Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 15

• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals (persistent)
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous

Village pump (idea lab) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (idea lab). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

---

< Older discussions · Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56

Wikiest AddOn - Makes reading wikipedia pages faster

Hi All,

We all love to read wikipedia pages. But it so happens that while reading wikipedia documents, we might want to understand a term or know something about the organization or person mentioned in the document. In most of the cases we don't click on them and read about terms mentioned in the wikipedia document as we need to navigate to that document.

Wikiest allows readers to read wikipedia pages faster. Hovering on any wikipedia reference which might be a term, person or organization, fetches the image and minimum description that allows us to know more or understand the reference without navigating to that page. Hence reader is not distracted to go to reference, read there come back and read original document. He/She can read the whole wikipedia page faster and gain more knowledge without even navigating to the page.

AddOn Available at : https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/wikiest/lpgcpphnfhdacphjhmgelappmfbhmhek

Please feel free to share your thought on the addon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.171.120.120 (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It sounds very similar to the function already provided by mw:Beta Features/Hovercards, which can be enabled by clicking the button at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures (don't forget to save your changes to your preferences page). Also, it is one small part of what WP:NAVPOPS has offered locally for years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

User Page Protection

Can a type of protection be developed for user pages and subpages in user space so that the page can only be edited by the user, and can the user be given the right to turn this protection on or off? Turning the protection off would allow other users to edit the user page or user subpages. It would be especially useful if the protection could be turned on or off on a page basis, rather than a user basis, so that the user could enable collaborative editing of draft articles in user space (rather than moving them into draft space). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I once suggested something similar over at wikiHow, but most people objected because they felt that a person would be unable to edit his/her userpage if he ever got locked out of his/her account (which, in my opinion, would be the least of your concerns). Personally, though, I'd support a feature like this. I especially think giving the user an option on a page-by-page basis would be good. --Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 02:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Weird. If I forget my password, I should be able to edit my user page, but not a page having frequent vandalism? Hmmm. I still think that I should be able to lock my user page against being edited by anyone other than myself. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Like I said in the forum thread I linked to above, a user rarely has any good reason to edit another person's page, anyway. Unless, of course, they're reverting vandalism, but there would be no vandalism at all if only the user themselves could edit the page.

Yes there would, vandals with accounts could vandalize their own page--and then instead of anyone being able to clean it up, it would require an administrator to get involved. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course, admins should have the ability to edit all user pages, just in case a user posts offensive content and protects the page. --Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 03:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This would seem to be preemptive protection and in direct violation of WP:5P. (And if you want this that bad, put whatever it is you want to "protect" in a .js or .css subpage.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's proof that this would be a beneficial feature. (I also get to add the {{User:UBX/vandalized}} template to my userpage.) --Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 22:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I would be more supportive of being able to enable PC1 or SPP levels of protection only in own-userspace; assuming your primary goal is to prevent vandalism? — xaosflux ^Talk 12:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Quite a few people have edited my user page. Some for good, and some for evil (and other people have usually reverted those before I even noticed...). Doesn't really worry me. I can see a problem with allowing users to protect their own user space pages. What about the spammers, copyvio merchants and CV or attack posters? The NPP and other guardians won't be able to tag those pages if the user has protected them in this way. Peridon (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• I believe it would be easy to create a tag for edits made on a user page by someone other than the user. Perhaps it's already been done, and that's why vandalism of user pages is often reverted so quickly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Good idea. Maybe people editing other people's user pages is more common than I thought because somebody else once created my user page in a vandalizing way before it got deleted then I created it with different content. I don't see the harm in it because anyone can decide to have their protection turned off. Blackbombchu (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Finding references for articles deleted from being unreferenced

One common reason for an article to be deleted is because it's suspected that no reliable source exists for that article but probably on rare occasion, at least 3 reliable sources did exist and nobody on its article for deletion page knew how to find them. For example, I'm sure many people in the world have a job that requires many years of training of researching how to make software that can get rid of viruses and how to track down web pages that redirect to a page for downloading an unusually nasty virus and blocking the redirect so maybe there do exist reliable sources for Java update virus. If not, then maybe there exists reliable sources for a general topic of people being tricked into downloading viruses for which maybe there should be an article. I know Wikipedia is not a guide, but maybe there are notable pieces of information about how in the past, viruses may have caused many people to be less able to do their school work on their computer and get lower marks, just like there is an article Vandalism on Wikipedia even though it appears to be a guide teaching people how to stop other people from doing vandalism. I don't feel free to start a deletion review of Java update virus because I'm the one who created it and I don't have a reason to think other so many other people were so stupid for being so sure no reliable sources exist for it. Feel free to tell me ways to improve the ability to find sources for articles in general with so few reliable sources, not just Java update virus, including a WikiProject on finding references and what changes to make to that WikiProject once it already exists. Blackbombchu (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

A page hosting a virus is not a good reference as no one would want to use that reference and become infected themselves. Instead we need references that talk about the topic, rather than references that are the topic! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I meant the references the researchers made, which is not a web page for downloading a virus but rather a web page that describes the problem of people downloading a virus. Those researchers learn how to eliminate those viruses partly by communicating with each other and one way of communicating is by writing a web page which might be a scientific journal. Blackbombchu (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

User page of the week/month

I've seen many terrible user pages - mainly vanicruftispamtisments or incoherent junk. I've seem many more very ordinary user pages "Hi, I'm Randy from Boise. I like Wikipedia... yadda yadda, blah blah." Very occasionally I discover user pages that are well designed and contain a good mix of pertinent information about the editor, a little well-deserved bragging, and a variety of other bits and pieces that may be useful to other editors. I'm thinking that a mechanism to give a little recognition and "publicity" to such user pages may serve a few purposes - firstly it "congratulates" the page owner, then it is held up as an example of good use of a user page that other may follow, and ultimately may help with editor retention. A few examples of such good user pages that I've found are;User:HelenOnline, User:Anna Frodesiak, User: Kim Dent-Brown, and if you'll permit me a moment of immodesty, my page isn't too ugly either... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you seen Wikipedia:User page design center/User page Hall of Fame? PrimeHunter (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I have now! The fact that this is the first time I see it mentioned in over 7 years of active editing, and the fact that the page gets very few edits - take a look at it's history - rather shows how obscure it is. I think good editor pages need far more prominent recognition than such a well hidden and thinly edited page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

As the saying goes, WP:SOFIXIT. Not that fixing is what it needs. Update it, and spread publicity. Pass out a userbox to the deserving, and in any other way make noise. Good noise. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Can we have a color scheme for the notifications count, please, and, if not, perhaps some other color than red?

(moved from User talk:Jimbo Wales)

My heart usually sinks when I see that little red square telling me I have one or more notifications. I fear I've been reverted (or something similar) and that this may be the prelude to a distressing dispute. Yet it's actually usually nothing to worry about, such as a harmless disambiguation bot message, and sometimes it's actually a pleasant thank you note. The fact that I know that I may cause somebody unwarranted alarm (based on my own experience) causes me to hesitate before clicking on the Thanks button, which seems undesirable. Even if we only have one color, red hardly seems ideal, being psychologically associated with danger. But ideally we would have several colors, such as green for good news (thanks, etc), blue for harmless (disambiguation bot messages, etc), yellow (or orange?) for unknown type (such as messages posted on your Talk page, and also 'you've been mentioned in Topic X's Talk page', unless we let the message writer choose the notification colour, but defaulting to yellow), red for bad news (such as you have been reverted). If multiple notifications have different colours, either use green if notifications are all green or blue, yellow if there are yellow but no red present, or red if any red is present (or alternatively use more than one notification count square).

(By the way, if this is the wrong forum for this suggestion/request, please accept my apologies, and please let me know which is the right one). Tlhslobus (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion about revert notifications - please discuss under another heading

I never understood why we introduced the notification of a revert anyway. Seems to me it just provokes edit-warring. DeCausa (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC) Interesting point, DeCausa. It's a separate issue from what I'm proposing here, but you might raise it as a proposal of your own somewhere else. I wouldn't support getting rid of such notifications, but I can see a possible case for delayed notification, especially when, as has sometimes happened in my experience, the revert is really only a temporary technical one to facilitate making a change requested by the person being technically reverted (such as providing a citation or clarification or whatever). Tlhslobus (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Also giving the reverter time to make all his subsequent changes (or to add an explanation on Talk) before the revertee is notified may reduce the risk of unnecessary distress (and/or an edit war), especially if the revertee likes the new changes or accepts the reasonableness of the explanation.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC) I've been doing some large-scale (several thousand articles) typo fixing this summer with AWB, and getting a notification of all my reverts has really helped me in learning how to apply those typo fixes more accurately. Plus, it's a good notice so that editors know when to bring a matter to the talk page. Sure, not everyone is going to have a positive, measured reaction, but it's useful to enough often enough that I think it outweighs any negatives. VanIsaacWScont 09:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC) I agree that being notified of reverts is useful, but Tlhslobus has a good point that an instant notification may prompt the original editor to start edit warring, without leaving the reverter enough time to clarify or perform further improvements. Maybe those notifications would benefit from a ten-minutes delay? Diego (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC) You can turn them off. I've found them very useful, and my impression is that so have most people, with even those fiercely opposed to other recently introduced software features regarding them as helpful. I suppose a colour scheme might work. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC) This seems like a pretty benign change that could be performed, and mostly will have some technical aspects; I suggest posting this over at WP:VPI to gain the right audience. — xaosflux Talk 14:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC) (Moved to WP:VPI). — xaosflux Talk 14:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC) Thanks, xaosflux, though I hope this thanks hasn't alarmed you with a red notification :) Tlhslobus (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Tlhslobus: It's coded to have just two different colours: a grey for zero, and a red for all non-zero values. The type of notification that is counted is ignored, any count of 2 or more could include more than one different type. But you can alter that red to a different background colour for all types with some CSS. The current rule is:

#pt-notifications .mw-echo-notifications-badge.mw-echo-unread-notifications {
  background-color: #C00;
}

Paste that into Special:MyPage/common.css and alter the #C00 to another colour value, then save. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Or, even better, put it in your global.css on Meta, and the change will take effect for you on every Wikimedia wiki. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Dan Garry and Redrose64. Both your suggestions seem excellent, and I will try them out shortly. However I don't want to leave people with the mistaken impression that the problem is now solved, as these fixes only fix a very small part of the issues I've raised.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the fix suggests one or two further proposals: that even if we don't do anything more elaborate (such as in my original suggestion) then the default color should be some color other than red, at least for new users. Light blue seems nice and relaxing, though on the downside using light blue without fixing the rest of the problem might harmfully end up giving some users some kind of phobia about the color of the sky where they had none before.Tlhslobus (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it was User:Quiddity (WMF) who posted an idea for splitting them out, so that you could see (for example) thanks separately from mentions (etc.) if you had multiple types of notifications. Perhaps he'll be able to tell us that team's current thinking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

On LinkedIn, I get up to three of these little red boxes - left to right, they are "Messages", "Notifications", "Add Connections". Facebook also has three - "Friend requests", "Inbox", "Notifications".

Perhaps we could also have more than one; it should then be possible to give them different colours. Clearly "Add Connections" and "Friend requests" are irrelevant to us, since all users are already kinda connected to all other users. Of the others, "Messages"/"Inbox" correspond to our user talk page messages - that one could be green or blue. This leaves "Notifications", corresponding to our own WP:ECHO system, which apparently covers eight different things (although I've only personally experienced four of them); I've already covered talk page messages, so perhaps we could split the remaining seven into two or three separate counters. These might be red for high-priority notifications (reverts, user rights); orange for mid-priority notifications (course talk, mentions, page reviews); and yellow for low-priority notifications (page links, thanks). --Redrose64 (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

(partially copying my comment from elsewhere...)

There have been at least three ideas along those lines:

mockup from #1

1. At mw:Compact Personal Bar#Design V2 there are ideas (and 2 Mockup images) around having separate flyouts for each of the 3 main standard workflows - 1) Watchlist 2) "Talk messages" 3) Alerts.
   So #2 would cover all of the "discussion" types of notification (replies, mentions, usertalkpage posts). This option has been partially discussed amongst the Flow dev team, and the current "2 tabs in 1 flyout" (as seen if you have Flow contributions here) is just a temporary setup until a better long-term solution is determined.
2. At Wikipedia talk:Notifications/Archive 5#Granularity, there was an idea to separate each of the Notification-Types into a separate icon, and only have the icon appear if there was a fresh Notification of that specific type.
   For an active editor, it could look something like: 1 3 4  2 
   And then if I had 0 new notifications, it would be the default single number/icon on grey.
3. At Wikipedia talk:Notifications/Archive 5#Color-coding the dot, there was a related idea to just color-code the badge/number background, but that's complicated by the different cultural-nuances of colors, and color-blindness.

(Personally: I really like #1, although I want words in addition to icons. I really like some aspects of #2 but I also worry about the variable-width and the potential number of icons if I had many types of new alerts. I like the idea of #3, but I don't know enough about multicultural color symbolism, to know how many variants would be needed.

Re: bundling notification types together - There's an ongoing (backlogged at my end) project to compile a list of all the previously suggested "New Notification" ideas (a few hundred, I believe), which should eventually help with (or add complexity to) that. The existing (out-of-date) list is at mw:Echo (Notifications)/Feature requirements#Notification Categories).

HTH. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Quiddity (WMF). Clearly there's lots of stuff in there for me to read and have a think about before I comment any further. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Quiddity, I like the 1 3 4 one best (off hand, and my opinion is subject to change without warning). As a half-way step, if there's only one notification or one type of notification, could this be used now? I'd like Echo a lot better if I looked at it and thought "Hey, somebody thanked me" a third of the time rather than "Ugh, which dispute blew up this time? (Oh, hey, somebody was just saying thanks.)" WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

For the OP, I have created a script that can color the indicator based on count:

addOnloadHook(function () {
  noteLink = document.getElementById( 'pt-notifications' ).childNodes[0];
  noteCount = noteLink.innerHTML;
  color = { 0:'lightblue', 1:'green', 2:'orange', 3:'red' };
  noteLink.style.backgroundColor = color[noteCount] || 'gray';
});

Just add it to your javascript and away you go, customize colors as needed.

Basing it on the types of notifications may be possible but it would be unclear what color to use in many circumstances. It would be possible to replace the number with a longer string like "N1 R2" for "1 notification, 2 reverts". Chillum 07:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Support I really don't see why red has to be used. It's a small change but another colour like green or blue would certainly decrease its hostility. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Red is a color of joy in some cultures. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

But more usually, yellow is the colour of happiness and joy. http://www.color-wheel-pro.com/color-meaning.html --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support no colour (the number is enough) with colours as an opt-in. As mainly a reader with an account, I dislike the intrusion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Meh, color's not a big issue here. If we turn the box to blue, people'll start connecting blue with reversions, and nothing'll get solved. On the other hand, if we use different colors and/or symbols for different types of notifications, it'll be easy to see what's going on, and so the unnecessary worry won't be as big a deal. Personally, I really like #2, but that's just a personal preference. Yes, keep the notifications for reversions, but put the edit summary in there (and all other types of notifications), similar to how it does it now for when someone leaves a message on the talk page. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 00:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I too dislike the red since each time I see it I think I've been reverted or worse... Anyway I most definitely prefer #2 as it looks alot more frendlier and you obviously see who thanked you & what not. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I saw mention above of taking inspiration from LinkedIn. Please don't. It's an atrocious website loved only by recruiters. I'm not the biggest fan of people saying "NOTFACEBOOK" and "NOTMYSPACE", but seriously... not LinkedIn. For the love of all things sane, not anything like LinkedIn, thanks. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

  I didn't say we should make Notifications exactly like LinkedIn; I was using it as an example of a website which has more than one kind of counter in the top of the screen, and I also described what sort of things do in those counters. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Color schemes

I realize someone has mentioned this before but I want to bring it up again... I do like the idea of Color Schemes for the Inbox.. Red makes me think... >>oh shit what did I mess up this time<< Healing^Not 13:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like T57359, discussion also at Wikipedia talk:Notifications/Archive 6#Colouring the notification badge and Wikipedia talk:Notifications/Archive 6#Notification badge colour selection. Note the comment on bug 55359 "The current red notification color was arrived in agreement with community members who felt the other colors (yellow & orange?) were not visible enough." There's a related request for granular icons in the Echo badge, T58476 and Wikipedia talk:Notifications/Archive 5#Granularity -- SPage (WMF) (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@HealingNot and SPage (WMF): See #Can we have a color scheme for the notifications count, please, and, if not, perhaps some other color than red? currently at the top of this page, for all the (3 major) versions I'm familiar with. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Major nonprofit search engine

I'm becoming more conscious of the corruption for-profit endeavors are prone to. E.g., the major SEs (search engines) are right now arguably pirating imagery. They bring up wonderful full-quality images scraped from websites in wispy efficient UIs that let's the user download whatever they want without needing to visit the original webpage. (Most people don't even tag their images with logos or include their site in the filename, so once it's saved to disc from the SE, there's no clue of where it came from.) They also allow purely image scraper sites to manipulate their systems, hence even when an SE displays a link back to the original webpage, that link might be back to a scraper site that already harvested your original image and may be even less likely to credit the original original page. Even further, there are actually fake anti-scam sites that come up when you investigate, giving the scraper sites A+ scores and listing no complaints.

The thing that really nags me is that it's not one but all 3 of the major SEs (Google, Bing, & Yahoo). It almost sounds like a conspiracy theory but really, they're all doing it. I keep wondering how the this could possibly be? The only answer I can think of is that the type of endeavor (for-profit search engine) is just prone to this type of corruption; however, SEs also provide an incredible service: they drive incredible traffic to your site. I've tried to play devil's advocate and say now wait, do the benefits they provide still outweigh these perceived violations? The answer may be yes (Google has the case well, without us, you'd barely be getting any traffic at all), but then again, it's a nasty theoretical, because things might have evolved differently if they had begun in the pattern of what they're doing now.

What if this unsaid contract with the SEs had begun way back as a nonprofit endeavor? What if we had said you know, why don't we build a way to search the whole internet for free!! Then the SEs wouldn't be prone to corruption, right? In other words, why aren't SEs like Wikipedia? Could we build such? Squish7 (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikia tried this once. It didn't end well :\ ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikia is for-profit company, I don't understand how this relates to a nonprofit endeavor. Anyway, nothing great was ever achieved by trying one time then quitting. We're on a planet of 7+ billion people. If everybody tried twice at something, that's 14 billion tries!

With great respect to all editors, I've often noticed that people with a large body of knowledge will reply to a proposition by quoting information, not necessarily thinking creatively. People constantly tell me "Oh, they've already done that" as if everything in the world has been done and there's no point in going on with anything at all. Hence let me revise my question(s): Does anyone have any ideas on getting people together to start a major nonprofit search engine? What similar projects/methods have succeeded, or what has failed (within the context of how the failure might be used as a learning experience)? Squish7 (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It may be too late. Remember all that news about Google, Samsung and Apple going to court about patents and stuff like that? One of the patents was the ability to lock a phone using a symbol traced on the screen. But a lot of them, and the least reported, were about how search engines display results. Basically, like life, its function is now subject to intricate copyright. I'm not sure of the exact implications, but when a search box doesn't seem to find or display the results in a very clever way, I am reminded how these laws went in, practically unannounced on the back of Apple vs Samsung. You can bet, if you take business from Google, there will be a court day of the sort that could cripple the site. You'd have to understand this ~ R.T.G 12:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible to block edits that trip the "possible vandalism" tag?

If you click here, you'll see a large list of edits that have tripped the "possible vandalism" tag. I've noticed that this tag is incredibly accurate. Almost every edit that it tags as vandalism is vandalism. Instead of going through the trouble of reverting these edits, why don't we just block them in the first place? If my memory serves me correctly, edit filters have the ability to do this. (Of course, edit count fanatics won't like this proposal, because they won't have as many edits to revert...) --Writing Enthusiast ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It is certainly possible, the place to discuss this is at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter. There are multiple filters that are hitting this tag, such as 432 and 491. Edit filters allow for differing actions, including "tag" - but specific filters could be changed to "prevent the edit" if warranted. The more likely a filter is to have a false positive, the less likely we would want to block the edit. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Search links to other WMF sites

I was searching for a phrase in WP and it didn't come up and it occured to me it would be handy to have links at the top of the page, "Search Wiktionary for this query" and Commons and Wikisource and stuff like that, much in the same way we add the templates to articles linking categories on other sites. Probably been suggested before, not sure what it would be called in the archives, ~ R.T.G 15:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@RTG:, you may be interested in the Other projects sidebar in beta testing. Click on the beta link in your user toolbar and it's one of the options you can switch on near the bottom. I've been using it for a while and have had no trouble. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jason Quinn:That's interesting in another way also. There is a discussion going on about disallowing onsite redirects in foreign languages, the theory being that such redirects are not conducive to learning the language, i.e. English. I don't hold with that, but such a bar that you have shown me here could become a standard feature some day if it is already on fr.wiki and I am sure the discussions outcome would have implication on interwiki links. Thanks for the info, ~ R.T.G 14:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@RTG: Could you post a link of that discussion? I'd like to look at it. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

LOL yes that would help Wikipedia_talk:Redirects_for_discussion/Redirects_from_foreign_languages#Try_again.3F. Maybe it hasn't got a lot of momentum. I didn't fully read and there's only ten or twenty contibutors but they were talking bout making it a policy. Thanks again o/ ~ R.T.G 18:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Checklist for closing discussions?

