming up enough that something about it should probably be established. Please discuss at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identifying_reliable_sources#IMDB_as_a_source?. Maurreen (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Massive addition of redirects for plural forms of nouns, different conjugations and tenses of verbs, etc.
I was wondering whether there might be consensus for a massive addition of redirects for Pluralizations and singularizations of nouns, different Conjugations and Tenses of verbs (including Gerunds), etc. E.g., for Suicide in the United States, we could also create a redirect, suicides in the United States. For Libertarian perspectives on abortion, we could also create a redirect, libertarian perspective on abortion. For activities like Sonication, we could add redirects for conjugations of the verb like Sonicate, sonicates, sonicating, sonicated, etc. These seem like reasonable things that a person might look up or create a red wikilink to in an article.I wonder whether we might just feed a dictionary and a list of page titles into a script and have it go to town on the enwiki, adding these redirects with manual confirmation of each one to make sure everything is correct. Any thoughts? Tisane (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Would an automated program be able to do this accurately for multi-word titles, or for words that have multiple meanings? I don't think we need, for example: Traffic Blue, Traffics Blues, Trafficked Blues, and Trafficking Blues → Traffic Blues, or Trafficking (currently a disambiguation page) → Traffic. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- A bot is a bad idea. It would be better to have a client-side program in which you input the pgname, and it will give out a list of possible redirects. You can then choose which ones you want and it will redirect them. If you want, I'll create it, just remind me in April (I don't have time now.) ManishEarthTalk • Stalk 01:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that user confirmation will be needed, but let's not underestimate the ability of a good AI to provide suggestions based on, e.g., analysis of article text or even google searches. I would have to think (and research) hard about it to figure out the best way to implement that, though. Like all devs, I have a lot of other stuff on my plate... Tisane (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- A bot is a bad idea. It would be better to have a client-side program in which you input the pgname, and it will give out a list of possible redirects. You can then choose which ones you want and it will redirect them. If you want, I'll create it, just remind me in April (I don't have time now.) ManishEarthTalk • Stalk 01:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Seeking wider input at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Featured_picture_candidates#Minimum_of_five_supports_for_featured_pictured_candidates?
Hello all, I'm hoping that some wider input could be given at this proposal to abolish the minimum of five supports for featured pictured candidates rule. Please comment at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Featured_picture_candidates#Minimum_of_five_supports_for_featured_pictured_candidates?. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 23:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Category for talk pages of redirects
I was thinking perhaps there should be a category for redirect talk pages that have discussions on them. Redirect talk pages rarely get any readers, yet some DO have relatively important discussions on them. These may provide a little background on why the redirect was created, like in cases of contentious redirects or protected ones. If these were collected together in a category, eg. Category:Redirect talk page discussions or somethingrather, it will help readers find these discussions. I'm sure if they knew these discussions even existed people would be interested in reading them, I know I would.See Talk:4004 BC for example. There was a discussion on that page from way back in 2003 that I recently replied to (I know it's highly unlikely that the original posters will read my reply but it doesn't matter as long as it's read by someone). If this page was categorized this old discussion could have been noticed much earlier instead of by random fluke the way I came across it.
There's also the case of talk pages of former articles that were redirected. These redirect talk pages almost always have discussions on them (except where an editor decided to redirect the talk page as well.. a process which I do not agree with btw), however these discussions are usually relevant to the article and not the redirect itself. I'm only concerned with the talk pages of redirects that have always been redirects and have discussions concerning only the redirect itself. The only thing is, I don't know how many of these pages are out there, nor how to find them, nor if it's feasible to program a bot to categorize these pages.
Anyways.. silly idea? .. useless? .. let me know. -- Ϫ 06:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- That reminds me of the ill-fated Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect. Graham87 08:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe there's still hope for Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect. After all it had a new user sign up as recently as January this year. That reminds me, I should post a notice of this thread at the talk page there. -- Ϫ 09:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Time to become a democracy?