Rather long time ago I ran into a problem when a closer of RFC discounted some opinions about merger of an article, because he thought that some major changes of that article changed the situation significantly, while missing a discussion (that ended up in the archive) where those changes were discussed (the article has been deleted by now, and so is the RFC). After that I have prepared (without publishing) a "checklist" that would list some steps that might be worth considering while closing discussions (like looking at the discussion, article and its history, archives etc., making a list of participants, arguments etc. and the like). The obvious problem with that is that I have yet to close a single discussion... So, I'd like to ask: would such "checklist" actually have any use..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there any reason that you haven't tried out your checklist by closing some discussions? There are usually dozens at WP:ANRFC, because someone's taken it upon himself to list almost every single expired RFC, regardless of whether the RFC participants actually need or want a formal closure. You don't need to be an admin to close those discussions (especially the easy ones). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess I should try to do so... Eventually... Although it is not easy to find a discussion that is interesting enough to give me a motivation to close it, where I didn't participate, and easy enough to close that I would be willing to have it as my first close, yet sufficiently complex that it would be possible to try out much of the "checklist" (I guess it will become clearer after looking at it - User:Martynas Patasius/Things to check while closing discussions)... I do remember finding one - yet I soon found out that I was not the only one who felt motivated enough to try...

And I guess that if I didn't get a flurry of responses like "No, anything like that would just scare potential closers away for little gain.", publishing it as a "user essay" might not cause that much damage... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia bingo

As a fun way of encouraging people to develop WP articles - the WP equivalent of Bingo (Commonwealth) - lists of (for example) 10-12 articles, possibly themed/category of improvement required. People can pick up one (or several if they have the inclination) - and those who have improved the most by a given date 'win' (Other versions can include getting one of the entries to GA/FA status etc). See the current mainpage talkpage discussion on MM for one variant. (Not all articles need be 'those sitting in improvement categories') Jackiespeel (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, please also note my point on integrating with crypto currencies as per my proposal below. It could be a related idea. Thanks :)Willibs (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Help the Wikipedians to live closer to each other, if/when they wish that

Hello there,

I am a wikipedian with more than five years of activity and more than 10,000 edits. For some privacy reasons I decided to create a new user and to post my message with it. Since a long time ago I was thinking that I would like to live closer to other wikipedians. There are two proposals I have for Wikimedia Foundation (WMF):

1) Help the wikipedians to find apartments to share. Since many years, I live in a flat, where I rent a room. I pay 300 euros / month to the owner of the apartment for that room. But I would like to find other wikipedians in my city who are interested to share a flat. And then, three wikipedians for example can rent an apartment together. The advantage consists in sharing the house with people who share your passions and in feeling more comfortable and safe. It's less likely that you will have problems when you live with people who are trying to build a better world, than when you live with people you find in a newspaper. I know, I can contact the wikipedians in my country (I think such a group already exists), but WMF can better help people to find each other for such purpose. WMF can promote this so the people better get the idea, and it can involve a bit in some very big cities, where there are many wikipedians.

A group of six wikipedians can rent two apartments next to each other, making the situation even more interesting. Twenty wikipedians might be able to rent an entire small apartment building, and so on. For me, it would be very nice to live in a Wipedia community. And I dare to think that I'm not the only one who thinks like that.

2) Rent rooms/studios/apartments/houses to wikipedians - and not only to wikipedians. I know WMF is not a real estate agency, but there is an undeniable fact: people make donations to WMF, and in the future, before or after passing away, they will live their wealth and houses to Wikipedia. Maybe such things already happened. I am one of those people who will live a part of their wealth to Wikipedia at the end of my life - at least 20% but maybe even 50% or 90%. And then, Wikipedia can rent those houses to wikipedians, at the market price, having a steady source of income forever. Instead of renting to random people, WMF should try to rent it to wikipedians first (but no discounts for them), so they can be closer to each other, if that's what they wish.

I suggest that WMF should also try something like this to see how it goes: buy a house somewhere in the suburbs of a big city where there are many wikipedians (let's say New York or Los Angeles). A house that needs a bit of reforming (and which is cheaper because it needs reforming). Maybe some wikipedians will volunteer to help with reforming. Or maybe some wikipedians will convince their family or friends to volunteer. And then, after reforming it, WMF can rent it to wikipedians. It is a one-time investment but it generates income forever. Or WMF can raise a cheap building (open source plans, open source techology) with small studios and rent them. If WMF would start such a project, I am more than happy to put 300 euros to support buying or raising a building for renting it. Maybe I would put even 500 euros. I am quite sure that I am not the only one to support such an idea. Many people (will) realize the fact that renting housing can generate revenues forever and it's one of the best ideas for funding a foundation. The money for the building can be raised in a campaign anywhere, even on Kickstarter.

In case that renting to wikipedians can be problematic (like some of them asking for a free rent in return for their work on Wikipedia), then the flats should be rented to non-wikipedians, who don't create such problems. Or there can be strict rules in place, to make sure such problems can't rise.

Many times I wonder why big charities like Red Cross or World Vision are not doing things like that. Many people live their houses to such charities in their testaments. Why they refuse to rent those places to the people, to generate a steady revenue, it's a big question for me. The only answer I can imagine is that they struggle very hard to keep it fake. Instead of paying 30 euros / month to Red Cross as a supporting member, I would prefer to pay them 300 euros / month for a room that they already have. It would generate 10 times more revenue (from me) that can be used to help the poor. But in this world, the things are the way they are..

I would accept to pay the same money that I am paying now for renting a room, even if it's further from my work than the place where I live now, if I can share the flat with more interesting and safe people. And I'm quite sure I'm not the only one who thinks like that.

This kind of things should have been done a long time ago, by the charities who have millions of members worldwide. Therefore, the idea should be expanded to rent not only to wikipedians, but to all wikians in general, and even to members of charities who are (being misleaded into) trying to improve the world: Red Cross, Vorld Vision, Action Aid, World Food Programme, etc. Those members who participated for a minimum while, of course.

In the end, I would like to bring into your attention the fact that the Red Cross in Kenya owns a five star hotel, that is generating a constant revenue. So this idea is not completely new. And renting real estate is easier and safer than owning businesses like hotels, restaurants, shops or other kind of for-profit activities, which can go up but also can go down anytime. As an activist, I would feel much better to live close to other activists than living close to strangers.

I think WMF should definitely try those things out.

Thanks for reading all the words above. Yours sincerely, --- WikiHousing (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

GIS data in Wikipedia

Hello, I am an occasional contributor to Wikipedia, and I really think Wikipedia could use some sort of centralized geographic information system of it's own, that editors could enrich articles with, and could make information a lot more accessible and clear to the readers. Does such a product exist at the present? does the Wikimedia foundation consider to create such a solution in the future? or nobody has ever thought of it yet?

I would like to elaborate on the matter: imagine an article like religion in Africa (for example), this specific article contains at the moment some sort of map in picture format that displays the different religions in Africa by different colors. the map is not too easy to interact with, the data is extremely simplified, and readers who want to research the subject further will probably use another service like Google maps, that allows them to manipulate the geographic data more easily (but would require the reader to also use some other source for the actual information on the specific subject).

I imagine some sort of simple to use inter-Wikipedia application, that would allow users to use existing Rasters and polygonal Geo-referenced layers saved on Wikipedia's servers or some other free to use sites, and only manipulate the attributes of the data relevant to the specific article. I imagine the Wikimedia foundation could reach some sort of agreement with Google to use it's maps services, or if that involves too much complications, ask for help from it's vast bank of volunteers - some of which are inclined to be programmers. And as for the data and raster layers themselves, use open sourced data across the internet as a basis, and allow editors to link to free-to-use data themselves, or contribute their copyrighted data.

I would appreciate your reply on this subject, Bigtk (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bigtk: we do have {{Attached KML}} in use for a lot of road articles. The KMLs attached to those articles are used to specify a line on a map, which can then be overlaid on Google or Bing Maps or displayed on the WikiMiniAtlas accessible from the globe at the top of the article. Other types of articles (railways, rivers) have used KMLs for a similar purpose, and I think there are some using polygons to show areas. This is all in addition to the mapping abilities through {{Coord}}, which is limited to single point data. Imzadi 1979 → 00:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: I looked into List of Attached KML subpages, and couldn't find any polygonal kmls. I tried to display some polygonal kml I've found online [1] on google maps, and got an error message "could not be displayed because it is too large." I am talking Large-scale here, I want to be able to display states and continents, and use data that exists in tables to change the ways the polygons are displayed (in reference to the example above, color Muslim majority countries in one color and christian majority countries in another etc.). furthermore, I want the data to be more accessible i.e. not linked to another service like google or bing maps. can't we use some sort of template to display the relevant map on the same article? we could use background maps already saved on Wikipedia- Wikipedia:Blank maps. Bigtk (talk) 08:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I do believe there was a polygonal KML used for an article on a tornado outbreak last year, but I could be mistaken. The KML template already inserts a globe in the upper right corner of the article, and that globe pops up the WikiMiniAtlas with the content of the KML overlaid onto a map. There are currently limitations in that WMA doesn't use the colors specified by the KML. Also, there are limitations in total file size allowed by the servers involved. Imzadi 1979 → 22:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Integration with Digital Crypto Currency Platform

I have recently began observing developments in the cryptocurrency world and have determined several ideas of great import and potential relevance to the Wikimedia foundation.

Perhaps it would be useful to explore the idea of developing a crypto currency that integrates into the crowd sourced framework of Wikimedia foundation knowledge where contributors are compensated for their efforts - in effect, coins are created (mined) and distributed in accordance with user contributions. This way all contributing users will have the additional benefit of receiving economic compensation for their efforts, and thus contributors will have a greater incentive to contribute, and can even singularly dedicate their time to compiling their knowledge online with secure assurance that an income will also be generated. Perhaps the currency could be named WikimediaCoin, which will be one of the first knowledge backed currencies - literally, a first in decentralised knowledge based economies. For an example scenario, a user would be generate a coin for every 10000 words contributed. Administrative/Moderators/Peer review users could also be compensated in some way, say perhaps they are apportioned a flat percentage of 5% of the coins generated from every new contribution that is reviewed. In general, an appropriate coin distribution system needs to be implemented that acknowledges everyone's honest collaborative input, while also having some quality assurance systems in place that protect the wiki from being abused for personal gain and thus ensuring integrity in the value of the crypto currency and the knowledge which is contributed. This idea could also provide massive benefits to free education platforms such as Wikiversity, in enabling itself to propel forward the mass dissemination of knowledge for free, and also for a freely generated income.

Alternatively, it may be a hard sell to transform the established Wikimedia foundation in such a way, therefore perhaps a new start up may be essential which might go by something like "Cryptopedia", "Cryptoknowledge", or "Distribmedia" etc, which could also be stored on a decentralised crowd cloud computing network such as MaidSafe - which brings me to another point. Would Wikimedia's administrative costs benefit from adopting a decentralised crowd sourced cloud server platform? (Such as MaidSafe, once MaidSafe is launched and becomes a thriving platform) Could it even enhance Wikimedia's services?

I wish to leave you all with these stimulating thoughts and hope that they do provide some excitement in terms of prospective potential. Please, everyone contribute to the development of this idea, throw in your eggs of innovation whatever they may be, whether you're a total expert or only have an inkling, the more ideas we can link together, the greater, more effective, self-sustainable, and self-propagating the platform will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willibs (talk • contribs) 22:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Willibs (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Reuse of sandbox when creating articles

Dear editors: Often new users who don't know how to create user subpages write draft articles in their sandbox. In fact, they are encouraged to do so by Wikipedia talk:Simple guide to creating your first article and the video at WP:USERSUBPAGE, and likely other places.

Inevitable, the draft articles need to be moved out, either to Draft space or to article space, leaving a redirect, with one edit attributed to whoever did the move. The user will then delete the redirect and start a new article. This has unintended consequences; for example, today I was notified that a draft I had created, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mikiea Perkins, was about to be deleted. Not only had I not created the article, but I had never edited that article; my only contributions was to move a draft article that had at some time previously been in the same sandbox. This led to the actual creator of the draft not being notified.

This also leads to distorted article attribution in the contributions statistics. For example, XTools lists me as the creator of Sharmin Ali, Atacama B-Mode Search, Healey Silverstone and several others which I have never edited or even seen before.

Since new users are immediately able to create pages in their own userspaces, would it be appropriate to minimize the problem by changing various instruction pages, help videos, etc., to encourage new users to create their first article draft in a user subpage with the intended title rather than one called "sandbox"? Or would this cause other problems that haven't occurred to me? The only one that I can think of is that the user might forget what they had called the page. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I see the problem, although it's quite a minor issue really. I've sorted out Healey Silverstone, by deleting the earliest revision. The history now appears correctly. This is not a real answer though. Using unique draft pages for each article would certainly help, but this would be much harder to explain to newcomers. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, the problem starts to happen when the editors aren't really newcomers any more, since they have already created one draft article, had it moved out of the sandbox, and then created a second draft which was also moved out. Maybe somewhere in between the use of named subpages can be explained. Right now, when pages are moved out of sandboxes, an "R from move" template is left on the page. Could there be an alternative template, such as "R from move sandbox" which would display a message such as "Click here to find out how to create a special page in your user space for your next article. (It's okay to remove this message.)"., and include a link to a page that explained how to create and name a user subpage, the option of creating a page in Draft space instead if they planned to invite others to help with the draft, and maybe a pointer to the WP:Teahouse. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Another problem with encouraging beginners to use the sandbox to create articles is that this leaves the redirect to the final article sitting in the sandbox. To a new user, this looks as if the sandbox doesn't exist anymore. I had this problem myself, but luckily I had an invitation to the Teahouse and was able to get help. If the new user does manage to figure out how to follow the tiny link back from the article to the sandbox and reuse it, this removes the link to the article, and the (fairly) new user has no obvious way to find the article again if they don't remember the exact title. (This relates to another post I have made further down this page about making it easier for users to find a list of their subpages.) If, instead, the sandbox redirect was a "soft" redirect, with the message suggested above, so that when I went to my sandbox to make a second article I was encouraged to create a subpage, it would be less confusing and avoid all of the attribution mix-ups mentioned above. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

esperento ido

–As as esperento and ido are closly similar contributions to one wikipedia should be added to the other wikipedia as well thru machine translation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.118.223 (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Change to Closure of RfC's

I have a possible policy proposal and I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions on how to make it better.

Sometimes there are very contentious RfC's with lots of people on both sides of the issue. Sometimes the number of votes, for instance, comes down to 55% on one side and 45% on the other. Now a uninvolved editor trying to close this RfC lets say they could reasonably choose that there is a consensus (in favor of the 55%), or that there just is no consensus (its close enough between the two sides). The person making the decision on how to close the RfC in that case is very important, and they are unlikely to be overturned (as they could decide either way). So here is what I propose:

1. Any involved editor can require that an uninvolved administrator panel of 3 editors to close the RfC.
2. Any involved editor can require that the RfC run for (up to) at least 30 days. (assuming it is not snow closed)

Any closure done after this requirement is added to the RfC and in violation of it would not be valid and could be overturned on review.

To help make this clear going forward, I created a sandboxed modification of the RfC template that has two additional options "admin=yes""panel=yes" turns on the requirement to close the RfC. And "days=x" turns on the requirement that it be closed after x days (this is incase maybe people don't need the full 30 days or everyone wants more then 30). Here is what it looks like:

{{Rfc/sandbox/Adminclose|bio|rfcid=580730E|panel=yes|days=30}}

Additionally I propose that for the most very complex cases, that a request can be made that a 3 administrator panel decide how to close the RfC. That accepting it be discretionary (the closing administrator can choose to get 3 or not), unless there is a consensus in favor of a 3 administrator panel.

The good things about this are 1) that admins area panel is much more likely to carefully review the closing decision then a normal editor. (Admins tend to have put in a lot of time and effort in establishing a good reputation of being fair and will not want to ruin that.) 2) the adminspanel are less likely to be advocating one side in the dispute or conflict of intrest, or otherwise not have a neutral point of view on the subject. 3) Its far too easy for an involved editor to create (or have) a sockpuppet close the RfC on their behalf without anyone finding out, this would prevent that. (Yes there are other ways to look and try to find who is a sock puppet but they are not full-proof if they use a different IP).

The disadvantages of such a system are that it increases the amount of work that admins have to do. Secondly that it increases the power of administrators over normal editors.

The disadvantages would be 1) that it would be harder to close some RfC's 2)that it would be difficult to figure out who should be on the panel (especially if there is not consensus).

What are your thoughts on this and how it might be improved?

--Obsidi (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

As discussed at a recent ANI thread, we have a tension between the notion that an admin is just like any other editor, except for access to some tools, which are usually unrelated to RfC closure, and the notion that closure of contentious issues ought to be done by highly experienced editors with a solid understanding of policy in general, and consensus issues in particular. Of course, there are non-admins with such a skill set, many who are better at it than some admins, but we have no formal way of identifying them. One possibility is that we ought to identify such individuals, although that sounds like a challenge in itself. If we could do so, or even if we could not, I'd like to consider the possibility that the default closure process for contentious RfCs ought to be a three editor panel, possibly with a requirement that one be a non-admin, possibly that some situations it might be fine to choose three non-admins. If we follow our usual process for selecting three editor panels, that is, a couple editors put their hand up, a little discussion ensues and a panel is selected by consensus, we could do the same, just allow non-admins to put up their hand, and one's who are clearly not suitable would not be selected. --S Philbrick(Talk) 01:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with that if everyone could actually agree on who the closure individuals are. Maybe its easier then I suspect, but I suspect there will be times that people just don't agree. Also there is still a lot of wiggle room about if it was "really" contentious or not. Would you suggest switching the "requires admin" part to "requires a three editor panel". That might solve the problem, after you got to figure out who these three people will be before you can close in that case. That is likely going to mostly be by consensus at least. It seems unlikely that 3 editors would just randomly start working together to close, and although its possible that you would have one editor and two meat puppets it would be a bit more obvious then a single sockpuppet. Would you still accept that ANY involved editor can require the 3 editor panel to close? (or maybe one involved editor proposes a panel and it requires a 2nd involved editor to second the requirement of a panel) And would you require consensus on who the 3 people are or merely suggest it? --Obsidi (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

FTR, I urged Obsidi to start here, even though this is a proposed policy change, because I think it works best to threash out wording and ideas in one palce, and then do voting in another. If everyone thinks the existign wording is fine (even if they are opposed) we can move to Village Pump Policy, but it wording tweaks are need, it is complicated to do after voting starts. My hope is we work on wording here, then vote up or down at VPPolicy.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• I see no reason to make admins even more "special" than they already are. They're supposed to be just regular editors with more technical abilities. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Isnt it usually admins that close the very close RfCs anyway? This just codifies that and makes it a requirement if it is asked for. --Obsidi (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC) I'm coming around to the idea of instead of it being an admin, that it require a 3 editor panel to close (see above). Then admins would remain equal to regular editors. Still lots of details to work out though on how they are selected. --Obsidi (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: Please read the top of this page, which is also emphasized at the top of the editing window:

This page is not for consensus polling. Stalwart "Oppose" and "Support" comments generally have no place here. Instead, discuss ideas and suggest variations on them.

I specifically urged Obsidi to post here, rather than Policy, because I thought the idea needed some work. My post specifically addressed the concern you have, identifying a way to use non-admins even in difficult closes. --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I am concerned that the proposed change would invite certain abuses. It seems particularly vulnerable to filibustering – any single involved editor can demand a one-month delay on content that they don't want added to an article – and to drama-generation—forming mutually-acceptable three-judge panels is a potential can of worms. In my experience, you start with a small nucleus of bickering editors on a talk page, an RfC notice is posted, a bunch (or a handful, or a couple, depending on the topic) of outside editors drop in and post a few comments in the subsequent days, and a week later the talk page is back to the original nucleus of bickering editors. Having three weeks of additional fighting amongst themselves on the talk page probably isn't going to advance the discussion much, and it will be pretty effective at driving the less-involved, more-independent voices away.