Maybe it's time for WP to become a democracy. Maybe Wikipedia:CONSENSUS and Wikipedia:IAR do not scale to this size. Maurreen (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)- What makes you say that? I don't know about you but I'm not ready to give up on Wikipedia:CONSENSUS. -- Ϫ 09:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Exhibit A. Maurreen (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Mainly the BLP mess -- Exhibit A -- Exhibit B, including the archive and talk page. -- Maurreen (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)- Heh, point taken. But maybe democratizing would bring it's own new set of problems. Including splitting us up into warring factions. United we stand, I say. :) -- Ϫ 10:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Only if we can trade our votes. Representative democracy is not an improvement over Wikipedia:CONSENSUS. Paradoctor (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- There's also the issue of socks voting... Anyways, Consensus is quite effective. WP is an organization anyways, so its more of a constitutional monarchyManishEarthTalk • Stalk 12:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- And Jimbo is the monarch? :P No, it is a direct democracy with decision by consensus and not by majority, which I think works better. It also helps from avoiding problems mentioned above. --JokerXtreme (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- I tend to think of him more as Citizen J. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- And Jimbo is the monarch? :P No, it is a direct democracy with decision by consensus and not by majority, which I think works better. It also helps from avoiding problems mentioned above. --JokerXtreme (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- There's also the issue of socks voting... Anyways, Consensus is quite effective. WP is an organization anyways, so its more of a constitutional monarchyManishEarthTalk • Stalk 12:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Only if we can trade our votes. Representative democracy is not an improvement over Wikipedia:CONSENSUS. Paradoctor (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Heh, point taken. But maybe democratizing would bring it's own new set of problems. Including splitting us up into warring factions. United we stand, I say. :) -- Ϫ 10:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Consensus is the best way to reach a decision. Unfortunately it can't apply to countries as reviewing stuff would be a headache. But it works fine here. Mindless voting without reason doesn't have much merit. Here, The better your reason for voting, the more strength your vote has. ManishEarthTalk • Stalk 12:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Direct democracy was in use in ancient Athens, but I guess it became impossible as population and administrative regions grew larger. Well, internet now provides the means to do that, at least for a project such as wikipedia. As for countries, I don't see that happening any time soon, but I think we're slowly moving to that direction. --JokerXtreme (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- While I agree that consensus is often hard to form and often controversial in WHAT it is, the problem with direct votes comes from the fact very often people will just completely misunderstand just what they are 'voting' on (how many times has someone opposed flagged revisions, for instance, because they think it'd take away people's right to edit which is the exact opposite of what it does?), and also many people using Wikipedia:ILIKEIT and Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is even before any socks issues, as mentioned above. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Then maybe representative democracy? It beats tyranny. Maurreen (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Are we still talking about wikipedia? :P BTW, will anyone take a look at the section below? --JokerXtreme (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Then maybe representative democracy? It beats tyranny. Maurreen (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- While I agree that consensus is often hard to form and often controversial in WHAT it is, the problem with direct votes comes from the fact very often people will just completely misunderstand just what they are 'voting' on (how many times has someone opposed flagged revisions, for instance, because they think it'd take away people's right to edit which is the exact opposite of what it does?), and also many people using Wikipedia:ILIKEIT and Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is even before any socks issues, as mentioned above. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- Why would we want a democracy? Consensus is much better as people can't blindly vote. ManishEarthTalk • Stalk 01:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- For the second time, this is a democracy. It's just not majority rule and yeah, consensus is better. --JokerXtreme (talk) 08:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Why would we want a democracy? Consensus is much better as people can't blindly vote. ManishEarthTalk • Stalk 01:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Nobody has a right to vote in here. You may get to !vote, though. I'd say that makes Wikipedia a !democracy. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- You cant vote! Wikipedia is based on consensus. This:
- Support blah blah long description
- has more power over:
- Support good idea
- You cant vote! Wikipedia is based on consensus. This:
My advise: No political system was intended to work at a project like this, they are intended to work at societies at large, which are sooo different. They have many topics to adress: civil rights, social care, the economic system, military forces and foreign threats, crime, stir between political groups, relations between national and local governments, and a long etc. which can not be applied here, or the relation with a wiki phenomenon would be too much broad to even consider it seriously. Better yet, we should craft our own "system of government", based on our own needs, purposes and contexts. For example, among other things we need to keep it friendly for newcomers, to have new users, and to keep it as simple and bureaucracy-free to avoid this side of the project from diverting us too much from the purpose of writing an encyclopedia. Yes, we can borrow specific aspects from government system to aid us at specific areas, or employ real life knowledge when considering proposals, but only to the extent it aids our own purposes MBelgrano (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- We are indeed in quite uncharted territory. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
| “ | Trustee governance is, in general, a poor way to run any institution. In the first place, in contrast to profit-making firms, partnerships, or corporations, the trustee-run firm is not fully owned by anyone. The trustees cannot make profits from successful operation of the organization, so there is no incentive to be efficient, or to serve the firm's customers properly. As long as the college or other organization does not suffer excessive deficits it can peg along at a low level of performance. Since the trustees cannot make profits by bettering their service to customers, they tend to be lax in their operations. Furthermore, they are hobbled in financial efficiency by the terms of their charters; for example, the trustees of a college are forbidden from saving their institution by converting part of the campus into a commercial enterprise — say a profit-making parking lot. | ” |
- You seem to be confusing the governance of the Foundation with that of the community. --Cybercobra (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is the Foundation that chose to leave decisions in the hands of the community rather than taking action to maximize profitability of the site. Most sites will disregard users' expressed preferences if necessary to make a profit; for instance, most users of the Urbandictionary.com or Gmail, etc. would probably say that they prefer not to see ads. Nonetheless, the site will never get rid of those ads, because they are needed in order to generate the profitability that enables them to continue offering the site and improving its quality. Wikipedians likewise express preferences that are not in the site's best interests or even in their own best interests. An example would be notability policy, which has caused a great deal of strife, bad blood, frustration, wasted time and missed opportunities to offer useful information. Another example would be the current userpage restrictions, which in many cases lack any persuasive logic; see for instance my essay User:Tisane/Don't delete users' résumés. I think if these policies were reformed, site traffic and user satisfaction could be increased without sacrificing quality. I can't prove it (yet), but I suspect it, and when I gather together the necessary resources to start my own wiki and implement the functionality I need, I intend to prove it. If anyone thinks I'm being elitist in saying that users can't be trusted to govern the project, I am to some extent; but I also think that Public choice dilemmas such as Rational ignorance come into play in any kind of democracy, especially a large democracy. The free market is the only mechanism that has proven effectiveness in fulfilling people's needs; democracy has failed, both in government and on Wikipedia. Tisane (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Merger proposal : Minarchism
As MutantPlatypus rightfully proposed Small government, Limited government, and Night watchman state should be merged into Minarchism. --JokerXtreme (talk) 11:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)- Night watchman state I agree should be merged. But a small or limited government is not necessarily "minimalist." Tisane (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- While it is true libertarian minarchists use descriptors "small" or "limited" government, conservatives who want a lot more government than that (especially big militaries and security states) also call for "small" or "limited" government. So Small and Limited government should be merged but make those distinctions, with WP:RS of course. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, minimalist is in the eye of the beholder. Some people (e.g. Obama) might view today's U.S. government as still needing some expansion before it fulfills the bare minimum of what is necessary to assure society's prosperity. But because they stop short of supporting outright totalitarianism, they might still view themselves as supporters of "limited government." I believe though that Minarchism usually refers to police, defense, courts, and perhaps a small set of Public goods, e.g. transportation, in the case of those libertarians (probably the majority) who think that only government can provide roads. As a practical matter, "minarchist" and "limited government" are pretty much used synonymously in political discourse. Even Bill Clinton basically said he was for small government though ("the era of big government is over"). Tisane (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think you are confusing "Minamalist" and Minarchist. Really only libertarians use the latter, while all sorts of statists use the former. (and then there's Minimalism which doesn't mention politics at all :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, minimalist is in the eye of the beholder. Some people (e.g. Obama) might view today's U.S. government as still needing some expansion before it fulfills the bare minimum of what is necessary to assure society's prosperity. But because they stop short of supporting outright totalitarianism, they might still view themselves as supporters of "limited government." I believe though that Minarchism usually refers to police, defense, courts, and perhaps a small set of Public goods, e.g. transportation, in the case of those libertarians (probably the majority) who think that only government can provide roads. As a practical matter, "minarchist" and "limited government" are pretty much used synonymously in political discourse. Even Bill Clinton basically said he was for small government though ("the era of big government is over"). Tisane (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- While it is true libertarian minarchists use descriptors "small" or "limited" government, conservatives who want a lot more government than that (especially big militaries and security states) also call for "small" or "limited" government. So Small and Limited government should be merged but make those distinctions, with WP:RS of course. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Gadget proposal