This strikes me as a very heavy-duty process: time-consuming and labor-intensive. If I'm not mistaken, variations on this theme have occasionally been used in the past on an ad hoc basis to resolve very-long-simmering otherwise-utterly-intractable disputes, but they've always been a great deal of effort to set up and to close. Generally they've worked when the discussion has come down to making a decision between a limited number of choices; polls and discussions that spawn multiple new options and open-ended choices tend to fizzle and end in non-decision. Moreover, in those previous instances I believe there has generally been "buy-in" from the major players: a grudging but good-faith agreement and willingless to accept (or at least tolerate) the outcome. If we're going to formalize such a process – and I get nervous about writing a policy that will be used in edge cases, because it may encourage a lack of flexibility in structuring and facilitating such discussions – then the trigger needs to be much harder to pull.

Incidentally, I freely admit that my recollections on ad hoc structured RfCs are just that – my personal, fuzzy recollections – and it would probably be helpful for the proposer (or someone!) to dig up some of those past instances of large-participation, extended-time, highly-structured, 'facilitated' RfCs to examine how they have worked (or not) in the past. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I share your concern about over doing the process. Any proposal which makes it easy for a single editor to invoke a time-intensive process will be ripe for abuse. We need to find a way to triage, something we are not always good at. I hope we want a light-weight process for issues that are not of great importance, or generate only a modest amount of controversy, but we ought to be willing to use a more time-intensive process on issues that are a bigger deal. I don't know how to identify objective criteria for the importance aspect, but I'll throw out something for the second aspect—rather than allowing a single editor to insist on a three editor panel at any time for any reason, maybe there has to be some minimum number of participants to justify the request?

On structured RfCs, I'm a big fan, but I think they conflict with some aspects of Wikipedia culture (anyone can say whatever they want almost anywhere). I have some thoughts on how to eat our cake and have it too, but I see the need for buy-in first.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I can understand that this process would be time consuming and difficult to figure out who the panel would be. One mitigating factor is that the closing panel does not need to get consensus first (although that would be nice), but as long as it is three uninvolved editors agreeing to close. The second thing we could consider is to have a minimum number of editors required to request it before it becomes mandatory. If a single editor would be too easy, how about 2? Or 5? How many editors agreeing the process is needed do you think to minimize the times that it occurs to the really important ones. What I don't want is just that it requires consensus (if you have that you can do whatever you want), it should be some fixed number, so if there are a lot of people in a big discussion then it should require the extra protections. --Obsidi (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

In my experience, these conflicts can run deeper and deeper into WP:DR processes, with things like RfCs being a process associated with the early stages of a dispute. That is to say, it's very rarely the case that an RfC which closes in a contentious area is definitive. It is impossible to resolve larger disputes with an RfC, and once it becomes clear that the problems are larger than that scope, other dispute resolution avenues are available, including third opinion, dispute resolution noticeboard, other noticeboards, mediation, and finally arbitration. This proposal seems to be trying to push RfC further down the pipe of dispute resolution processes. It's not clear that we need to burden the RfC with heavier processes when such a need indicates that other more formal dispute resolution may be needed. aprock (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC's are fairly early in the process of dispute resolution, but they are also are usually fairly definitive as far as content disputes go. A third opinion is at least imo earlier then an RfC (it only involves one outside editor, not lots like an RfC). Noticeboards are great, but they don't always resolve anything (not like an RfC does usually). Mediation is nice, but entirely voluntary, and many times people don't want to go to mediation (and why would they if they win the RfC?). Arbitration is there, but they almost never take content disputes. Mainly they step in if there is disruption of the process occurring, and do not resolve content disputes. So outside of RfC's there are NO strong closure to content disputes. As such we need some way to make sure RfC's do their job accurately when it is a "close call". --Obsidi (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

We currently do have a way to "make sure RfC's do their job accurately": WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. aprock (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes but that is only reviewable if the closer made an obvious mistake. If its a "close call" between 55-60% = consensus in that direction or no consensus, then that isn't reviewable. In those cases, where it isn't reviewable, it is better to have it decided right up front. --Obsidi (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Links along top-right on "Editing Template:..." pages

How about the default/option to include the list of {{X1}} · {{X2}} · ... · {{Template sandbox}} links (from Template:Template sandbox heading) along the top-right of an "Editing Template:..." page..? (Apologies if this already considered.) Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

A general link to Help:Template would seem more relevant on random non-sandbox templates. Suggestions can be made at Template talk:Editnotices/Namespace/Template. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Article creation and pending AfC submissions

Given the severe backlog of AfC submissions, I would like to know whether Wikipedia software alerts an editor who is about to create an article in mainspace with a name that already exists in the draft namespace. If I'm not mistaken, I currently have three pending submissions and it would be rather painful if another editor would go through the trouble of creating an article about one of those subjects unaware of the existence of my work. Obviously the same goes for other drafts. I think it's safe to say that not all editors check for drafts before they start bashing keys. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Bump. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey there - sorry to see the lack of response! To answer the original question, there are no such alerts when creating an article. I could definitely see it being a useful feature as a way to maximize editors' time and promote collaboration. That being said, whenever an editor finds themselves in the situation of seeing another version of their drafted article created, they can always go ahead and expand the article with their own additions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reaction. Should I propose the feature at WP:VPR? Related: when a visitor is searching for a subject, either via the simple search form or by manually entering the /wiki/ URL, and there is no article in mainspace but a draft exists, maybe Wikipedia's '404 page' should also clearly mention the draft. After all, Wikipedia encourages contributions from its readers. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Bump, to prevent a bot from archiving this thread for now. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikinews link

A small link to wikinews.org in the news today box (at the bottom of the box), so that people can peruse more news if they so desire. Alternatively a link on this page, at the top - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events. It would make it easier for people looking for a certain category of news like "Education";or "Central America" for news of their locality. 117.221.179.80 (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)inkee

Bump JDgeek1729 (talk) 06:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It was decided to remove the links to wikinews on the main and current events pages in this discussion and this one. Cenarium (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Pending changes block

I'm working on a 'soft block' proposal that is to classic block what pending changes protection is to classic protection. My draft is located here and I welcome any input before going ahead with the proposal. This also involves a new usergroup, with the temporary name of 'moderator', although this is not strictly necessary for it to work. Cenarium (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The draft proposal is now much more complete, I'm still welcoming any input. Cenarium (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Addition information on TV wiki pages

In the right hand column where technical information is shown for TV series, I wish they would have the option to also say if the series died/was cancelled on a cliff hanger. People like myself would really like to know that the show ends this way, sort of similar that the book you're reading has had the final chapter torn from it. Gunnerclark (talk) 10:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gunnerclark: You say "the right hand column where technical information is shown" - the right hand column of which page(s)? Please give examples. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Sorry. Here is the bar on the right for the series Happy Days, that gives the info such as music directors, country of origin and number of episodes. The sectionn for original broadcast, you could add a new line something like "cliffhanger ending?"Gunnerclark (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gunnerclark: That right-hand column is called the "infobox", and there are several hundred different kinds of infoboxes for different kinds of article. They're built using templates, and Happy Days uses a template called {{Infobox television}}. Most templates have a discussion page specific to that template, the one for this infobox is at Template talk:Infobox television. Your proposal is best discussed either there or at WT:WikiProject Television, because this page is very much general. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Dealing With Unresearched (and Unresearchable) Content

I am interested in becoming a much more active editor on Wikipedia now that I'm semi-retired and have time to devote to the job. Some of the subjects in which I am particularly interested are on the esoteric side of the ledger. I've spent a little time perusing some of these subjects and I have detected what seems to be a Wikpedia bias or informal policy toward subjects which lend themselves to academic scholarship. There is an accompanying disdain for subjects which do not lend themselves to such research.

Underlying some of the discussions of this issue that I've found sprinkled around the site is the assumption -- sometimes clearly stated -- that the mere inclusion of a topic in Wikipedia gives it a certain amount of credibility that ought perhaps be more closely guarded. I find that a particularly peculiar idea given the somewhat iconoclastic beginnings of Wikipedia and the overall tendency on the Internet to allow for more untested and unpopular ideas in the interest of allowing what I suppose might be called "crowdtalk" to sort things out.

In trying to figure out how to come up with a proposal to what I see as a bit of a dilemma here, I have begun to wonder whether there is a tagging or other categorization system that could be implemented that would allow content to be labeled as "not amenable to research" rather than either being dismissed or held to an impossible standard to qualify for inclusion in the main encyclopedia.

Fundamentally, I agree with the concepts of balanced coverage and Point of View as I understand them but I don't want to see Wikipedia become constrained by "Establishment" taboos and thinking that holds the viewpoint that *only* that which can be measured and physically sensed is "real" and worthy of either research or inclusion here.

Is this the proper forum to raise this idea? Is there somewhere else I should look to discuss it? Has it already been covered; if so, please point me to that source. I really want to understand the policy and its rationale.

Dshafer (talk) 06:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you offer some examples of the articles you might like to see created, or edits that you might like to see made, under such a proposal? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Although I too cannot determine what topics our OP is interested, I have noticed systematic bias against non-academic topics. This comes about by Wikipedians decalring that some sources are unreliable and therefore cannot be used to show a topic is notable. Academic work is normally reliable so that results in a bias towards those topics. But many others such as things of interest to women or tradespeople are not nearly so well academically studied and end up with thousands of sources that are classed as unreliable, such as woman's magazines. We then end up with poor coverage of home-life, hobbies, and building even though it is commonly experienced by many. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You didn't indicate exactly what you had in mind, but the answer is probably a strong no. I think you misunderstand what the problem is. Wikipedia is fine with nonacademic topics, and it's not about Wikipeda "lending credibility" to a topic. We have am article on Swan_dress, and somewhere around 200 articles on Pokemon. The issue is that your proposal sounds like it conflicts with our core policies of Verifiability and No Original Research. There are a lot of reasons we absolutely need those policies. The main issue is that even if you write a great article, two weeks later any nutcase (or group of nutcases) can come along and completely re-write it. Without Verifiability we have no objective basis for determining which version of the article to keep and which version gets scrapped. Your suggestion for crowdtalk to sort things out is non-viable. It sounds like a suggesting a search for Truth or even THE_TRUTH. Wikipedia requires verifiability, Verifiability, not truth. Our talk pages explicitly do NOT allow discussions about the topic itself. Such discussions almost invariable lead to unsolvable arguments, with both sides utterly refusing to admit they might be wrong. The only way we (mostly) keep the arguments under control is to force people to deal with mostly objective facts - "here are the Reliable Sources and this is what they say". We still have skirmishes over how reliable a source is, and which sources to use, and how to phrase things. But it avoids endless arguments over what's "true" or "right". You can believe a book on topic-X is wrong, but it's really hard to argue that the book doesn't exist. Arguing that the book is wrong is not a valid argument here for excluding something from an article... in order to exclude that book from the article you would need to show that book's claims were completely Fringe and that almost all other books say something different. If most books on geography say the earth is flat, then that's what Wikipedia will say.

At Wikipedia we're building an encyclopedia to report old ideas that Reliable Sources have already published about a topic. We do not permit any new ideas here. If you want to have "crowd talk" to discuss a topic itself, to sort out new ideas on a topic, that's what regular internet discussion boards are for. Alsee (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion that could use additional input

I/we could use some additional input here. It's a proposal to deprecate {{No footnotes}}, and replace it with - a somewhat differently worded - {{No inline citations}}. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

STOP HOOKING INTERNET BROWSER'S ALT-F COMMAND

STOP HOOKING INTERNET BROWSER'S ALT-F COMMAND. BECAUSE NOBODY USES THE ALT-F FEATURE TO SEARCH IN WIKIPEDA. ASO IT APPEARS WIKIPEDIA CREATING DISPARAGEMENTS OF MICROSOFT INTERNET EXPLORER. A LIST INCLUDES NONE OF YOUR LINKS OR SUGGESTIONS TO XIPH.ORG FOR WINDOWS INTERNET EXPLORER TO PLAY YOUR EMBEDDED MOVIES WORK AT ALL, ANDSEEMS DECEIT CAUSING YEARS OF DYSFUNCTIONAL EXPERIENCES WITH WIKIPEDIA FOR AMERICANS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B36:4750:64B2:EB7F:52E0:B1F0 (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else, but when I press Alt-F in Google Chrome it jumps up to the drop-down settings menu, not anything in Wikipedia. Sam Walton (talk) 09:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

(I'm not the IP editor who created this thread.) This is because, unfortunately, each browser+OS combination invokes access keys in its own way. For example, I use Firefox on Linux, and I need to press Alt+Shift+<key>, e.g. Alt+Shift+f to move the cursor to the search box. See Wikipedia:Keyboard shortcuts#Modifier keys for an overview per browser+OS combination. On top of this, WP users may have JAWS (screen reader) running, which, according to Wikipedia:Using JAWS, will jump to the search box with Alt+f. As for xiph.org and IE, the default installation of VLC should include the ActiveX extension that enables in-line Ogg Theora playback. If that doesn't work, then use the directshow filters. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Layout

Four years ago, when constructing List of world records in masters athletics I was looking for a way to emulate html code placing a table within a table to force layout within a specific space; to cover multi-event competition (Decathlon, Heptathlon, Pentathlon) scores that get complex. For context, compare the poor way the same information is laid out in List of world records in athletics. Originally I created new articles and placed them into the layout, but articles are too public and because the articles looked weird as a stand alone, they generated a lot of trouble--proposed deletions. I finally was given the suggestion of creating templates, which eliminated the controversy. Template:Rolf Geese M60 World Record Score is the active example. That is until today. I have an editor seeking ways to harass me (we have a standing disagreement) and he has found a policy about single use templates. The concept has even been discussed here. As concluded in that discussion,

"that's a rule that we created and therefore a rule that we can change to accommodate this kind of sensible use."

But apparently the policy still exists (though I can't find it). If legit, then I will have situations that might violate that policy and this wikilawyer will use it to delete the content if I don't make an adjustment. So how would a single use get approved? Or would there be a better way, that is not violating policy, to insert this kind of layout? Trackinfo (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether "single use" is written into a policy but it's a common deletion argument at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. {{Rolf Geese M60 World Record Score}} and all the others in Category:Athletics record templates do seem like an impractical way to organize this content. I would make a template for each type of event and then call that template directly from the article where the score is displayed. It wouldn't require much extra space in the article source, for example replacing {{Rolf Geese M60 World Record Score}} by:

{{Decathlon score|13.01|5.15m|12.20m|1.54m|60.95|15.77|39.84m|3.40m|37.18m|5:33.42}}

I'm not a fan of the layout in List of world records in masters athletics#Decathlon, but if the scores were made with the same template then layout changes could be made in a single place instead of having to make the same changes in 15 templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

That actually sounds like a good idea, kind of a format like an info box. Now my problem is I haven't a clue what I'm doing in such construction. About 6 months ago I started another info box and it turned into a disaster. I couldn't get help and surprisingly, the mess I left, not transcluded into articles, is still there, non-functional. I asked for help back then, none came. How do I find someone to mentor me through developing those wiki skills? Trackinfo (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I have created a primitive {{Decathlon score}} with the formatting of {{Rolf Geese M60 World Record Score}}, except I centered the text, used lower case letter in the second header words, and omitted "wind" (it would be possible to test for presense of wind in the parameter and add something in that case).

{{Decathlon score|13.01|5.15m|12.20m|1.54m|60.95|15.77|39.84m|3.40m|37.18m|5:33.42}} produces:

100m (wind)	Long jump (wind)	Shot put	High jump	400m	110H (wind)	Discus	Pole vault	Javelin	1500m
13.01	5.15m	12.20m	1.54m	60.95	15.77	39.84m	3.40m	37.18m	5:33.42

I still don't like the layout when many of these tables are displayed together like in List of world records in masters athletics#Decathlon, but changing layout will be manageable if there are only a few such templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"Readers first" rule

I want to propose the "readers first" rule, but I wonder if it's ever been done before. Policies and guidelines are no longer enough, and WP:five pillars... I don't know if editors will remember them anymore. --George Ho (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There is an essay at Wikipedia:Readers first. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I have briefly read it. However, it is rarely or not cited in page move discussions. Also, the essay doesn't mention how readers can search certain titles or spell them. --George Ho (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this idea in concept, but its the practical application that I fear will be abused or misused. I too read the essay and I've seen its principles applied to push a POV or misrepresent information. For example, 2 of the suggestions are to "avoid jargon" and to "use common words". In technical articles about science or math, this just isn't feasible. I personally view it as a "dumbing down" of the information for readability sake. We have the benefit of Wikilinks, so virtually anything can be cross linked to additional explanation. I have also seen misuse of this concept in political articles where a particular point is being made and the way its explained supports one particular argument under the guise of "common language". I think we have to accept that we have a myriad of types of people who use the site and not everyone will "understand" or "get" everything in every article. It may require addition reading before the primary article they are interested in becomes clear. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Administrative Appointments Commission

I would welcome input on User:Cenarium/Administrative Appointments Commission, an idea based on the recent discussions and suggestions on reforming RFA. A commission would appoint and reconfirm admins for six months terms, and after two reconfirmations, an admin could request permanent adminship to the community. Cenarium (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleting article revisions

I think it should be possible for any administrator to delete an individual revision of an article without deleting the whole article then restoring only some of the revisions. I think that in some cases, when an article is tagged for speedy deletion but looks like it could have been written in another way which belongs, when an administrator sees it, it should be up to the administrator's discretion whether to delete it or remove the nomination template and then nominate it for deletion to give a chance to fix the problem, once the problem in the article is fixed, it could be closed as keep, then the administrator wouldn't need to delete the whole article since they could instead delete the very disruptful history revisions. Same goes for when an administrator sees a restored article that was previously deleted. Wikipedia making this change might prevent articles in the future from being mistakenly deleted that didn't need to be like when Fram deleted Marine D3 possibly because it had the sentence "It's not even necessary for one to diet or exercise to lose weight if one eats Marine D3." in it according to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 110#Promotional articles. I'm not sure if it's worth starting a deletion review of Marine D3 to suggest that it be nominated for deletion instead of speedy deleted, then if it doesn't get edited into being non-promotional during the deletion discussion, it can be deleted. Blackbombchu (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

For years, it's been possible for administrators to delete individual revisions, but it wouldn't make sense to use it in the way you suggest. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Blackbombchu: See WP:REVDEL#Changing visibility settings. No need to delete the whole page. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

If something is speedy deleted, you're allowed to recreate it, as long as it's not substantially identical to the deleted page. It's always up to the admin's discretion about whether or not to speedy delete something. In that specific case, I would agree with the speedy deletion. It was an article about a nutritional supplement that made all sorts of health claims sourced to "sponsored content" advertisement "articles" on sites that would be questionable sources even if they weren't paid for by the company selling the product. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. That would be something like peer-reviewed articles in reputable medical journals. If you removed all the dubious claims, all you'd be left with is "Marine D3 is a type of food" (which isn't even accurate, since it's a pill, not food). Mr.Z-man 15:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Creating automatically links

I have the idea of a bot which links automatically non-linked pages to a specific page by analysing what pages are visited after a specific page (which should be part of the same theme). Example: Many persons which were on the page tree visited after this the page plant to inform also about plants. Because there was no link in tree to plant they had to search for it in the searchbox. The bot would recognize that many persons visit plant after visting tree and turn the already, in the text of tree, existing word "plant" into a link. Is this possible? --Impériale (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Page Protection rights

I have an idea for a new category of rights that could be granted to non-Admin Users, Semi-Page Protection creation for limited amounts of time. This would be similar to granting Rollback rights to a User, an ability that an Admin has, but that is limited in scope. I don't know the technical feasibility of this, but a User with this right would only be able to apply or remove Semi-Protection to an article either with an expiration date/time or a fixed maximum period of time. Admins would still be the only personnel with the ability to apply/remove the higher levels of protection.

The benefit would be additional assistance for the Admins that patrol the Requests for Protection Noticeboard and those Users with the right who routinely patrol the Pending Changes list would be able to protect any article that is experiencing sudden and/or short term vandalism without posting a request at RfP. A secondary benefit could also eventually be that the Admins can spend more time addressing requests for higher levels of protection since most seem to result in short term semi-protection.

Your thoughts? --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea, I had a similar one, but with pending changes protection instead of semi-protection. For me, the ability to prevent edits is too strong a power and should be reserved to admins, but the ability to defer edits for review could be expanded. There are a few issues though, with both. One issue is escalation of privileges : if a user can protect temporarily, they should be able to unprotect (in case of mistake), and they could protect again, so like this protect for longer than the maximum allowed, unless some awkward technical limitations are put in place. If those aren't put in place, the system is ripe for gaming, meaning complaints and drama. A second issue is the forced choice problem : applying semi (or PC) protection is not a binary choice, there are alternatives, such as : blocking users, using a higher protection level, etc. If these alternatives are not available to the user, the decision will be biased. It may have been more appropriate to block users, or fully protect the article, but the user can only semi protect it... This is similar to non-admins closing AFDs, who cannot delete articles so are bound to make a non-delete decision (and this lack of alternative skews their decision making), hence the non-controversial requirement (can't be adapted here since it's discretionary).

I came to the conclusion that this idea is inapplicable, and after a while, arrived to the proposal that I'm now actively working on : pending changes blocks, see User:Cenarium/PCB. This would help in a variety of circumstances, including bursts of vandalism on a specific article. And it has the benefit of reducing admin workload, so they could focus more on issues requiring more judgment. Let me know what you think. Cenarium (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• I get your points and its great to see that someone else appreciates the situation. Obviously granting this right has to come with caveats and a measure of caution, gaming and misuse will always be an issue that will need attention. I haven't fully read through your proposal yet, but the gist seems to be a way to "throttle back" a specific user versus an article, correct?
• I am recommending semi-protection only because I agree with your stance that the ability to prevent edits is a strong power, but I have also witnessed for months ongoing vandalism and POV pushing by IPs and Users (registered accounts) in articles such as Diwali and articles for politicians for little more reason than the time of year it is. Also, for my suggestion to work, the granted User would have to understand that if the application of the right is not adequate, then they have an even stronger case for ask an Admin for a higher level of protection or for a block to be applied to someone specific. That limitation in and of itself would prevent misuse and provide for ongoing review. The WP community has a hierarchical structure that I'm trying to respect while addressing a problem and easing the burden of those whose put the time in to counteract it. Seems like you're trying to do the same.... :)
• As for your proposal, how can I help? --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• I could see it being useful if there is a lot of vandalism in a very short time on an article, by that I mean every few minutes or more. This right could be used once for one hour every 72 hours, to cover those emergency cases until an admin can review the situation. In 2008-09, we often had cases like that, mostly due to 4chan attacks, but I don't think we have many of those anymore. On an article like Diwali, it doesn't raise to that level, and RFPP can handle it in time. Cenarium (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Active discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Unbundling_the_tools. FWIW my suggestion was to allow reviewers to change the PC1/PC2 levels of a page. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, found it and commenting. Good stuff! --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding or removing semi protection, and or applying pending changes to newby and IP edits would be a great thing to unbundle. It is much less contentious than blocking or deletion so I would hope we could create a separate user group for this akin to rollback, with admins able to issue and remove the right as appropriate. Full protection and the stricter form of pending edits would need to remain part of the admin toolkit. It also has the advantage that these are very distinct things that don't greatly overlap with other admin tools. ϢereSpielChequers 12:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It's relatively uncontentious, but also questionably useful. The number of rollbacks in a given day is in the thousands, while the number of semi-protections is in the tens. Do we really need a lot more people with the ability? Mr.Z-man 16:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mr.Z-man, I understand your point, but spend a couple weeks patrolling the Special:PendingChanges list and likely you will start to see the patterns of vandalism. Granted I agree that the overall number of rollbacks is in the 1000s, but habitual vandals are persistent, deterring their efforts will be an effective tool. I've personally requested one block recently and have seen 3 others applied in the just the last 10 days. It's my opinion that these vandals continue because they often go unchecked. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

If it's just one vandal on a page, the proper solution is blocking that one user, not protecting the page. And that's another issue with unbundling. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Mr.Z-man 20:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, to use your analogy, it's a good tool if the offending User has a registered account. You can block just the one person (a single "nail"), but if its an IP, then you end up potentially blocking multiple Users from the entire site versus a single article. My suggestion is to provide a small "hammer" to those that have been forced to use a "monkey wrench" to accomplish the same thing. Good questions and comments, by the way. This is helping to establish the usage policy for this right. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There's little way of knowing whether an IP address represents one person (as it often does, especially for residential ISPs) or many people. But generally speaking, multiple people editing from the same IP address in a short (24 hour) period where one is a vandal and the others are constructive is rather rare. There already is a "usage policy" for protection, the protection policy, which says that it should only be used for vandalism "when blocking individual users is not a feasible option." Mr.Z-man 19:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Historical

This template is so small and inconspicuous that it barely registers when viewing a page, yet it has a very important task -- letting new users know that the page is inactive! I've experienced now a few pages where new or IP users have continued to use a page despite the template being in place. I think a clearer template would be very useful. Do other users share this thought?

What would be thoughts on doing something such as either changing the image to give it more contrast, changing the text, or altering the background colour? As this is the idea lab, please do not just support/oppose. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

How about changing the graphic to the red x used on {{failed proposal}} and {{closed down}}? This would probably bring more attention to it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that is a great idea that the icon (included at left) is included. It is also consistent with the other two 'historical' templates also. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• I see no issue with it being included on the left side of the template AND the file cabinet with the red Xed page on the right side of the template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Technical 13, where to go from here? I lack the necessary permission to edit this template. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Put a PER on the talk page linking here for the consensus and showing what code to change. Make sure to put the change in the templates sandbox too. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 05:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

New "vandal stopper" user group

Oiyarbepsy (talk · contribs) has opened a new discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposed user right: Vandal fighter. Cunard (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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

---

I've been looking at all the talk of unbundling admin rights lately, and I came up with the following idea: Create a user group for stopping vandals, with the rights to block and protect, but with the following restrictions to address concerns raised with ideas similar to this one:

Blocking:

• Vandal stoppers can't deny talk page access when blocking
• Vandal stoppers can't block autoconfirmed accounts
• Vandal stoppers can't hard block IPs
• Vandal stoppers' blocks of IPs expire after a maximum of 31 hours

Protection:

• Vandal stoppers can only use semi-protection and PC1 protection
• Vandal stoppers' protections expire after a maximum of 24 hours

Both:

• Vandal stoppers can't modify or remove blocks or protection set by admins
• All currently-outstanding blocks and protections by vandal stoppers will be viewable on a special page
• Admins can "okay" a vandal-stopper block or protection, which will effectively make the action count as being performed by an admin (removing it from the special page and preventing vandal stoppers from further modifying it)

Thoughts? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. I would find this right to be useful before becoming a full admin. However, do you think the group could be renamed to "vandal fighter"? "Vandal stopper" sounds a bit unprofessional, in my opinion. --Biblioworm 02:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Biblioworm: Vandal fighter was my original idea, but I thought that was too unprofessional and changed it to stopper. I really don't care what color we paint the bike shed, though. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

In principle I think this is a great idea, a limited tool for protection against IP vandals. It's a useful group of editors and I know a number of editors are particularly interested in it. I'm sure there would be a way of getting this done technically. How would someone get such a tool? --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@LT910001: I could write the necessary code for this if we get consensus for it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Fully Support @Jackmcbarn: I fully support this great Idea as this will be a very useful tool for many people who help in fighting and removing vandalism. TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The list of technical privileges is interesting; the social and policy consequences and implications should be further discussed.

How would this toolset be granted or withdrawn? Like rollback? Like regular adminship? Somewhere in between?

Is it the intent that the only situation in which this class of editors will be allowed to use these tools is where there is clear-cut vandalism, as described by WP:VAND? (That would seem to be the intent, but it would be essential to spell this out. Will these editors intervene in content disputes? Should they?)

Note that having blocks that expire on vandalism-only accounts may have undesirable and unwanted side effects. I expect that most experienced editors here can work out the WP:BEANS for themselves.

How useful would this privilege bundle actually be? Looking at the list 500 blocks in the blog log ([2], which coincidentally works out to about 24 hours' worth of blocks) I see only a tiny fraction of blocks that would be technically possible with the proposed toolset. Most blocks of IP addresses are for two or three months as part of the housekeeping to deal with spambots and open proxies, not short blocks for vandalism. Most of the blocks of non-autoconfirmed accounts are indefinite blocks (for vandalism or username issues). Looking at the last 50 entries in the protection log ([3], again, about one day's worth), there's only a couple that run for 24 hours or less.

In other words, it looks like either the vast majority of actions taken by editors with these privileges will have to be immediately revisited and extended by an admin with the full tools anyway, or there will be a massive increase the number of times and situations where we use short-term blocks of IP addresses and semi-protection. Is that sort of shift in the use of tools considered desirable? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• "How would this toolset be granted or withdrawn?" I'm thinking something in between reviewer and abusefilter.
• "Is it the intent that the only situation in which this class of editors will be allowed to use these tools is where there is clear-cut vandalism, as described by WP:VAND?" I don't really care, but I note that such a restriction would be unprecedented (for example, account creators are allowed to use their tboverride permission to edit editnotices, not just create forbidden accounts)
• "Note that having blocks that expire on vandalism-only accounts may have undesirable and unwanted side effects." This isn't an issue at all. The limited duration of blocks I mentioned would only apply to IPs, not accounts.
• "How useful would this privilege bundle actually be?" A large part of that is taken care of by the previous question, since there are a lot of account blocks. As for longer IP blocks, my intention is that a member of this new group sets a 24-hour block, then an admin going through the list would increase it if necessary.
• "Looking at the last 50 entries in the protection log ... there's only a couple that run for 24 hours or less." Again, the idea here is that a short protection could be set as a stopgap, which an admin could then raise. This would be useful in cases like this one, where a page received nearly 100 edits in less than 2 hours, all of them either vandalism or reverting of vandalism.

Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Why not roll rollback and or review into this? Both of those user groups are intended for response to vandalism. What would be the use of this group adding a PC1 protection (not sure it should be limited to that or semi, I think technically allowing PC2 even though it is not yet supported by the community would be appropriate) to a page if they can't patrol such pages? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 05:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  I agree that the "review" right should be part of this, since oddities could result from adding PC to a page you can't review. I'm not really sure how rollback would be necessary, though. (Another idea: Maybe make having those rights a prerequisite to get this one?) Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Why wouldn't the people who are trusted to temporarily block and add protection to pages not be able to use the one-click rollback, mass rollback (for issues of IPs or unconfirmed accounts spamming nothing by a link to their website on 100 pages), or tools such as Huggle? As far as it being a prerequisite, I have no issue with that as long as it doesn't add another group they need to be in. So, it should include all of the parts of the prereq so they can be taken out of the prereq groups when added to the superior group. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 02:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Jackmcbarn: This is interesting, but policy on appropriate use, criteria for granting / removing, and the actual implementation are interdependent, so they need to be discussed in parallel. For example, a broad use (beyond vandalism, clear spam or BLP violations) would imply much stricter promotion criteria, and may be too limited by a restriction to non-autoconfirmed users for it to be worthwhile. There is also the question of admin workload, having to check a special page to review vandal stoppers would be an extra burden for admins, so I'm sure it would be prone to excessive delays in approvals if used, and by that I mean greater than 24 hours (seeing that 7 hours delays aren't uncommon at RFPP, and 4 hours at AIV), especially if those users can indef block registered users, which means they will stay in the queue (and there's a case to be made that expired actions should stay in the queue, too), with the consequences mentioned by TenOfAllTrades.

Even if we would restrict use to vandalism, it shouldn't be easily accessible. About a half of protection requests at RFPP are declined, and about a fourth of block requests at AIV. If criteria were too lax, this may result in significant overprotection, and even if this could only be used on new or unregistered users, the concern of misdirected blocks and biting newcomers would still be present. Going beyond vandalism and relatively clear cut cases would make it even harder to get.

From the name and your response to TenOfAllTrades, it seems that the intent is mostly to serve as a temporary measure until an admin can handle the situation. I agree that this could be useful, as I noted in the rationale for my PCB proposal, see below, excessive delays are very frequent. Therefore, I'd suggest to restrict its use to clear vandalism, spam or BLP violations and integrate this into RFPP/AIV, with simply a bot immediately reporting all vandal stopper actions for approval. This way, there's no need for a special page, admins don't have to change their habits, it won't increase admin burden (but won't reduce it, either).

Since they have an effect, the actions should be logged in the protection/block log (and make an edit for a protection), and be distinguished for transparency. The protection level should be distinct ('non-admin semi') and listed at Special:ProtectedPages (also a safeguard for bot failure). Same for blocks, at Special:BlockList. I think that the vandal stoppers should not have any option, they just make the semi/block action and it's entirely up to the reviewing admin to then check the situation in question and adapt the protection level or block options, and the duration. They should still be able to cancel, of course. The duration of a block or protection should be fixed, and entirely based on the upper hand of the delays in admin interventions. This should be specified on a mediawiki page. I'd say about 9 hours for protections and 6 hours for blocks.

Personally, I wouldn't be prepared to support allowing non-admin semi-protections and blocks just now, but I would support pending changes protection and ... pending changes blocks, a proposal I'm working on, without requiring admin review for PC blocks. The advantage of PC blocking is that it's intended to mitigate the damage before the 'terminal' block (at the time of a traditional last warning, or when tripping some edit filters) and be dissuasive enough so as to reduce the need for full blocks, and so admin workload. This goes with a 'moderator' usergroup, a sort of trusted anti-vandalism usergroup. It could be granted to more people since it's less potent than semi protection/full block. Misdirected PC blocks wouldn't be as much as an issue than full blocks. I would then support another usergroup with semi-protection / full block, but all candidates would have to already be in the moderator usergroup, and having proved themselves with PC protection/blocks. Cenarium (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Here's my opinion on things other than vandalism: The way the rights are designed, they're pretty much useless for anything but handling vandalism. I guess we could have a rule that says the same, but it seems like it would be unnecessary bureaucracy.
• I don't understand the issue you're describing about the queue. Can you elaborate?
• As for overuse, we could handle that via our granting criteria (perhaps less than 10 of your last 100 AIV/RPPs may have been declined).
• The idea of this is absolutely a temporary measure, as you mentioned.
• I don't get why you say "a bot immediately reporting all vandal stopper actions for approval. This way, there's no need for a special page". A special page is a better option than a bot, IMO. (Especially since it won't actually be its own page. It will just be an extra filter option on Special:ProtectedPages and Special:BlockList.)
• The actions will be logged as you suggest.
• It seems rather pointless to not let users set a lower time, since they would be able to undo themselves after any time they wanted.
• I think PC blocks are a bit out of scope of this proposal, but I agree it would be a good idea if we ever got them.

Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: "The way the rights are designed, they're pretty much useless for anything but handling vandalism." Actually, the tools could also be used in dealing with certain types of edit warring and POV-pushing. There, the problem would arise in distinguishing between genuine edit wars and earlier stages of content disputes, and expecting these mini-admins to recognize, understand, and apply the nuances and exceptions and requirements of the edit warring policies and guidelines correctly. Further, the ability to take actions that affect IP addresses and new accounts but not established accounts could result in unfair outcomes in disputes which involve both new/unregistered and established editors.

For that matter, some issues involving new/unregistered editors making objectively 'bad' edits don't involve vandalism per se—remember, vandalism requires bad-faith intent. Instead, these edits may be good-faith but poorly-executed due to language-barrier issues, confusion about Wikipedia policies (especially regarding sourcing), well-meaning but poorly-handled conflicts of interest, a desire to correct BLP issues (but not knowing about that policy explicitly, or knowing the right way to make such fixes), etc. Often these edits need to be reverted, and sometimes these editors even need to be blocked (per WP:COMPETENCE). Is the social authority to deliver that powerful WP:BITE something that should be granted alongside the technical ability, or not?

Despite its name, the potential applications of the proposed toolset extend far beyond the amelioration of simple vandalism. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Good point. I guess we should make a "blatant vandals and spammers only" rule then. (What about blatant username policy violations? Most of those would be handled as spam, but what about the rest?) Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm already concerned about the overly-aggressive use of blocks for username policy violations. (I've recently been involved in a case where a user openly declared a COI on his user page, and chose a username based on his company's name. The username was a clear-cut violation of WP:CORPNAME, and there were definitely some concerns about his editing, but the guy was trying to be (relatively) transparent and aboveboard, and had stopped editing after he filed a WP:CHUS request. Nevertheless, an eager admin jumped in and slapped on a username block—which incidentally makes it impossible for the editor involved to participate in the CHUS discussion. I fear that we'll see more such problems if we send mini-admins out to try their hands at this sort of enforcement.) There's an uncomfortable and problematic tendency to incorrectly equate any mention of a company or product in a username with 'spam' (which implies or presumes an intent to advertise). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: I thought you would make a special page with an okay system. Then the admin will simply change the protection level or use the block button as usual ? The problem with the queue is that admins won't bother checking those special pages, I'm pretty sure that it would result in delays in approval greater than 24 hours. So we'll have a situation where short term blocks / protections by vandal stoppers will expire before being reviewed / set to an appropriate duration, while unreviewed indefinite blocks of registered users will pile up (if they're allowed to indef block accounts). The only way to ensure an efficient check and appropriate durations for the blocks/protections is to have a bot report those to a familiar place for admins (RFPP/AIV). I'm not saying we shouldn't have the special pages, of course we should, but a bot would make the process much more efficient (and viable). Cenarium (talk) 07:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Fully Support - How about something simple Anti-Vandalism Corps or AVC for short? We seem to like our 3-letter acronyms here. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• I personally think this would be useful because it sometimes takes a long time for admins to attend to blocking and protection requests. However, to make them more effective, I suggest that we modify the rights to allow vandal stoppers to block and protect for a maximum of 48 hours. I also agree that we should only allow vandal stoppers to use their tools for fighting vandalism. If a user feels that a vandal stopper is using his tools for purposes outside fighting vandalism, they could report it to an appropriate noticeboard, such as ANI. --Biblioworm 21:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  Why 48 hours? Do you think the backlog could get that big? Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree that 48 hours would likely be better. I'm guessing it will be less of an issue of there being a backlog of blocks/protections to review and more of an issue of getting an admin that wants to review the situation and get involved. PER, PERM, RFPP, CSD... I rarely see these things empty and many of them take longer than 24 hours to resolve. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 02:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Idea: replace the "Sandbox" item at the top of the page with "Subpages"

Dear editors: I don't know about you, but I rarely use the generic sandbox associated with my user name. I often have a number of things going on at once in my user space, so I keep them on separately labelled subpages. Instead of the link to the Sandbox, wouldn't it be handy to have a link to a list of user subpages instead? I know that one is available by clicking on contributions, scrolling to the bottom, and then clicking on "Subpages", but it was a long time before I discovered this, and it's not as convenient. Out of sight, out of mind, you know. I realized recently that there were several incomplete projects that I had forgotten about. The sandbox is there on the list of subpages, so for those who really do use the generic sandbox a lot it's only one more step, or it could be bookmarked in their browser. Any opinions about this? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but where do you see this sandbox item? I don't recall such a link existing, though my personal interface tweaks could be interfering with that. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 18:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Enabled by Preferences → Gadgets → Appearance = Add a "Sandbox" link to the personal toolbar area --  Gadget850 ^talk 18:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Subpages is also available through the sidebar at "Page information" - in the first box, bottom row, click the link "Number of subpages of this page". --Redrose64 (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I quite like this idea. Going User page -> page information -> subpages seems like a lot of work to find the pages I'm working on. It could additionally include Draft articles that you've started, and be more of a 'my drafts' sort of thing. Sam Walton (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Also including Draft articles might be challenging to implement cleanly in JavaScript, unless there's a convenient MW API call available for pages started by namespace. This sounds like a potential MediaWiki feature rather than just a gadget or userscript. Regardless, I'd add that such a list page ought to include easy links or "helpers" for starting new user subpages or draft pages. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 19:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I have this in my JS to add links to the sidebar:

mw.util.addPortletLink ('p-tb', wgServer+wgArticlePath.replace("$1", "Special:PrefixIndex/"+wgPageName+"/"), 'Subpages');
mw.util.addPortletLink ('p-tb', '/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/User:Gadget850', 'My subpages');

--  Gadget850 ^talk 19:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sidebars are good, but you have to first navigate to the page; the toolbar at the top is available at any time. Also, the link on the sidebar is pretty well hidden. First, I have to scroll down in order to see this option, which is off the page at my preferred zoom; then when I click on it the option, a list appears, and one of the items says "number of subpages to this page" (not list of subpages of this page). How many editors even know that they could get to their subpages this way? (I didn't.) Also, a link on the toolbar should be easy to implement, because the function already exists, and it should be just a matter of adding a link to it in the same that the "Sandbox" link was made, and sending the function a pointer to the appropriate user space. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: Try this code, if you want to add it to your personal toolbar, in the same location as the sandbox link (and turn off the gadget, to remove the sandbox link):

mw.util.addPortletLink(	'p-personal', '/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/User:Anne Delong', 'Subpages', null, null, null, '#pt-preferences');