I proposed a gadget here about a month ago, and it still hasn't been reviewed. Could someone go check? Thx. ManishEarthTalk • Stalk 12:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Sidebars
I was wondering what people think, in a very preliminary sense, of the concept of sidebars for Wikipedia articles. This idea came to me when reading articles where the effects of Wikipedia:TRIVIA become painfully apparent. Some interesting factoids that interrupt the main flow of a "History" or "Production" section are often nevertheless mangled into them, since we don't allow trivia sections (though I want to stress that I'm not talking about "trivial" material, but verified facts of interest). In other publications, such things would go into sidebars. A possible sidebar template would be a shaded box, floating to the left or right, with the main article text wrapping around it. Please post your thoughts. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 02:43, 8 Mar 2010 (UTC)- I like this idea a lot. Solves a lot of problems, not only of trivia. It could also be used, for example, to extract political arguments that muck up an article, and put them in a frame. Is Jerusalem the capital of Israel, or not? --Ravpapa (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- You mean something similar to {{rquote}}? Svick (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- I suspect he means the "sidebars" as used in publishing, usually in box. And I like them, too, but isn't there was some kind of policy restriction on using them in articles? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Reader feedback tool
I just ran a reader survey on five articles that I wrote or had a hand in editing. I found the results to be extremely enlightening and helpful in my work as an editor, and also as an important input to policy disputes in the project I am working on. You can see the results of the survey at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiProject_Composers#Survey_results.I performed the survey by creating the survey form at www.surveymonkey.com, and attaching a link at the top of each article (see, for example, this revision of one of the articles).
As an editor, I would love a tool that I could use to develop a survey with article-specific questions, attach it to the end of an article, and analyze the responses.
In numerous other forums, I have pointed out that Wikipedia is an editor-centric, rather than reader-centric, institution. All the mechanisms and rules of behavior are designed to create cooperation of a community of editors. In this dynamic, the reader is most often shunted aside; to the extent that, when I proposed my survey, there were editors who clearly didn't want to know what their readers were thinking.
This is something that has to change if Wikipedia is to move forward, and that change will occur only when features of the editing environment support the change. That is why I think a tool like this would be invaluable, not only to me but to the entire Wikipedia weltschaum. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- At first glance, I think that the idea of conducting these types of limited surveys (temporary and specific to individual articles) has promise as long as an active effort is made to respond to readers' comments by improving affected articles. Kudos on taking the initiative! -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is a very cool project, and I hope you continue to experiment with it. In line with Black Falcon's comment, in the place where you permit people to submit feedback, you might aslo provide a link that says, "view past submissions". I know that this is very easy to do if you use Google Forms; you can just publish the spreadsheet as a webpage and provide a link. Andrew Gradman talk/Wikipedia:Hornbook 04:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
RfC on Temporary Autoblocking of vandalism only IP addresses
The RFC is progressing here ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 19:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Wikipedia:Administrator inactivity
Hello all, I've just posted the proposal above. I know it's one of the "perennial proposals", but comments there would nonetheless be appreciated. Thanks! Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Strong oppose. And this will solve what problem? People take wikibreaks. You want to penalize someone for returning? You want to set up new bureaucratic procedures for a non-problem? alteripse (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- That idea is really stupid. We prefer to have admins for life. That's a much better idea. Angryapathy (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please note that the proposal has nothing to do with the issue of "admins for life". It is about temporary removal of the sysop tools due to inactivity, to be reinstated without question upon an admin's return. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm still not sure that there is any problem, but I'm willing to believe that there is one, or the potential for one. If so (and even if not), then there's nothing obviously wrong with removing a user's admin bit if its later restoration can be automatic.