You can also add links to any of the boxes in the sidebar, or to the "More" dropdown menu that usually just contains the "Move" and admin links. Let me/us know if you'd prefer one of those alternatives, and specify where exactly you'd like it located within the area. (Or if preferred, deduce via looking at the section id names (via HTML-source), and the docs at mw:ResourceLoader/Default_modules#addPortletLink) HTH :) Quiddity (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Sidenote: There's also mw:Extension:SandboxLink in development, which aims to turn the Gadget into an Extension, and amongst other benefits will prevent the "bounce" as the "Sandbox" link is added to the personal toolbar. Quiddity (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Quiddity, what do I do with the above code? I tried putting it in User:Anne Delong/common.js, which is what I presumed you meant by "JS", but I was given an error message. -- Anne Delong (talk • contribs) 11:28, 21 October 2014‎

@Anne Delong: Does this edit fix it? JavaScript is very sensitive to missing and misplaced punctuation. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, now it works. Thanks, Redrose64. My, my, wouldn't I have liked to have that 50,000 edits ago... —Anne Delong (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't like this suggestion, since the "sandbox" link is intended for newbies. People who know enough to want to use subpages likely know enough to disable the gadget and add something like what Quiddity posted to their common.js (or to ask at the Village pump to find out how to do that). Anomie⚔ 10:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Anomie, in response to your objection:

• Yes, I had forgotten that the Sandbox link was a gadget and not a default setting (I don't remember enabling it, but that's not at all surprising). I apologize for suggesting that it should be replaced. Just making a new gadget that would do the same for subpages would be better.
• I'm personally happy to find out that I can paste some javascript code and get the same result, but I disagree that it's a good thing to wait for each new editor to have the idea that they could modify the interface and ask about it at the village pump (or even figure out that there is such a thing as the village pump) to do such a basic thing as finding a list of their subpages. Having to deal with javascript instead of just a checkbox would make a lot of less technically minded editors uncomfortable, and we should try to make the Wikipedia interface as friendly as possible so as to retain these content creators.
• Encouraging new users to create articles in their sandboxes, rather than just using them for experimentation as intended, has negative consequences (see the thread above this one), including users not being notified when their articles are nominated for deletion, and users wondering where their sandboxes went because they've been redirected. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The sandbox gadget is enabled by default. This can be seen at MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition#appearance. There is a script to add the "Subpages" link at User:PrimeHunter/My subpages.js (similar to the code by Quiddity). I use it myself but most users have no subpages and I don't support it as default. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Ah, much better. I've added that at Wikipedia:User_scripts#Menus_and_tabs. I would support that as a gadget (please ping me if you add it to Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals), and I agree that it shouldn't be default. Quiddity (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

A shortcut to one link which is already at the bottom of user contributions isn't much functionality for a gadget. Somebody else suggested it without success at Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals/Archive 5#Gadget for link to 'My subpages'. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

All content creators should have subpages. If many of them don't, it's because they don't know how to create them or how to find them after they've created them. The link at the bottom of the user contributions is inconvenient; it sometimes takes quite a while for this list to appear, and then there is a lot of scrolling, and another wait. The discussion that you linked to says that most users just use their sandbox to create drafts - but this is not the intended use for a sandbox, and as I have explained in the thread above, it messes up various processes and notifications by causing misattribution of articles. The solution is to recommend using subpages, but it's not convenient to find them. We should make things as convenient as possible for the content contributors, especially new ones. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Some content creators don't like working in userspace. It's purely a matter of personal preference. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You are right and I was exaggerating - sorry. I intended to say article creators rather than content creators, but even so I'm sure there are some article creators who can create acceptable articles right in mainspace. Likely editors would use their user space more if it were more easily accessible. The "Subpages" link which Quiddity help me install has saved me at least an hour of fussing around in the last week; I just wanted others to enjoy it as much as I am. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: You can achieve what you suggested in your initial proposal easily enough just by adding {{list subpages|Anne Delong|User}} to the top of your Sandbox page. That will turn your sandbox into a list of subpages in your user space. WaggersTALK 10:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

For what's it worth, my approach User:NE_Ent/sandbox is something like that. NE Ent 11:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Waggers and NE Ent. I have certainly learned a lot of interesting methods of accessing my subpages from initiating this thread. It seems, though, that everyone is missing my point that new editors, who don't necessarily know anything yet about templates, javascript, the village pump, or any of the ways that the interface can be modified, but just want to create an article, should right away be able to find their subpages easily, instead of weeks or even months later when they discover the hidden links. It's inefficient and thoughtless in my opinion to let them struggle along as I did, coping by writing down the names in a spiral binder and later creating and sorting bookmarks with my browser, when a small gadget could make them a click away. It's easy to forget how arcane the process of working with a wiki is to those who haven't done it before. I remember having no idea what to do when I wanted to make a second article, and my sandbox was taken up with this important looking arrow and the title of my first article – and I had previous experience in running a Docuwiki discussion site. Anyway, since most of the people posting here seem to think this is a waste of time, I will drop the stick and just revel in my own new easy subpage access..... —Anne Delong (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

a facility in "What links here" in tools to indicate piped links

It is clear that piped links can be used so as to bypass Wikipedia definitions that have been developed by consensus and it would be advantages if a facility could be developed so that such links could be checked. Can/should "What links here" be developed so as to indicate which links have been piped? Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye, I don't understand this question. What does "piped links can be used so as to bypass Wikipedia definitions" mean? Are you worried that people will write something like [[Black|White]] in an article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

We really can't do that, since a link can appear more than once in a page, but only shows up once in what links here. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

This wouldn't really be possible without some very complicated reworking of the database - a similar thing is occasionally suggested for identifying template links and has proved unworkable every time it's been looked at. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Deferred changes

This is a new draft proposal, available at Wikipedia:Deferred changes, combining Wikipedia:Deferred revisions and Wikipedia:Pending changes blocks, and superseding both. Comments are welcome. Cenarium (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Less intrusive video player icon

Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein

Previously, videos could function as stand alone illustrations in addition to being videos, which made them more useful, especially when a thumbnail was manually selected. See for example here[4], where it could show both a famous image, and a video of the event. But for some reason, the player icon has become big and dark, obscuring much of the thumb. I think the previous version was much more useful, for the reason mentioned above. See also here[5], where the icon pretty much destroys the thumbnail.

Perhaps the icon could be moved to one of the corners of the thumbs, instead of smack in the middle? And be smaller, too. Or maybe there could be a parameter for making the icon either dark or light, depending on the thumbnail, so where wouldn't have to be a huge, dark bar around it to make it discernible? Or maybe the play icon could be moved to the caption field? FunkMonk (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Great suggestions. Videos are sometimes used as the lead image of articles on animal behaviour, but I have often replaced these because the play icon makes the still-image difficult to see, let alone be in any way informative.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, another idea, maybe videos should have their own kind of window, like sounds have, see for example here.[6] A player bar like that, and with the thumb over it, would be much more useful, I think it looked more like this initially, if I recall correctly... FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Anyone know where it would be best to propose this? FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

  Since AFAIK it's not something that can be locally configurable, it would need a change to the MediaWiki software, so file a change request at bugzilla: (in the left sidebar, click Enter a new bug, put it under MediaWiki, Interface); although you might like to ask WP:VPT if they have suggestions. Several VPT regulars are also bugzilla regulars. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I think this is an excellent idea. Either a bar on the bottom or just moving the "play" icon into the bottom right hand corner seem like they would convey the same basic information (this is a video you can play), but in a much, much less intrusive way. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 15:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@0x0077BE: This is now under discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 132#Less intrusive video player icon, but FunkMonk didn't note that here when they started the new thread. Per WP:MULTI, please consider this one closed, and comment on the VPT thread. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Draft version

I think each Wikipedia article should have a draft version whose title is "Draft:" followed by the name of the article and the link for it should be between the link titled "Article" and the link titles "Talk". The draft version should exist so that people will feel free to add in information they can't find a source for that they're not all that sure is true, then an experience person will add that information to the article itself if it turns out it belongs and a source exists for it. A draft version would be so much faster for people to go through to figure out the best way to improve the article than the talk page. For example, it would have allowed me to add in the information I figured out in Talk:Freeze-drying#How freeze drying works. Blackbombchu (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The danger is that parallel versions of an article may develop, and it will not be as easy to attribute each edit when it comes to merging them. However your suggestion might work well when an article becomes fully protected because of disputes, as it would be easier for editors to discuss changes when they can see what they look like in the article. If this idea gains any support, I may ask at WP:VPT whether there is any technical reason if a tab for "Draft" cannot be placed in the position you suggested. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting how some good ideas can get lost on this page. What do other people think of adding a link somewhere to a draft version, if an article is fully protected? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe that there is a limited de facto tradition of using the Talk: namespace for this purpose already; see WP:SUBPAGE. As noted, there can be issues with appropriately attributing edits if content is copied from a draft page (in any namespace) to the article. In general, I would be concerned that such pages will become a storage and dumping ground for the worst POV-pushing detritus that has been excised from (or which fringe proponents can't quite force into) the main article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

For the aforementioned reasons, I would say that the use should likely be restricted to fully protected articles (for dispute or another reason). I saw this being done already at Draft:Gamergate controversy, but, pathetically, there has been some edit warring on the draft itself. It wasn't that bad though and there has been some good work. So I think it's worth mentioning this possible usage at WP:Drafts, it's less cumbersome than a talk subpage. We just need to make a talk page template, as was done at Talk:Gamergate controversy, and a template on the draft itself too, which will allow to track those and limit misuse. I don't think that a tab is required. Cenarium (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

How about a link to the draft version in {{pp-dispute}} or {{pp-vandalism}}? I certainly agree that the draft namespace is far preferable to the talk page draft, and I have left a suggestion on Help talk:Talkspace draft that the practice now be discontinued. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• I oppose the idea of putting sandboxes for any article, fully protected or not, in the Draft: namespace. I support putting sandbox pages on a new article named name of article/sandbox. While I entirely understand that "subpages" are disabled in the article mainspace, that doesn't really mean anything for this purpose. The only technical reason that this isn't done, "you may land on a sandbox page from Special:Random, can easily be fixed with a little javascript (which I would suggest go directly into common.js or at very least be an on-by-default gadget). I'll develop that script later today and test on testwiki. I'll be back in a couple days for an update or as soon as it is done. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

ExpertIdeasBot

We are a group of researchers at the University of Michigan, Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh. Our research aims at discovering ways to motivate academic researchers who can be considered domain experts to provide feedback about Wikipedia articles in their area of expertise. The goal of the bot is to make the process of posting comments on article talk pages easy for users who are not familiar with Wikipedia markup language. The users who have access to this bot are experts in different scientific fields such as psychology and Economics and the purpose of the comments left on the article talk pages are providing information on how the article can be improved. We have designed and implemented the bot, and already passed the trial period. We will appreciate it if you take a look at our bot proposal at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/ExpertIdeasBot, and help us to expedite the approval procedure. I.yeckehzaare (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I.yeckehzaare, I think you'll want to look at WP:Flow for long-term planning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Create a "Questions and Answers" portal to Wikipedia content

I would like to see creation of a new portal into the Wikipedia content organized around questions and answers. The portal would be a structured set of questions that have factual, but complex answers. For example:

• Why does matter have volume?
• How did the 40-hour work week become widespread?
• Why does the sky appear blue? --Lbeaumont (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• What, if any, causal relationship exists between the unemployment rate and the inflation rate? --Lbeaumont (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• How did the first kings gain their power and perceived legitimacy?

The answers would rely heavily on links into to existing Wikipedia articles, or a short narrative linking to several articles. Trivial questions that can be answered by reading a single existing Wikipedia article obviously related to the question (e.g. when was Bruce Springsteen born?) are excluded. Unanswerable questions, typically because it is a matter of opinion, or is unknowable such as: "Was the Judge correct in vacating Ray Rice's suspension" are similarly excluded. Perhaps we can refer people to Quora or similar sites for these questions.

Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• For the answers to most of those questions, Lbeaumont, possibly try the WP:RD. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks, that is helpful. Are there plans to arrange the existing material into structures that make it more accessible? Also, perhaps the reference desk deserves more visibility; this is the first I am learning of it and I have used Wikipedia often for several years.--Lbeaumont (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Wikiversity has some question-and-answer material, mostly for classroom purposes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

biographies of deceased people: current age

I suggest a global content change for all biographies of deceased people. The information I would like is: If this person were alive today how old would they be?

Advantages: I think they are numerous as despite dates being listed, converting that information automatically to something more easily understood like age would be make the biography more personable and approachable. Just think of some historical figures and then think, oh, that’s how old they would be... It’s just as useful as the current age given now in biographies rather than expecting the visitor to do the math, and obviously well suited to the dynamic wiki format.

Disadvantages: It would need a short abbreviation and be easily explained to the visitor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetbadger (talk • contribs) 20:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see the value in this. I suspect the number of people wanting this information is low and for anyone who does want to know, taking two numbers away from each other is only a google search away. Sam Walton (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Auto-generate lists with filtering and sorting

Hi all,

I notice a lot of 'list of ...' pages on Wikipedia. What are some efforts to standardize formatting and/or create automatic lists with filtering capabilities? It seems like it is a lot of work to create these lists and keep them up to date, as well as duplicate data, where an automated solution might prove effective.

Thanks for your feedback,

--Brylie Christopher Oxley (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The main effort "to standardize formatting and/or create automatic lists with filtering capabilities" is called Wikidata. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Templates for Mobile Broadband/Phone Users

Since that unless working for IPv6, which can be used to uniquely assign address per SIM card/CDMA Phone to unique IP address, IP address of Mobile connections will be always almost the same. Additionally, vandalizers take advantage of this arrangement, forcing editors, like myself, to take additional precautions to prevent false linkage by Checkusers to another user or IP vandalizers. The template will show the following:

• The username
• Their affiliate mobile network carrier/ISP
• The IP address/address range of the mobile network (optional)

Any comments are helpful. - gacelperfinian^{(talk in - error? Start a new topic)} 06:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean for user pages? We already have Template:Mobile IP for IP pages. Sam Walton (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I mean is for registered users, not for IP address itself (please read the idea again above, if you have time). - gacelperfinian^{(talk in - error? Start a new topic)} 01:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

As you have said, every SIM card/phone will have its own unique IP address. This actually makes it harder for vandals to impersonate you, as they will have to get hold of your phone to use your IP. Since this is very difficult, I suggest the opposite: CheckUsers can treat such IPs as a strong evidence of sockpuppeting. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 02:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's actually true. A lot of providers throw everybody on the same two or three IPs. And they hop a lot more than desktop connections. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Clarification. You have a different address only on IPv6, which is naturally not deployed on most of the mobile world. IPv4, which is still stuck upon despite a recommended change to IPv6 will simply invoke minor disruptions on everyone's part, is extinguished and the users are pooled only to one, sometimes 10, and sometimes, like on my network, a /24 (256-address)-pool network. Actually, I've experience a hard block because of unrelated vandalism for one month due to my mobile connection. - gacelperfinian^{(talk in - error? Start a new topic)} 03:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe you can request an exemption from such blocks. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but what if you are accused with a rogue account that you don't know then, of course, you can be accused falsely even if you never do such thing, because of the plain reason that sockpuppets never interact with their masters to hide their tracks. - gacelperfinian^{(talk in - error? Start a new topic)} 04:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Our check users are smarter than that and would know to call it inconclusive. Getting the IP-block exemption would help your case further, so I suggest you request that. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

So, are you proposing a template that says something like "This user edits on mobile devices, and may be unintentionally blocked when other users abuse editing privileges"? If so, just make it and put it on your page. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Alternative COI template

In 2012 a German court ruling found that it was deceptive for someone with a financial connection to add promotional content to Wikipedia, because readers presume the information is crowd-sourced and independent, not a medium for covert advertising. Similar anti-astroturfing laws exist in the US that require readers know when they are reading information provided by someone affiliated with the company, as oppose to a crowd-sourced online participant.

I contribute quite a bit to articles where I have a financial connection, usually bringing them up to GA status and following COI best practices. I'm attending a conference right now that has a bit of a focus on the Federal Trade Commission's disclosure laws and I'm thinking about how there is still no way to provide a legally-required disclosure of my financial connection to readers on a page that doesn't have any actual problems that would require a COI template[7] (GA-ranked).

I'm not advocating for or against it, but wondering what the community reception is towards a small, tasteful disclosure to readers on articles that do not necessarily have any major content problems. A template that I might add myself to be legally compliant, as oppose to something contentious used to shame someone that contributed poorly.

CorporateM (Talk) 13:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, CorporateM. The conflict of interest policy states that "paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question." Please follow our rules. --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice the difference between "discouraged" and "prohibited" and please don't imply that users are breaking the rules by something they are clearly allowed to do. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The flip side here is that we get a lot of up-to-date material from people with pov. What I like to see, is them adding the material with a WP:RS as short as possible (okay have a problem with that last one). And then leave off editing til the rest of us have had a chance to edit it, leaving comments about our edits on the discussion page, if they don't like them. Even more than the rest of us, should they avoid edit wars. But a tired article can really get a boost from someone with a commercial interest IMO. Student7 (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I think, it would destroy what Wiki about. See it here. Ochilov (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

This sounds way too close to a "this program was sponsored by..." TV ad. Wikipedia articles should not be slanted by corporations to the point where disclosure is required, and the fix for that is in the first part, not the second. Wnt (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia

How about English Fanon Wikipedia? There have been plenty of vandalisers adding made up content into articles, so if they could make this information up themselves in this Wikipedia, it might get rid of some.

Every image and template from this Wikipedia could be copied over so no re-uploading is required. 89.240.248.49 (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Fanon? I might be from the wrong culture, but that's meaningless to me (and my spellchecker). HiLo48 (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

If only there was a place to look up the meaning of Fanon ;-) I didn't know it either but I assume it's about the meaning in

• Fan-based fictional canon

The Internet already has plenty of places to post fiction. The attraction to vandals is to mess with the real Wikipedia. I don't think this would have any noticeable effect, apart from creating more places to patrol for legal issues like libel and copyright violations. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Just an idea. 89.240.248.49 (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Erm! a Wikipedia specifically designed for vandals to wreck? Is that a wise idea? I know, why doesn't a vandal create a whole new website called Vandalpedia, and then they'd have the playground they have always dreamed of. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 21:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

One wikia is enough I guess. Internet is a place of knowledge and creativity not vandalism. Oh, Vandalpedia is hilarious-total mess. zlouiemark [ Talk | Contribs ] 02:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikifiction - a new wiki where editors could write and collaborate on works of fiction. Is that the idea here? Oiyarbepsy (talk)

Log in with SSL and Textsecure

As the security of SSL (https://) is broken[8], see Bullrun [9] and BREACH [10] its time to wrap SSL into TextSecure against MITMA and SSL key snooping.

For the time beeing, next to normal login with SSL, the option Login with TextSecure depends on using a browser plugin.See [11]. Aldo Wikipedia is not Wikileaks and each contributed statement must be verifiable, see WP:VER, even contributing to a WP article in which you point to certain source may have consequences in certain countries and results in a timely visit from the state and in the best case, they just search your house. If for example WP would have an article on this [12] every editor would be of interest to lay consequenses upon. The proposal is for a start to enhance Login and Wikipedia:Flow with TextSecure and see where it goes from there. Whatsapp finished their end-to-end encryption implementation within a few months. Mion (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

We cannot rely on thrird-party plugins to be installed on an editor's computer. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Solution, make a WikipediaTextSecure plugin for the 3 major browsers, or have the 3 major browsers integrate basic support for the textsecure protocol. Mion (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

For a start without plugin, make a securetext login for CyanogenMod (android) as that seems the first to include the protocol, it seems Firefox OS and Linux will follow.[13]. Mion (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Your solution for Wikipedia becoming more secure is for us to build and maintain security-based browser extensions? That's never going to happen. More importantly, the TS protocol is new enough that "not broken" doesn't mean "secure": it'd be a ton of effort for not necessarily any gain. Ironholds (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

No. SSL isn't broken; rather, some of its implementations are broken, and there's no guarantee that TextSecure isn't broken just as much, if not more. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

There are no guarantees in life but TextSecure is open source and reviewed by the top of encrypto and the software stack itself is the best you can get at the moment in the public market (and for free) and yes security depends on more elements. SSL/TLS faces a similar problem as the email protocol it cant handle or protect against the current methods available on the internet. Even if you make the best implementation of a TLS its approach is based on the internet in 1994, (yes, that was 20 years ago) and as such it is not secure at all.Mion (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's sighted by security experts, but that doesn't mean it's proven. SSL is. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 03:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I suppose you mean the SSL interception business is a proven technology ? [14], ProxySG, [15], [16], for another example read kwalliso.Mion (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

They all require injecting a trusted certificate into the client, which has been done for ages in offices, schools and the like. It does not mean SSL itself is insecure. Moreover, the same thing can be done to TextSecure. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 00:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, certificates can be an issue, but on state level it might be enough to intercept the first packages and make the WP servers believe they communicate with IE8/XP, the result would be No FS No SNI TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA (0x5) RC4 128, (the current response from the WP server, RC4 is known from WEP) anyway, to get back to end-to-end encryption maybe an idea to include Surespot [17] to WP Mobile editing ? Considder seeing an edit as an internet message (like chat) :) Mion (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Some points:

1. Text secure in browser's own authors state: "This is very early stuff and exists primarily to get the crypto in place. This does not currently work, dont bother trying to use it seriously yet". That's the polar opposite of tried and true security.
2. Given its a browser plugin, that means we'd have to still support clients that don't have it, in which case one would (probably) have to rely on TLS to get it to the browser, so if TLS is broken than an adversary could just intercept the connection and remove the plugin, and thus having it doesn't actually prevent a TLS is broken attack (Maybe? I'm a little unclear on how precisely its proposed such a thing would be used, or how precisely the plugin works).
3. Contrary to popular belief, TLS is not (as far as we know) broken when used properly. Its had it slightly rough recently, but that's not entirely a bad thing, it means people are checking it carefully.
4. The cardinal rule of cryptography are generally: Never roll your own (including avoid using existing solutions in novel ways) and only use things with long-term proven track records. This doesn't really have the track record (yet)
5. "but on state level it might be enough to intercept the first packages and make the WP servers believe they communicate with IE8/XP" - no. TLS has protection against cipher downgrade attacks. In order to pull that off, you not only have to intercept but you would have to be able to break 2048 bit RSA in real time [I believe, based on skimming RFC 2246, since in the case of TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA the pre-master secret would be chosen by client, encrypted with server pub key, sent over - and then hashed with what the client said the ok protocols were to form the master secret. Thus for an adversary to downgrade to RC4 by actively intercepting packets, they would need to be able to go in the middle of the connection since the client and server would calculate different master secrets. To do that, they need the pre-master secret (which is encrypted with the server's public key), which they can only do if they can break rsa-2048 in real time, or if they have a fake certificate that the client finds acceptable. If they could do either of these two things, then they could just do a standard MITM.] (As an aside that's not really relavent, it should be noted out that our sites do not work without SNI (AFAIK, haven't tested))
6. Surespot: Reading [18] doesn't exactly inspire confidence (Seems like there's quite a bit of trust in the central server. Although that could just be that their technical details are not being precise enough). I'm also not sure how it really applies here.
7. If the adversary you are concerned about is the secret police of some facist government, then end to end encryption is not the right solution. Encryption hides the contents of the message, not that there was a message. This is especially problematic in the case of wikipedia where the timestamp of every edit is available. All the secret police have to do (assuming they can passively monitor your connection. Probably the case) is get a list of all the times of all the edits made by the pseudonym, check to see who sent a message to Wikipedia at those times. This is probably enough to uniquely identify you. If it isn't, then also factor in the size of the requests to wikipedia (Because page sizes are easily discoverable), and it definitely enough to track you down. If you want to defend against this type of adversary, convince the Wikipedia powers that be to allow TOR (There's even systems that take in account the potential for vandalistic abuse! [19])
8. If you're more worried about password security and someone compromising your account, an approach that is more likely to yield better effective security, would be to convince people to (optionally) allow two-factor auth and client TLS certificates

Bawolff (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think they need to update their websites as both Open WhisperSystems and Snapchat have a downloadable implementation which is not browser based but for Android and IOS for now. Wrapping up TLS in Textsecure has another advantage, beeing that for every edit/message a new key is generated, you can break one message, but have to do it for every next message/edit too, instead of breaking it once and reading it all. When it comes to security one should not assume it is not broken. 3. As OS and browser are spoofed the WP server has no knowledge about cipher downgrade, it will communicate on the highest standard possible for that combination IE8/XP and that is RC4, the weakest spot. A better solution would be to prevent login and point to a browser choice that supports better standards. As for FS and SNI you can see that here.[20]. As for not rolling our own, see TextSecure#Architecture OTR and Curve25519, AES-256, and HMAC-SHA256 are well tested over time. Mion (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

the highest combination possible is secured with the authentication algorithm (RSA 2048 in the ie8 case you mentioned) not the chosen cipher algorithm. You can only fake being ie8 if you can do a MITM for any connection type. Most browsers support forward secrecy, so im not sure what you mean when suggesting forward secrecy is a benefit of text secure, we already have that (except for IE8). The text secure primitives are definitely time tested (after all aes, hmac-sha256 are the same primitives TLS uses) however using text secure in a new environment (to secure web pages instead of text messages) could cause new issues, and that is what has not been well tested.Bawolff (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Well we have a very experienced crew in testing, see m:VisualEditor and m:Wikimedia Labs, as for why it is so interesting to be the one in the middle, just read about X.509, WebRTC, AJAX and Intel AMT[21] and how the internet is broken [22], and how an edit can end you up in psikhushka. Now, if we imagine a world where it is better not to login or make edits on the internet it would directly hurt Wikipedia as more and more editors would drop out and WP is no longer based on the wisdom of the crowd, there is no more NPOV as making edits with an opposing (or just contradicting) view are not made. With storage space and internet speed rising fast see 5G and Fiber to the x it might be possible that readers will go for a one time download of a single WP language version in a prepped sandbox to achieve security. And that is exactly the opposite from what we wanted to achieve with the VisualEditor. All in all implementing Textsecure is just a small part of the solution, if we want to keep our editors the next step would be to follow Facebook and give access over the Tor network.[23]. No worries ClueBot NG will help us with Tor, so hopefully we will remain in charge of the technology for a decently long time.[24] Mion (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't even understand this comment. Bawolff (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposing function to substitute user talk page vandalism with a wiki-love message

Because it seems to me to be maybe one of the most effective way to stop people seriously misusing user talk pages. John Carter (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I support this, but I think you can just go ahead and do it if you want to. Be mindful that refactoring an angry person's comment is likely to be taken poorly, and be careful you don't end up with a catsplosion on frequently vandalized pages. Ivanvector (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Ivan, I'm guessing that John is proposing a bot or an edit filter or some automated way of having this done. Not asking if it is okay for users to make the change manually. Either way, if a method can be devised to accurately identify edits as vandalism on a consistent basis, then I could support this. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 03:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, ClueBot does an alright job of it. Perhaps adapt the code to detect vandalism in talk spaces only, or make it an opt-in thing for user talk pages? Ivanvector (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing, John Carter. Bearian (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Basically, I guess I was thinking if there might be some way to add something to the "rollback" or "rollback (vandal)" functions on edit history reviews which might automatically take you to the wiki-love app for adding a kitten or beer or something. I should note that yesterday I gave User:Nishidani two beers, and may be potentially starting him on the road to alcoholism, doing this, and Bishonen a troll-munching kitty. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Ohh! I see. In that case, since those options are added by Twinkle, I suggest posting a "please see" on Twinkle's talk page and pinging TTO or AzaToth to this discussion. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Twinkle doesn't do WikiLove :) WikiLove is a MediaWiki extension, mw:Extension:WikiLove, developed as a WMF initiative a few years ago, although the concept of wikilove long predates the extension. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

So, what users are being targeted, user that abuse their own user talk pages, or users whose talk pages get vandalised? The initial comment sounds like it targets those who misuse their own pages, but all the responses assume the opposite. If someone vandalizes my talk page, I don't want it replaced by a wikilove message, I want the vandal reverted like it never happened. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Users who are targeted. The major question to my eyes seems to be maybe figuring out how to do it. First, like I said, I would think this might be started by individuals using "rollback" to remove the vandalism. Then, perhaps, as a second step, maybe limited only to user talk pages, have a visible option to the wiki-love function to add a kitty or beer or whatever as a second step. Of course, the second step would be optional, but I tend to think that those who vandalize userpages regularly probably target a few editors more than others, and it might serve as a bit of a deterrent to someone who looks to add inappropriate content to a user talk page to see a few kittys or beers or baklava or whatever, as it indicates that the receiver is well liked. Also, I suppose, for the really frequently vandalized user talk pages, the kittys can keep a sort of record for instances of vandalism, which might be easier to track that way if for whatever reason it becomes useful to know that history later on. John Carter (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would reduce vandalism. The Wikilove message would kind of be a permanent record and a badge of honor for the vandal. Either that, or the vandal simply wouldn't give a damn. That said, no technical solution is required here, just make the template and start using it. I can't imagine that anyone would seriously object. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Anti-copypaste bot

I think we should run bot and script, which would search information from new articles in Internet and compare with search results. If bot see copipaste, he will nominate this article for fast deleting. Ochilov (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

That sounds exactly like what User:CorenSearchBot does :) Sam Walton (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I definitely support such an idea - as long as the actual deletion/revdel-ing is done by a human being who actually makes sure it wqas done correctly. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

We actually have TWO bot sdoing this for years already, and a couple of hundred highly clueful admins who manually do the actual deleting. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

In the adding, I wanna say, that we also need instrument, where we could write the adress of website in one field, and the name of the Wikipedia article in other field. And it would show percentage of copypaste. How do you like this idea? I alreade wrote it in the contest of the best tools to improve or create. Ochilov (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

You are talking about this. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 08:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

OMG all my ideas already done. I love wiki) Ochilov (talk) 08:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Using the NSA wayback machine

As the NSA stores the entire internet the proposal is to use WMF employee name removed contacts with the NSA (about the backdoors in the Wikimedia software) to fix the Wikipedia problem with link rot. It would be handy to have a sort of NSA extension for direct linking into the NSA database to saved versions of webpages. A sort of state funded wayback machine, similar to Wayback Machine - Internet Archive[25]. For Wikipedia the advantage would be to have a plan B if the current wayback machine would default, for the NSA there would be a gain too, running a public service that is usefull to common people, best cover you can imagine. Mion (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

{{smiley}} -- llywrch (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

We have backdoors? Darnit, nobody tells me anything interesting these days. Ironholds (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

NSA isn't able to store the entire Internet. Even if it could, the archive and this "proposal" have nothing to do with the so-called "backdoors" in our servers. Also, why is it WMF employee name removed, who was involved in several dramas recently, but not Jimbo Wales or other people at WMF? Sorry, but the wording and timing of this proposal make me question the OP's intention. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 11:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

If you deploy around 100,000 people to work on your NSA system the storage costs for the internet is just a small part of the annual costs and storage costs are still declining at a fast rate. :) You can check my history if you want to question my intention or ask me.Mion (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay; what leads you to (to my knowledge, falsely) believe that there are backdoors in Wikimedia software or that WMF employee name removed is in any way involved in our software development process directly? ;p. Ironholds (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

For in case you lived in a cage recently you can read Edward Snowden every big USA internet company is forced under secresy laws to comply, if Microsoft, Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter are all in court to fight the laws layed upon them why would you think that a company the size of Wikipedia is not in that group ? As for who has the contacts, its prob someone who can send all personal on a teambuilding daytrip and hand the server room keys to some subcontractors. The problem you would face is that the person in question is not allowed under law to admit it, so make an A4 about the Wikipedia NSA waybackmachine extension, put it on all walls in the office and hope that the person in question will relay the request and it will all end in a positive outcome :) Mion (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay... Here's the problem: how would a backdoor to Wikipedia benefit the NSA? They want to know when someone edits a file on the Wiki? They consult user > contributions. They want to know when a given person looks at a page? Well, the server logs will tell them the IP address the request came from -- but I doubt they can get access to the logs of the Wikimedia servers in Amsterdam that easily -- but these logs aren't kept for more than a few weeks, so the NSA needs to be collecting them on a regular basis, & if they've done so over the years, they have a mountain of hay to find a needle in. They want to know what people say on the public Wikimedia-related mailing lists? Those are over there --> They want to know what people say on the non-public mailing lists? (Yes, these do exist.) Well, if they know where the host is for the specific mailing list is, they could purloin it from there. In short, they don't need backdoors to Wikipedia: lots of information is there for the casual perusing -- as long as they can pair usernames & IP numbers to specific persons of interest. (And anyone with more than a casual knowledge of how the Internet can tell you that reliably pairing that data with specific people is not as easy as they make it seem on shows like The Blacklist. -- llywrch (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

In seriousness, I don't think they have that much power. Lor^Chat 22:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the login name of the editor is in the History tab from the database, and whats more handy than to have realtime access to the login logfiles to see which IP logged in under that name ? The login logfiles are not big , names, day and time stamp and IP, perfect for fast search. Section 215 of the US Patriot Act[26] back-doors are not only applied to US firms in the USA but also to assets they own in foreign countries (like Amsterdam). As it nicely states on Wikipedia:Why_create_an_account? "Edit without revealing your IP address (which can be used to trace your physical location) to the public." read that as we reveal your IP to all authorities. In 2007 the text about who could see your IP number was different.[27] Lets get these A4 posters printed :) Mion (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a nice theory that only has four flaws. Flaw #1: the login logfiles don't actually link username to IP. Flaw #2: our entire codebase is open source. Flaw #3: the point the login message makes is that non-logged-in IPs are public. And, Flaw #4: I do IP-based geolocation for a living, and it's about as accurate as getting a map of the world and drunkenly flinging a dart at where some bloke in a pub said the user lived. Source: I'm the WMF traffic researcher and spend all day dealing with (1) our request logs and (2) the IP addresses within them. Ironholds (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Flaw 1# lets keep it with the 2007 version Your IP address is still saved and accessible to users with Checkuser permission Flaw 2# Yes, the NSA has its own hard and software to zap databases and logfiles, declaring something about our own says nothing. Flaw 3. This discussion is not about non-logged in users. Flaw 4. I did some writing on geolocation in 2006, i think the flaw in it is that you relate your own experience with the experience at the NSA. Mion (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know (read: from working with this data) that applies to edit and log actions, not to log-in actions. And I think your problem is that you assume anything possible, even the implausible, is plausible when done by the NSA. That's not how it works. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Although I think this in particular is far fetched, I should point out that what lots of people thought implausible for the NSA to do a few years ago, actually turned out to be true. Cenarium (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Flaw #2: our entire codebase is open source."

Is it? MediaWiki is (and yes, I've read it). I have no idea what WP runs on. It might be MediaWiki, it might be NSAWiki. It might even (trivially) be MediaWiki with the NSA_Snooper extension added dynamically. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the point in this discussion? The direction it appears to be headed in is kind of confusing me. You think the National Security Agency stores the internet? What does that have to do with IP logs and whatnot? Dustin (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

You are right, the WMF could contact In-Q-Tel[28]] and ask them to provide help for the [wayback machine]-extension for direct linking into the NSA database to saved versions of webpages. The proposed fallback wayback machine. Mion (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's get this straight.

• NSA stores the whole Internet No, they can't.
• Even if they could and had a "wayback machine", they wouldn't want the public to know, and of course they wouldn't allow the public to access it (Do they really want to cause another public outrage?)
• Even if they allowed the public to access it, access would still be limited to public-visible parts of the archive (It would be illegal for us to access the private portions of the websites), which makes it no different from the existing archives. Anyway, it doesn't make sense for us to collaborate with a organisation that has a negative public image and (according to your "backdoor" claim) does harm to the security of our infrastructure.
• Even if all above were true, the entire stuff has nothing to do with WMF employee name removed and the "backdoors" in our software. And how can you know WMF employee name removed has a relationship with NSA? I take your statement as an attempt to attack and defame WMF employee name removed.
• After all, they have far better ways to access our users' data apart from injecting "backdoors". They are already tapping the wires, and can grab a SSL certificate of ours by simply asking our CA.

Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 03:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, we could attempt asking for help, like this :D --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I removed the groundless accusations that a WMF employee has connections with the NSA. This behavior is unacceptable. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive865#Groundless accusation against WMF employee. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Memo Application

Greetings Wikipedians,

Down below, please find a proposal brief re: a digital memo application.

           General function of the application:

- Enable readers to create digital memos that can be stored and later retrieved on the Wikipedia’s platform; where the application can be found on the < top right bar > next to the user’s profile page.

            Overview: 

Currently, English Wikipedia includes 4,658,450 articles and it’s increased every day with over 800 new articles.

Today, roughly 40% of the world has an internet connection, which presents a tremendous need for people in developing countries to be able to access web pages in their native language, and tools to assist with their information and gathering purposes.

            Use Case: 

Take for example, a teacher in Kenya may be researching various topics using Wikipedia. Today, if he or she wants to remember the information for a later time, he or she may copy the information onto 3rd party software to retrieve later.

But could there be a more convenient way for the reader? Where instead of taking the content onto another platform, the notes from the reader, can be saved onto the Wikipedia platform.

             The Proposal

One-click digital memo application that enables the reader to:

- Create a private digital memo ( visual reference: yellow mini note found on the top right hand side of the user’s page ) - Bookmarks the web page where the memo is created and saved onto the reader’s profile page. ( visual reference: paper-clip )

             The Benefits:

- Useful application that would make a great addition to the Wiki tool set - Easy to use ( 1 click process to creating note ) - Memos are private and non intrusive - Bookmarks the Wikipedia page

             Application Considerations:

- Once a memo is placed on the Wikipedia page, it may cover the top right hand section of the page. To mitigate this, the top memo bar can collapse once the notes are made.

- Too many memos can get confusing and disorganized.To trouble shoot this issue, colored folders can be created by the user and tagged.

These are the two main considerations, if there are others, we can add them to the bug fix and development list.

Welcome your feedback. CitynSea (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)CitynSeaCitynSea (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I made a tool called Scratchpad a while ago, which is simply a wiki sandbox that resides entirely in the browser. This way, users can take memos privately, without polluting the wiki. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 13:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You point out the main problem exactly: 3rd party software for this already exists. Adding a memo program to an encyclopedia makes about as much sense as adding an encyclopedia to a memo program. It's feature creep. It's one more feature for new users to learn, increasing the learning curve. And it's one more feature for the limited development staff to design and maintain. Mr.Z-man 13:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

If you really wanted this, you could write it as a user script. As others have said above, though, there doesn't seem to be a very wide use case for it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

People who want to take notes for future reference can also create WP:user subpages and link to it from their user page. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

< Response > Thank you for the feedback! Will review the links in your comment thread. Cheers CitynSea (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Open Access Reader, tool to find missing academic citations

Hi, I'm working on an IEG project to create a tool to find important academic citations missing from Wikipedia. It does this by taking a large repository of open access papers, removing the ones already cited in Wikipedia, and then ranking those left over by some significance metric (at the moment, number of citations). We've just completed our first proof of concept demo which looks quite promising, and are looking for ideas or feedback. Check it out: Open Access Reader.

EdSaperia (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Paying admins

I propose that we set aside a section of Wikimedia Foundation money to pay admins to recognize their highly significant and beneficial contributions to Wikipedia. Jinkinson talk to me 19:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This makes sense, in my opinion, because I think those who help Wikipedia be the wonderful repository of information it is today should be rewarded. It also fits in with the extremely close scrutiny people must face to become an admin already, which makes it somewhat like applying for a job anyway. Jinkinson talk to me 19:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That will only lead to corruption. Being an admin is already a privilege exploited by many. Real life politics should set a pretty bad example. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that there are approximately 6000 admins on the Wikimedia projects, right? This would cost quite a lot of money, and would have substantial effects on what kind of people try to become administrators. --Yair rand (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

How would you set the pay scales? Is it to be an hourly rate - or a set amount per admin action? Both are open to corruption - I could spend twenty minutes weighing up the arguments for and against at an AFD, and then claim that it took two hours; or I could spend a happy half-hour in wanton protection, deletion, or blocking, just to pad the invoice.