Admin for life, eh? No chance of a reduction for good behavior? -- Hoary (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
As I have stated on similar proposals, this idea institutes unecessary new policies and creates new workloads to solve a problem that has not been demonstrated to exist, ie. a solution in search of a problem. New rules and processes for their own sake do not an efficient Wikipedia make; Wikipedia:CREEP is relevant here. I cannot support this sort of proposal. Shereth 16:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned Fair Use bot
Hey WikipediaIm waiting for approval for one of my bots. This one tags images for deletion if they are fair use, and not used. Right now, there are 4400 images to be deleted (growing daily). I was wondering what you want me to do about this. Should I have the bot do them all at once? Should I do only, say, 100 per day? Just if you are interested, the bot waits 48 hours after upload to tag any file for deletion, and notifies the uploading user for each time it uploads. See the Request for approval here Tim1357 (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Debate
Something like this? Kayau Voting IS evil 10:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)- That is ridiculously vague and concerns a divisive Holy war (computer sense). Quite unproductive. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I just don't understand what a holy war is - the link is a disambig. But, I think I get your idea. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Try the Jargon File entry. Paradoctor (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I just don't understand what a holy war is - the link is a disambig. But, I think I get your idea. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Better icons for user warnings
I was thinking that we can use better-looking icons (at least these look better to me) for user warnings. Below, I have placed my proposals. Please edit the appropriate subsection below, depending upon your position. -- IRP ☎ 14:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
→ 
→ 
→ [I am not sure what to replace this with]
→ 
- Support
- I support the change to the first icon (looks friendlier IMO) but not the rest. --Yair rand (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- They do stand out more, which might prevent a vandal from not reading the messages...ManishEarthTalk • Stalk 01:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral
- I fear change. –xenotalk 20:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- When comparing the two sets, Crystal Clear and Nuvola it's hard to decide. There's good icons in both, we should use some from each. -- Ϫ 08:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have no particular opinion on the first two suggested changes. As for the third and fourth, there should be no icon. In the spirit of "PDFTT", such messages should look boring, in order not to provide any satisfaction for attention-seeking nitwits. -- Hoary (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC) ... very slightly rephrased, and moved from "oppose" to "neutral" -- Hoary (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- eh... if we're going to go to the trouble of changing icons, let's at least make a real improvement. the new icons are marginally better, at best. --Ludwigs2 15:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- There is a point to improving them, but this change is cosmetic. We need the icons to show the escalation of importance in a specific and transparent manner. So I am positively and conspicuously neutral on this change Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose
- What's the point of changing anything? In what way are your proposals better than the current set? You've not explained this very well... ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 16:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- The initial icons are clearer than the proposed replacements, if not as shiny. :/ {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 17:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC) (iPod edit)
- I like the existing ones, the replacements are blurry. Fences&Windows 20:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- The second icon, especially, is harder to view. Also, I'm not sure the new set would scale well. —C.Fred (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- A resounding meh. Concur about blurriness. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm all for change, even just for the sake of looking cooler, but the proposed replacements don't really seem like an improvement. Equazcion (talk) 21:23, 9 Mar 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like a step backwards to me. – ukexpat (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Agree, don't see the new icons as that much of an improvement. Mo ainm~Talk 21:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- We should be removing the icons entirely. --Carnildo (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Bad idea. The icons catch the eye of a vandal and he actually reads the stuff. Actually it would be better to replace the icons with some faces, like smiling, then sad, then angry, then furious. THat will sum up the message pictorally.