Then there is the issue of currency: assume that everybody is paid in Uncle Sam's Bucks. In some countries, one USD buys a lot more than one dollar would get in NYC or LA. There are a lot of admins not in the USA; do these get the same rate as somebody who is living in the USA? Alternatively, people could be paid in their local currency; there is then the exchange rate to consider, and these fluctuate. Let's say that I'm in Britain, and am paid in pounds sterling at a level set when there are 1.60 dollars to the pound. If the pound later strengthens to $1.76, Wikimedia need to pay me 10% more on their own scale so that I get the same amount on my scale. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll take the bait. Admins aren't the only users who make 'highly significant and beneficial contributions' to Wikipedia. Plus, I'm an admin but my most important contributions were not through my admin actions, and by far. There's also that it's unfeasible, but it's already been stated. There's certainly a need of recognition, but not just for admins. A 'featured editor' in the Signpost would be a better idea, but it's not without issues either. Cenarium (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Even poor Stewards don't get money of their hard work... --Stryn (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• What about paying people for successful FA nominations if they contributed to a significant portion of the article? Everymorning talk to me 16:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia was created to provide free access to knowledge to everyone in the world. It is a volunteer service. No one is, can be, or will be paid for their contributions. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a volunteer service for more on this. TheGeneralUser (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, that's an essay, not a policy page, so it's not set in stone. Everymorning talk to me 16:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I already get money for doing things I quite enjoy doing, but I would oppose this idea. Too many potential problems. Pay for time is unworkable, and pay per edit - well, just remember the comments at a very recent RfA about someone's editing history... Too expensive if a pay scale was adopted that actually benefited the recipients, and a waste of money if it didn't (because there would still be accounts staff working to distribute the peanuts and washers...). Peridon (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there a problem finding people who want to be admins? Seems to me the problem is with people saying no to them, which this payment won't change. Maybe someone will hit on the idea of paying people for yes votes..... :) Wnt (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Alternate idea: What about a one-time bonus upon being promoted to admin? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm, how about paying Lua coders? Or paying vandalism patrollers? Or paying vandals? (To "count coup" on vulnerable pages with silent tagging that people can fix rather than doing something visible, that is) Paying any of these other groups could actually get more useful work done, but paying admins doesn't mean more will promoted, nor that there is more admin work that should actually be done. Wnt (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oiyarbepsy, how about not having a bonus for passing RfA, and instead just making sure that admin candidates are mature individuals, have a sound sense of judgement, and plenty of experience, and giving them a decent hearing at RfA ? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Infoboxes of people

I have an Idea this may be a little bit of a mission and could result if implemented in a major overhaul of infoboxes which relate to people. I am getting increasingly confused and in some cases frustrated when I am trying to update infoboxes for people. This is because currently infoboxes are for one specific thing e.g. cricket player, politician, astronaut, criminal, writer and so on. I know there is a generic infobox, the person infobox but its parameters are while extensive only really in my opinion generi and useful when describing a person and not for talking about a person. I am also aware that there is the child template which can be used to add information to existing templates, but I am frustrated by the limited number of labels which can be added and that it has a limit on the amount of times it can be used in an infobox.
What I am suggesting is the ability for an infobox which can be created from scratch, which would allow for one infobox to contain all the notable information for an individual. Such as sports people who compete in multiple sports or people who are notable in multiple and highly distinct fields e.g individuals who have a notable career before for example becoming a notable politician. For some people this can be done using the child template but in most cases I have found this child template is too limited in what it allows and I have found it only really works when dealing with similar or the same discipline e.g. motor racing drivers who compete in different racing series or categories.
Thoughts and constructive suggestions please. Sport and politics (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at {{Infobox ship begin}}. This starts with a wrapper template for the basics, and then a series of sub-template for the various eras of a ship's operation. Are you thinking of something like that? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I m yes but a generic one where the entire llife of a notable person can be put in one infobox e.g. a person who in their life was a Lacrosse Player then a Politician or someone who Was a Rower, then a Cyclist, then an Actor, then a politician. I wan the freedom to be able to create an infobox which shows all of the persons life without having to use multiple different infoboxes or be restricted to using the limited child template. Sport and politics (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

{{Infobox person}} already serves that role and can take a number of other infoboxes (e.g. {{Infobox musical artist}}; for example on Beyoncé or Jennifer Lopez - note the "Musical career" subheader) as a "module" or sub-template (up to six of them at a time; currently). We need to better document this; and to make more of our biographical infoboxes work as modules, and to standardise parameter names (some work in this is ongoing) to make it easier for editors to switch between them. This will also be made easier as we merge or delete redundant infoboxes (i.e. forked or duplicate infoboxes with minor variations in parameters or aesthetic design). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

To that end, I've just created Category:Biographical templates usable as a module, which waits population. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Infobox person is not flexible enough and is limited in what it can do. It only allows some other infoboxes to be added. I am asking for one where any infobox can be combined with another to create any combination of infoboxes for a person as their notability dictates. Sport and politics (talk) 13:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It is perfectly flexible and allows any infobox to be added that has been written to allow that. As I said above, "We need... to make more of our biographical infoboxes work as modules". Sure, that's a chore, but it's much less work than what you're proposing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

There is the problem the other infoboxes "need to be written to allow that", what I am proposing is something you do once and it lasts in perpetuity and just need simple maintinanc, the add on proposal while simpler, is less fit for purpose and will need a new modular infobox creating for each new scenario not already covered, what I am proposing is a universal infobox for people which can be used as it is needed to be used for. Sport and politics (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

A universal infobox would require rewriting all the sub-infoboxes that go inside anyway, right? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

No a universal infobx would have no sub infoboxes. It would just be one infobox for everything. Sport and politics (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, let me rephrase that. Such a universal infobox would require multiple templates. So, by revising the various template as Andy notes, you could have one infobox made of multiple templates, like the ships. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia suggestions

1. Make all words in articles lead to new page related to the word, this can be done with programming when click on any word from article would lead to new articles but text would remain the same and standard wiki link to new article would override it or usual words or phrases.
2. In each edit in history make report vandalism or spam with short explanation.
3. Auto-sign when user begins with : but if edits inside between : an signature wouldn't sign it.
4. Shortcuts for edit summary for example m minor edit.
5. When signature is changed automatically change all signature of user (I have seen that in RPG Maker games you can type name of player and that name is displayed in whole game).
6. TTS Text to Speech like Ekho I have read that it is possible to record ones own voice only vowels and consonants it is about one MB large and can read any text.And other languages as well.
7. Also pop up translation for words from Wiktionary and how much times articles were visited.
8. Input methods embedded in Wiki editor like Chinese.
9. Also when make next word in new row in Wikipedia is displayed in same row this can be a problem for writhing many words one below other.
10. Perhaps some translator like Google Translate which is online or for Android there are not much free quality translators today except Google Translate.
11. When users edit is reverted or changed by different user would notify the user in special notifications, this would help if user has hundreds or thousands of edits so that he doesn't need to search all pages.Watch page is only for some pages it would be useful to have most although user can ignore it if he wants.
12. Ancient Egyptian Babel for language knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xand2 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
13. Wiki template that would make active count users edits and articles.
14. Wikibot that would automatically translate via Google Translate articles from English Wikipedia and save them to other Wikipedia's that could save more time in writing articles but only for new articles links and files would be copied by Wikibot and then replaced after translation. Xand2 金日光旦照 (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia doesn't use Allwiki.—Wavelength (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Xand2 金日光旦照. That's a long list of suggestions. I've numbered them for you so I can reply faster:

1. Wavelength answered this. This has been suggested before, but most editors here don't want it.
2. This would make the page history too big, by adding two new buttons and two short explanations to each line. Also, you can fix these problems yourself, instead of reporting it to someone else. There is a relevant button there for each line: "undo". Click that and then write 'spam' or 'vandalism' (or 'typo' or whatever else is appropriate) on the WP:Edit summary before saving.
3. Auto-signing is difficult. User:SineBot does this for newer users. WP:Flow will eventually do this automatically for everyone.
4. The list of Wikipedia:Keyboard shortcuts includes one for marking edits as minor.
5. Signatures are automatically changed in page histories, but changing them in talk pages requires editing the pages. This can be done by bot. I believe that WP:Flow will do this.
6. This is something that you would set up on your own computer.
7. I don't think that there is a way to see translations for words as pop-ups, although you can see definitions from linked articles with either WP:Hovercards or WP:NAVPOPS. Article page view statistics are available in a link from the article's history page.
8. I believe that input method editors are embedded for Chinese and other languages as part of mw:Universal language selector. I'm not sure that they are enabled here at the English Wikipedia, however. (Chinese should be enabled at the Chinese Wikipedia, etc.)
9. I don't understand this suggestion. Is this especially a problem for writing in Chinese?
10. Chrome has a built-in translator. The upcoming mw:Extension:ContentTranslation will provide some machine translation for people translating articles.
11. WP:Echo notifies most users if their edits are reverted.
12. There are several WP:Edit counters to find out how many edits you have made.

Thank you for taking the time to make your suggestions. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikibot that would automatically translate via Google Translate articles from English Wikipedia and save them to other Wikipedia's that could save more time in writing articles but only for new articles links and files would be copied by Wikibot and then replaced after translation.

As for next row text that is in English also for example if you look in my edit source and how it is displayed:

This is example This is example

Both short sentences are in next row but are displayed in same row.

This is example

This is example

Now is empty row between and is displayed correctly this can be problem in writing long list of words which are in Wikipedia displayed as single block of text so user needs to add empty row between each.

Also where can I post about Wikihiero it has only basic Egyptian hieroglyphs for example less than A100 and free OpenSource JSesh has about 3000 while some other hieroglyph editors have almost 7000 hieroglyphs it is written like this < hiero > r:a-ra:Z1 < /hiero > and rendered like this:

Wikihiero has some errors for example < hiero > r:r < / hiero > should display r above r but it is in the same row

rr, or Ax&x & should display next character near sign but not above it like : isn't working < hiero > G25&x < /hiero >

Ax power of soul.Some errors were already reported on Wikihiero talk page but still no response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xand2 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

For edit count I was thinking on active user edit count as wiki template that could be on user main page like user-activenumberofedits. Xand2 金日光旦照 (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Pop up translation from Wiktionary when mouse over word would translate it to English or other languages.English Wiktionary has millions of words (most are inflections) and you can use free OpenSource Kiwix for offline Wikipedia and Wiktionary (but Wiktionary is downloaded separately try using Google) and that offline Wiktionary could be programmed with pop up window to display articles (you can also find pop up code on Google like C++). Xand2 金日光旦照 (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

We have Navigation Popups and the newly-created Hovercards that display a pop-up for wikilinks, which are enough for casual readers. For other words, language learners can download various extensions that can achieve this effect for their browsers. I don't think forcing this on all users makes much sense. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 10:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't find display image from link to other website (not Wikipedia).For example I have on UESP wiki some images I would like to put on my user page but to display it from link. Xand2 金日光旦照 (talk) 09:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:HOTLINK. It's disabled for good reasons. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 10:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Require non-deleted non-talk edits for autoconfirmed check and reset after a block

First, this isn't for experienced vandals and socks, it would be a pointless exercise. It's for inexperienced ones, and not really for the classic semi-protection or move rights that autoconfirmed gives, but for the edit filter. The edits filters very often check only edits by non-autoconfirmed users, so it makes sense to require ten non-deleted non-talk edits if we want to keep detecting newly created 'bad' articles, spam and vandalism from those new accounts when they didn't get indef-blocked (yet) so risk becoming autoconfirmed. Requiring non-deleted edits means we'll still be able to check for persistent (re)creations of problematic articles, and talk edits wouldn't be counted because they could easily achieve that just using their talk page. And in case of a temp block, the check should reset : 4 days and 10 non-deleted non-talk edits since the end of the block. This would prevent many of them from passing through the loopholes of this system. This is sufficiently targeted so as not to make auto-confirmation harder for good faith contributors. I'm not including userspace edits for example so that edits to user drafts are still counted. Cenarium (talk) 08:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

So, just to understand - autoconfirmed is only granted to users with 10 non-deleted edits. And when an editor is blocked, autoconfirmed is blocked, and the edit counter resets to zero? Is that the suggestion? What about editors who make 15 edits, but then the page gets deleted, would autoconfirmed by revoked? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty much it. In the current config, autoconfirmed is checked every time a user makes an edit, and you have a point that in that case, the user may no longer be autoconfirmed after a page deletion, a behavior that should be avoided. If we do as suggested, autoconfirmed would be turned from an implicit usergroup to an autopromoted usergroup, the software would grant this usergroup when the conditions are first met and would no longer check afterwards. It would have some advantages besides that, for example we would have a list of autoconfirmed users, see T17702 for a long standing bug request on this possibility. It would need broader community support to move on this.

Another possibility is to implement those checks in the edit filter directly, i.e. have variables such as timesincelastblock or numberofnondeletednontalkedits. Cenarium (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

And the user-right would be automatically revoked when the user is blocked. What about blocks in error? Admins need the right to immediately restore confirmed status with the unblock. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

They can grant wp:confirmed usergroup. Cenarium (talk) 10:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

List of Pulitzer Prize winners

Help me with List of Pulitzer Prize Winners. ``SonictheHedgehog99 (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The only content of the deleted page was "help make this". Don't create articles without real content. If you don't want to write an article yourself then you can request it at Wikipedia:Requested articles. {{Pulitzer}} already links to 21 articles with lists of winners of the 21 different Pulitzer Prizes. If your idea is to list all of them together then it sounds too long for me. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

How can this list be auto-generated? I.e. it seems like a semantic web query. Implicit in the idea of winning a specific Pulitzer Prize is the general assumption that one has won the Pulitzer Prize. --Brylie Christopher Oxley (talk) 08:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Technically speaking, it would be very easy to just WP:TRANSCLUDE] the various lists together - but that really has no benefit to leaving the lists separate. If a general list is going to be beneficial, it will probably need more than just that. For now, though, I've created a redirect at List of Pulitzer Prize winners for the benefit of those who don't know about the separate lists. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Possible tightening of BLP criteria

I have been musing about this for a while and am trying to come up with something objective - BLP issues have been the subject of much discussion over the past 6 years or so, and WP:BLP1E was one development, as was the deletion of pages that were marginally notable if the subjects wanted their deletion.

I am not thrilled about the idea of someone influencing content in a big way, but am mindful that maybe we could be tighter with criteria in an objective way that allows us to remove some more marginal people.

My idea is something like this - A BLP subject may be considered not to warrant inclusion if they are not able to be mentioned in detail on an existing article (but otherwise have appeared in tabloids i.e. famous for being famous). Thus they need to have won something, played a role in a film, been elected, invented something, something "encyclopedic" as it were.

This might resolve issues like the following:

Some years ago. Jimbo nominated Mimi Macpherson for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mimi Macpherson). Now us Aussie editors know this person as Elle's sister and she has fulfilled notability quite easily with mentions in media etc. However, if you look at what articles might mention her they are only very minimal mentions, so if we had a criterion something like

"must be notable enough to warrant a significant mention on a nonbiographical article"

as an extra criterion for notability, it might be that she would not pass this and hence her article be deleted.

Apologies to Mimi for using her as an example (if she ever comes across this), but I felt that it illustrated the point of a person who fulfils generic notability criteria but some might argue in unencyclopedic.

Anyway, what do folks think? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

While I'd certainly agree that existing notability criteria for biographies could do with tightening up, I'm not sure that linking notability to inclusion in other articles is at all appropriate - existing notability criteria are based on coverage in external reliable sources, and not on Wikipedia content. And as a practical matter, I can see this creating more problems than it solves, as it will give an incentive to include marginally-notable people in articles that wouldn't otherwise include them and thus possibly detract from encyclopaedic content, as well as creating a further locus for disputes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It's about assessing the sources for the person's includability in other nonbiographical articles, I thought it was quite simple really - the person has to be linked to doing or being significant in something notable. Other articles can be judged and edited, just like they are for content for anything really. Some will be easy to judge either way and some will be tricky. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm with AndyTheGrump on this, it could cause problems with articles just being created and altered to try to stop deletion of BLPs of people, who may well hold considerable public interest, despite not fulfilling this requirement; it also goes against assessment for notability for all other subjects. Also, it assumes that WP has comprehensive articles covering all notable topics in sufficient detail. In that case, no further articles would be needed, and no article would need to be expanded; but this is clearly not the case. Also, what happens to BLPs that fulfill other criteria for notability, but do not fulfill this proposed rule? Would this proposed rule overrule all other criteria? Surely notability should be assessed on more than one criterion? Again it goes against all other assessments of notability, which are multi-factorial. --Mrjulesd (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't assume wikipedia is comprehensive or complete - if sources indicate material that either could go in an article that doesn't exist yet, or be placed in an existing article, then that can be discussed as well. Examining the target article is not a huge deal, especially if there are some benchmarks of significant mention - e.g. not just a minor role in one episode of a TV series or someone who happens to be a property developer or live in a certain town, The idea is that it does trump generic notability - so that someone who is mentioned in more than two sources but has done nothing that would warrant a mention on any nonbiographical article could be deleted. It is not one criterion but comes into play when a subject does not fit into any category - some people who were only notable for being mentioned in press but had done nothing to indicate encyclopedic notability might not warrant an entry - this would not come into play for scientists, elected politicians, sportspeople, actors etc. unless they'd only done something not notable. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I still don't understand why the criteria for notability of BLPs should be radically different from the notability of all other subjects. I can't see anything wrong with the present multifactorial assessment. To have a single overriding rule seems to me to be retrograde step; and this will likely be the case, as the way it is phrased will likely be interpreted as "only a significant non-biographical article mention = notability". I foresee editors putting subjects into non-biographical articles just to protect them. Also the point raised by NeilN about the deletion of many athletes under this rule is concerning. Also a lot of actors may be deleted, as many will only be listed in many articles on productions only in the cast, and may not be deemed significant, and the same thing may be true of many academics. It will all rest on the meaning of "significant" in many cases, and that may rest on how much particular articles have been expanded. This may not be the intention, but there is a strong history of unintended consequences. ----Mrjulesd (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not sure Mimi is a good example. She is mentioned quite legitimately on 5 other articles, which is pretty good for a BLP, and in my mind assures notability. Given that as just a random example, and as well-intentioned as this proposal was, I think it would probably create more problems than it would solve. Endless arguments over what might be are only going to be sheer speculation, and we all know how well that works on WP. *sigh* Softlavender (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but how many of those articles are significant mentions? A contestant on a game show? Maybe maybe not. Which others..? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

She's a television and radio presenter, was on a singing talent contest show for several months and came in third, judged the Miss Earth Australia competition, and is parodied in a song; other mentions are for her relations and show-biz partnerings. There are at least half a dozen more articles she could be mentioned on just via the blue-links on her own article. Softlavender (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This would probably nuke a significant number of athlete biographies as many of them will not have significant mention in a nonbiographical article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Everyone seems to be missing the point. The test is not whether they are mentioned in a non-biography, but whether they should be. That means mentioning your person in a whole bunch of irrelevant articles would not save your biography. It also means that the good biographies would not be deleted because the non-biography about their actions hasn't been written yet. And the original proposal was "…to warrant a significant mention…" which has nothing to do with whether that mention is actually in the article right now. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, not everyone. What significant mention would a soccer player appearing in one or two professional games receive in other articles? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, potentially in an article about the team's season. But, yeah, you got a point. Mention in a non-biography certainly is something to consider, but clearly can't be everything. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The effect would be to greatly expand the articles on the team season, to make sure we gave a paragraph to everyone who played in an individual game, and thus cover everything twice over.