- The suggested alternatives are not an improvement IMHO. Mjroots (talk) 09:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- No way - big waste of time and I prefer the old ones. Kayau Voting IS evil 09:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- The original icons are directly face on and easy to see, where as the suggested replacements seem to be angled and have light effects/blurs on them making them a tad harder to see, as well as the blue/white and yellow/brownish colour schemes seem to clash on the information and exclamation signs respectively (See: Wikipedia:ACCESSIBILTY#Color). If anything I would probably prefer replacements that were front on with minimal solid colours that didn't include and effects (such as shading)...... Peachey88 (Talk Page · Contribs) 09:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Proposed icons are not significantly better than the current ones. The 3D effects are a bit kitsch, and makes them less clear. However I like the idea of the middle strenght warning (triangle sign) being yellow instead of red. Elekhh (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Assessment WP
Following my flagging up an individual editor's assessment of articles at WT:MILHIST#Assessment problems, discussion has evolved on the subject of assessment and re-assessment of articles. Therefore, I'd like to ask whether any editors would be interested in forming a Wikiproject covering the assessment of articles, and ensuring they are reassessed periodically. Mjroots (talk) 09:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)- One possibility would be to somehow link a given "grade" to a commitment by an editor maintain it. That doesn't necessarily mean the grade would not be given without the commitment, but maybe that the assessment would be indicated differently -- such as "GA monitored" and "GA unmonitored." An editor could voluntarily give up monitoring any given article at any time. Possibly a bot would update whatever needs updating. Then reviewers could concentrate on the unmonitored articles.
- Also, given that we have evaluations (of whatever type), it would be good to use them to actually inform readers. I realize this view is controversial. Maurreen (talk) 09:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say that most GA class articles are probably watchlisted. The main focus of a possible WP would probably be article assessments up to B class. Mjroots (talk) 09:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think other projects would necessarily appreciate a different project assessing their articles... –xenotalk 16:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed not, and most project assessments agree to within one grade. Projects should be allowed to signal a lack of content in their project area by a lower assessment grade for that project. And let us not forget that project assessments are meant to be about content, not minor style errors! Physchim62 (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Letting all admins delete some edits of a page
- I am sorry to repeat this, but please what is the timetable on letting all admins delete some edits of a page? I often repair cut-and-paste moves; if page X was cut-and-paste moved to Y, I usually "delete Y, move X to Y, undelete Y"; but more often than not I first must delete some late edits of X which were made after the cut-and-pasting, so that those edits are not moved to Y; and to do this I must delete all of X, then undelete all edits of X except the few to-be-deleted edits; this wastes Wikipedia's server's time (particularly if X has many edits). It would help if I could directly select and delete only those late edits of X. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- To delete edits there's Wikipedia:OVERSIGHT. Please clarify your question. ManishEarthTalk • Stalk 14:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'll take a shot at this. I periodically come across short articles that have been "expanded" by insertion of a large block of copyrighted text. It can be convenient to remove such additions from the edit history viewable by the general public. This can be accomplished by deleting the article and then undeleting every version of the article except the one where the copyright was added (look here for an example). This is only practical in cases where the article has a limited history and the problem is discovered before additional edits occur. I suspect Anthony is looking for a means to reduce this process to a single step where just the offending version is deleted. --Allen3 talk 14:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Revision deletion. The bug detailing the current status on this is https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21165. It seems we are stuck on some technical issues over logging of the actions. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think Wikipedia:RevDel would help with the issue Anthony brought up which seems to be related to history splits/merges. –xenotalk 16:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- The late edits of X made after the cut-and-paste are not usually copyvio but one of these:
- At the cut-and-paste, X was edited into a redirect to Y. Sometimes people and/or bots change this redirect, leaving a longish string of redirect edits of X after the cut-and-paste point.
- At the cut-and-paste, X was edited into a redirect to Y. Sometimes someone changes this redirect into a disambig. After all the steps described above, I undelete these disambig edits and they are still at name X.
- If I moved these late edits to name Y along with the older edits of X, they would get shuffled in in time order with the incoming edits of page Y, as in Wikipedia:Parallel versions. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