Otherwise, the results would reduce the number of athletes to about 5% of the present, the numbers of politicians to about 10%, the number of scientists to about 20%. It would however keep all the articles on actors and musicians and authors, because we would cover their works also. It would keep all the businessman-they'd be also in the articles on their companies. Is this the balance we want? Looking at one part of this in more detail, we would keep all the descriptive botanists and zoologists, because they'd be covered significantly in the articles on the species they discover; we would lose most of the experimental biologists, because their work would have been incorporated into later work, and the earlier work would not normally be mentioned in the subject articles. Is this the balance we want? All non-human subjects that meet the GNG, and a very narrow and erratic coverage of humans? DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

BLPs with existing guidelines designating inclusion/exclusion come into play and trump this - scientists, professors and sportspeople all have notability guidelines of some sort. It works by exclusion for people who fall outside those categories. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand how to apply this. The basic GNG criterion is that a person is mentioned in multiple reliable sources independent of him. Any of these might be mentioned in regard to anything that person is known for. If you don't demand that the person actually be wikilinked in an existing article, how do you settle if it might be / ought to be? And if you do, how do you keep that from becoming a surrogate battleground? I like a minimalist GNG criterion and would prefer to avoid all the specialty policies. Wnt (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It might be complicated in some cases, but I keep thinking that limiting argument strictly to an article in question is arbitrary. If we are discussing the merits of a person at AfD, we can discuss the merits of their inclusion elsewhere and a conclusion reached. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

A change along these lines could have the effect of exacerbating Wikipedia's systemic bias. We already have a paucity of articles on foreign subjects and if BLP was amended to require significant mentions in non-biographical articles, it would be much harder to keep BLPs of foreigners. Altamel (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It would also have a negative impact in the case of academics, the current list for notability for academics is listed here. Several of the points on the list would not be met under this change e.g. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. There may be no wikilink to demonstrate the significant impact that they have had. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Not only would it tend to exclude many academics and others who's significance is best demonstrated in a biography, but it would fail to tackle an endemic problem concerning the questionable notability of many 'popular culture' related biographical entries. Our inevitable article on Facile 'Reality' TV Show IIV will undoubtedly include all the contestants' names, thus ensuring that we'll still have to argue against a biography for round-one-eliminated contestant Bob Nobodyknowshimfromadam on existing grounds - against the cruft-pushers who will cite the revised BLP policy as grounds for inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

My initial idea was that it would be significant mention on another page, so a contestant eliminated early on would lose out on that....yes could get murky. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm also with Andy on this. Anyone who has done NPP for years will know that nowadays, with all the traditional encyclopedia articles already written, 50% of new pages are BLPs. And what a load of crap most of it is. Most of them could be summarily deleted by an admin, but no, we have to follow protocol and go through the motions of our complex deletion systems - which often allow fans to win the day with their peanut gallery votes at AfD or removing BLPRODs by just adding a link to their school newspaper. Why does every failed X-Factor or 'Got Talent' contestant or B team reserve squad player have to have a page or even be listed anywhere else on Wikipedia? Just look at the typical request on my tp yesterday. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The thing I like about the GNG standard is that it has a reason. Any article needs reliable sources, so if you don't have some reliable sources about something you can't write an article about it. You could almost put a Q.E.D. after that. But when we start getting into philosophy, that oh so and so has "enduring notability", but so and so other is just "cruft" with "fans", well that's just one big bias sandwich and everybody wants a bite out of it. You can't keep such distinctions without continually grinding down editors in admin and arbcom processes, because they're all just a matter of warring tastes. Wnt (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem you would hit fairly quickly is royalty. While his mother would be safe enough Charles, Prince of Wales would be borderline and his sons more so. Can't see his second wife doing much better. For the militant republicans I'd point out that most UK sitting MPs would also fail . EMPs would do even worse.©Geni (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a problem. Actually, I don't think that most of these would be a problem.

• Royalty: Charles, Prince of Wales is linked in almost 2,500 articles. I bet that one or two of those mentions runs to more than a sentence.
• Politicians: Pretty much every elected politician will deserve a significant mention in an election article.
• Athletes: If they did anything, then we'd have no trouble mentioning it in a "season" type article... and I realize that this is practically heresy, but if they didn't actually do anything, then maybe we shouldn't have an entire article that says, in effect, "here's another doomed permastub about an athlete who did basically nothing". Maybe merging those stubs to a detailed list of team members would be better for readers.
• Academics: If "The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education", then you ought to be able to write a couple of sentences about that in an article about their work, right? "Alice Expert made a significant impact in the way that academic freedom is understood, but, frankly, her work wasn't so significant as to be worth mentioning in the article about academic freedom" kind of makes one wonder whether Alice's work actually met the PROF guideline after all.

I support this idea for living people. It's a good defense against spammy self-promotion, like all those cosmetic surgeons that had articles created here some years back. It should also reduce the number of orphaned BLPs that we see, even if actually linking them isn't a requirement (and IMO it shouldn't be). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that you're going to end up arguing whether articles should exist which haven't even been written, which is going to put maximum weight on personal bias and minimum weight on actual sourcing. Why is the commercial program of a cartel of sports companies like the NFL or WWE worth running through in excruciating detail, while the invention of a specific method of plastic surgery might be judged only worth a sentence? Will that be based on sourcing, or relative PR expenditures? Sometimes in arguments about article splits and merges we already have hypothetical discussions about articles not yet written, and they're usually the worst kind of notability arguments on Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

If those plastic surgeons had done anything nearly as important as inventing a surgical technique, then I wouldn't mind them having articles here. Instead, their "achievements" were simply being a member of a particular profession. (I believe they've all been deleted since then.)

I don't expect this rule to create many disputes. We already know how to decide whether an article should exist (see WP:N), we already have hypothetical discussions about articles not yet written, and whether something is worth one sentence or one paragraph or one section or one article is always ultimately determined by WP:DUE weight as seen in the reliable sources. "Maximum weight on actual sourcing" is already how we do this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• "The effect would be to greatly expand the articles on the team season, to make sure we gave a paragraph to everyone who played in an individual game, and thus cover everything twice over. Otherwise, the results would reduce the number of athletes to about 5% of the present, the numbers of politicians to about 10%, the number of scientists to about 20%. It would however keep all the articles on actors and musicians and authors, because we would cover their works also. It would keep all the businessman-they'd be also in the articles on their companies. Is this the balance we want?" DGG really took the point. Cavarrone 12:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• I suppose it depends what readers, rather than editors, want of Wikipedia – what they think Wikipedia is for (as compared to what Wikipedia is not). In my anecdotal experience most readers want Wikipedia to be somewhere they can look up (fairly) reliable information on a notable thing or concept or person: in the example, to answer the question "Who is Mimi Macpherson?"^[*] I don't think WP is intended to be a network connecting things that are mentioned elsewhere in WP. In principle, an article could usefully qualify for inclusion even if it has no links to it at all!
  ^[*] I gather that if you ask an Aussie "Who is Mimi Macpherson?" they'd look at you as if you pointed to the moon and asked what's that white thing in the sky; but as a mere Brit I'd never heard of Mimi before today! Stanning (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Creating Language-Comparison (Dictionary) Pages with Commentary/Analysis

Hi there, Wikipedia community experts,

Seasons Greetings,

I am multi-lingual & a linguist.

I have started my own Hebrew-Arabic language word comparison project (Excel format) which is FAR from being complete...yet, has many entries, already & which I would both like to share online with the general public/ community as well as require help/additions to (as, said project is alphabetically word-based). This, also in the hope of showing the world (particularly, in the war-torn iddle East!) how SIMILAR &RELATED the languages/cultures are!!!

I am NOT technically inclined (as far as web design/formats, etc...)-yet, can provide all academic knowledge pertaining to this field.

Would such a project be a Wikepedia materialization candidate? Could we make it happen?

Awaiting your earliest-possible feedback with much gratitude & blessings,

AK — Preceding unsigned comment added by AK63 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research - Wikipedia articles must be verifiable from published reliable sources, rather than contributor's own research. You could try making your proposal at Wikiversity. [29] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that while this sounds like a very interesting project, it doesn't sound like something for Wikipedia. But surely it's not original research, except in so far as translation is original research almost by definition? In principle every word comparison could be verified by reference to Wiktionary or other published sources. Stanning (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there might be a place for this kind of thing at Wiktionary. You could make the case there that they should add a section called cognates at every entry, for example. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe at Wikidata. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Donations to Wikipedia

For those of us that regularly contribute, it would be great if there was some way your team could TURN OFF the PLEASE DONATE pop up. Maybe there can be a little app that gets launched during the donation process that would turn off this annoying code.

thanks in advance,

Nancy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.9.40 (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't the "Suppress display of the fundraiser banner" browsing gadget accomplish the same thing?--ukexpat (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ukexpat:I think they mean for unregistered users. Even if this was supported, it would not be turned off. Though it getting slightly shortened may be a good idea, as I have mentioned at WP:VPT#Should the fundraiser banner, at the least. Be shortened? Lor^Chat 22:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, if you click the X in the upper right corner (once for the bigger one, once again for the smaller one), then that should be the end of that (for a while). If you clear all your cookies, then it will come back. (If you dismissed it and want to make a donation, there's a link in the lefthand sidebar, just underneath "Donate to Wikipedia"). Nancy, if you see this, then it would be really helpful to know if you're changing computers a lot, clearing your cookies, or doing anything that might reset your browser, and also which web browser you're using. I'll go find someone in fundraising tech so they know about this report. Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Donating from mobile phone Suggestion

What if it would be function of donating via SMS? It would be easy and comfort for most of Wikipediands. Ochilov (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ochilov, thank you for your question! Our team is currently looking into a few different SMS fundraising options, however it takes time to vet these payment methods, and even more time to implement them on our donation platform. We hope to have this option in future fundraisers, and welcome you to suggest your SMS payment method of choice for us to add to our list of possible gateways! Thank you for your feedback. --CCogdill (WMF) (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Bot tagging of edits

I'm thinking of making a proposal to allow bots to tag edits, and request the implementation of such a feature. The edit filter and other extensions tag an edit immediately when it is saved, but a bot would tag it afterwards, it may take a few seconds due to API lag. There is already a request at phabricator, T3189, however this is for all users, not just bots, and it has stalled, a suggestion was made to have a community request for this to get it moving. But I am proposing for bots, and only for bots, for three reasons : more likely to gain strong consensus, much less likely to create issues that will have to be solved somehow, and no need for devs to create a user interface, since bots need only the API, so less dev work, meaning we'll get it implemented faster. The following are possible uses, and I would welcome more suggestions, I'd like to have as many examples as possible to incorporate them in the proposal before going ahead :

1. edits identified as very likely to be vandalism, but not with a high enough likelihood for rollback - for ClueBot NG (talk · contribs)
2. edits containing urls that are potentially suspicious, but with enough legitimate uses that rollback is inappropriate - for XLinkBot (talk · contribs)
3. student edits (looks like that extension doesn't have much support so we can't expect it to tag on its own any time soon)
4. probable cut and paste moves - for CorenSearchBot (talk · contribs)
5. suspected copyright violations - for CorenSearchBot (talk · contribs)
6. replacing some of the tag only edit filters, particularly those consuming too much of the condition limit or where a bot is superior

We would also need a mass untag functionality usable by admins. Cenarium (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

That is a very interesting idea! Do you know if the people running the bots would be interested in adding this functionality? – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• It should be fairly simple to add the functionality and I'm fairly certain most of the bot maintainers would happily entertain a pull request to add the functionality to their bot if not implement it themselves. I will happily support this proposal when made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• Some other tags that may be added by a bot instead of the edit filter : speedy template removal 29 (hist · log), image template removal 59 (hist · log), copyvio tag removal 224 (hist · log), undoing antivandalism bot 323 (hist · log), very short new articles 98 (hist · log), large unwikified new article 180 (hist · log), 'autobiographies' 148 (hist · log), inappropriate redirects 151 (hist · log) (disabled for performance), interrogative pages 289 (hist · log) (disabled for performance). Cenarium (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic - why doesn't the edit filter log link to the diff or revision? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Oiyarbepsy: It links the diff when the edit is saved, and only then, you must have been looking at disallowed edits (not necessarily by the filter responsible for the entry you're looking at). Cenarium (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• I've made the proposal at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Bot_tagging_of_edits. Cenarium (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

size limit articles

hello everyone! I would like to propose an extension to the maximum size limit for AD. Now we have the parameter 190kb, but for some very complex articles that limit turns out to be a problem, forcing publishers or save the refs or text. none of this is ideal in editorial terms. I am aware of the possible difficulties of navigation for large pages, but note that this limit will very rarely exceeded. most of our featured nowhere near the limit, and do not believe that this change may cause any appreciable damage browsing, even more than the everyday technology improves and the systems become more agile, while will favor the deployment some good jobs that can not yet be so only by its excessive size. I do not know exactly what we could do if we simply eliminate the concept of maximum size or set a new value. I preferred to leave open, but maybe spend 250 kb would probably solve all cases.191.185.208.14 (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Another idea is to limit my according to the number of simple text characters, not kb. 191.185.208.14 (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

as this discussion on the wiki en: Wikipédia:Esplanada/propostas/Mudança no limite de tamanho de artigos destacados (16nov2014) 191.185.208.14 (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The hard limit is 2048kB. Even The Longest User Talk Page Ever™ can't make it close (still halfway to go). Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 12:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia languages make their own policies. This page is for the English Wikipedia. Your suggestion appears to be for the Portuguese Wikipedia so you should discuss it there. I don't know whether they have a policy about maximal article size and I haven't found a technical restriction below the default 2048kB. pt:Special:LongPages shows pages up to 695kB. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Criteria of In the News

Since the posting of Sydney hostage situation, I wonder if there is an idea to improve In the News. Somehow, I worry about its being misused for profits. --George Ho (talk) 10:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

What gives you the idea that it's for profits? This is probably the last place on Wikipedia one would expect to find COI. Who profits from posting stories about crimes, sports championships, elections, and scientific discoveries? ITN very rarely posts any business news or links to corporations. I like your idea to improve the criteria, and welcome a discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 14:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Since we are not running ads, there must be ways that Wikipedia is not some "non-profit" as it names itself. I don't have enough proof though. Portal:Current has links to articles by news corporations and contains stories that may not appear in ITN. Somehow, ITN has loopholes; it directs to articles that are dependent on sources by news businesses with certain reputations. Probably some editors here have shares of stocks of businesses, but I'm talking conspiracy theory. That aside, ITN should be dependent on existing rules and guidelines. ...I don't know why I'm talking to you. You posted the Sydney story, but that doesn't matter. The Pakistani shootings was huger than the Sydney one. At least I'm glad that resignation of the Thai princess shows up on Main Page, but I guess Sydney hostage situation is more serious than some princess's resignation. Id est ("That is" in Latin), if I bring up criteria ideas, I fear they would complicate ITN too much and have loopholes as well. --George Ho (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You know what? I can't bring up ideas. I have no experience on the ITN, so I must learn to use ITN before I make any ideas again. --George Ho (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

"Since we are not running ads, there must be ways that Wikipedia is not some "non-profit" as it names itself."

Ads are not the only way to generate income for a non-profit. In fact, there is a fund-raising drive going on right now. If you visit Wikipedia while logged out of your account, the banner for the fund-raiser is impossible to miss. Plus, you can always look through the Wikimedia Foundation website to see their public financial information. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Premature editing

The editing of others' work is generally best done at some distance in time from the original edit (not within minutes, as too often happens), to prevent generating an unnecessary "Edit Conflict" that results in confusion, lost work, contributor frustration and alienation, lost substantive contributor content or editor revisions, and wasted editor time.

On 11:30, 17 December 2014‎, I made some edits to the Wikipedia article "Beechcraft Model 18," then saved them -- then continued editing, saving again at 11:57, 17 December 2014‎, and continuing further editing. Within 10 minutes, while I continued editing, another Wiki contributor jumped in and began editing my edits. Consequently, when I attempted a save a few minutes later, I got one of those ghastly "Edit Conflict" messages, and found it next to impossible to sort out the differences.

While I do NOT like to scrap others' edits without careful review, I simply could not do this again (this "trigger-happy," near-realtime editing has been a continuing problem with edits at Wikipedia, particularly in the aviation field, causing me and other contributors much lost time and effort). I scrapped all the editor's changes, and re-instated my version, with my current edits. That editor, of course, can re-edit my work, and no doubt will.

In the future, it would be considerate and respectful for editors to wait a day before jumping into someone else's edit, and revising it. That might prevent the current deterrence of substantial repeat contributors, over relatively negligible edit issues. And it might keep the editor from wasting his/her time, as well.

Zxtxtxz (talk) 13:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Zxtxtxz

If this arises again, then just save your own version (stamp on the other editor), then immediately undo your save from the history, then you can sort it all out at leisure. Once things are in the page history, they won't get lost.

This doesn't quite work for WP:ANI, as that's edited so frequently it's just hard to avoid new conflicts. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• If you often make a series of small edits (usually the best way to minimize the damage from edit conflicts), it is a good idea to put {{In use}} at the top of the page as part of your first edit; just don't forget to remove it when you are done and are making your last edit. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Not sure if this'll help but when I hit edit conflicts I simply copy all of the text in "Your text" box and paste it in the above box (wiping out the previous editors edit) then once saved I then add back the edits I wiped if they're legit .... It may piss those off who have added legit edits but if you quickly readd what you wiped it shouldn't be an issue (although it's not advisable to try this on ANI tho!). –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. I do that and check the changes (diff between edits) to incorporate the other editors' changes in one edit, provided the other changes are OK. Going back after hitting an edit conflict works in Firefox and Chrome browsers, but not Internet Explorer. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The reference popup should last longer

The reference popup (eg.: when you click [43], a popup gives the corresponding reference info) should last long enough so it can be copy pasted. Otherwise it has to be noted down manually, especially if you want to refer to all the sources of a given sub-topic. 117.202.14.23 (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Cite

Well, I can copy from the popups with no difficulty (Move your cursor into the popup and they will not disappear). What browser are you using? By the way, you can always click (not hover) on the reference numbers to be taken to the References section where you can see all sources. Once you are finished, click on the "^" links preceding each reference to go back to the article body where the reference is used. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 01:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Twin towns add to infobox

Dear Wikipedians, should we add twin towns to infoboxes? This would create a common format for recording these connections. I imagine this would take some consensus building among editors? I'm scraping all the twin town data - trying to cover all the different formatting rules, so could provide dataset for scripted update to infoboxes. Anyway, something to think about/discuss...Reviewing the various lists for twins shows different countries and areas have used different formatting rules. Some use tables, some more free form lists. Within the town/city main articles there are also different section titles and ways to describe twin towns. If this info is in the infobox it will be picked up more readily by dbpedia and wikidata allowing more interesting data analysis such as this https://www.flickr.com/photos/29266908@N02/15846030356/ just an idea...I've never discussed an issue here and not an experienced editor so positive comments much appreciated, thank you --Fozy81 (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I'll tell Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Please! No! "Twin towns" is fairly nonsensical at the level that they are made. "Podunk, Iowa is "sister" with Lop Peng, China." Pretty much as far as it goes. Somebody from one place visits someone from the other from time to time. This may "sound pretty" to someone, but means absolutely nothing. Which is why it shouldn't go into the info box which does have some actual significant facts in there that actually mean something. The intent of "population", "area", etc. are not to beautify or make someone feel good, but to inform.

Would be much more informative to totally discard useless information like this in order to emphasize the useful information that remains. Student7 (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussions over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities have generally not been favorable to mentioning twin cities at all, though, consensus has never been reached. Here was the latest discussion I could find. While some cities have well documented relationships with their sister city, many have been nothing more than a ceremonial title given during a diplomatic tour, with no significance to either city. I would be against any mention of them in infoboxes, but I would support any effort to create a unified stand alone list so that cities where twin status lacks any significance wouldn't feel the need to list the information there. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 12:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Two-Step Login (Two Factor Authentication)

Since passwords are no longer very secure due to password reuse across websites (some of which are less secure than others) and keystroke logging by malicious software (especially on public computers), would it be a good idea to enable some kind of opt-in two factor authentication, such as by using the free Google Authenticator already used by many websites? Users who hold advanced technical rights or who for any other reason want to secure their accounts may find such a feature useful for security. Any thoughts? Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 15:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

See Two factor authentication for the pro and cons of it, the websites using it are not doing it to increase security for the user but to retrieve more personal data about that user for contextual advertising (like Google), in a sense, if you make mobile edits you get Two Factor Authentication for free. There are multiple reasons for Wikipedia not to use it. If an account is compromised it can be detected by its behavior, blocked, unblocked, restored after different checks. From a user perspective, its better to stay away from user identity to reach the maximum type of NPOV so users can distribute knowledge without consequenses like losing their job or worse.Mion (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mion: Could you please elaborate on the contextual advertising part? I know that on Google, enabling two-step verification requires a phone number. However, we do not have to do that on Wikipedia. If a phone number is not used, but instead we use the app-based Google Authenticator (or some other client implementations of TOTP), personal information should not be leaked in any way. In TOTP, the server provides the client with a shared secret key that is later used by the app to generate codes based on time. The codes cannot enable an attacker to calculate the key, and thus security is achieved. At no point is the user's information transmitted to the server because the client app on the phone never interacts with the server besides indirectly by scanning a QR code embedded with the key. Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 18:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

And I think when dealing with the problem of compromised accounts it is better to prevent it beforehand. While a compromised user account may be blocked, it is often difficult for the user to prove that he/she has regained control of the account, making a clean start necessary. Moreover, a compromised sysop account can be even more dangerous. They could vandalize the main page and insert malicious code into site-wide JavaScript with the possibility of infecting readers' computers, and sometimes it takes time (more than 10 minutes) to desysop the account because Bureaucrats and Stewards are not immediately available. (It took 17 minutes to desysop rogue admin Robdurbar.) Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 18:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The likelihood of the WMF forcing Wikipedia editors to give their personal details to Google is minimal, and if such a policy did get implemented the likelihood of whoever implemented that change surviving the backlash is zero. There is no possibility this is going to happen. Mogism (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mogism: I think you are misunderstanding two factor authentication. No personal details will be given to anyone. It is only called "Google Authenticator" because it is an app initially developed by Google. The app does not send any information and we do not need to use this specific app to enable two factor authentication. Other open source apps work, as well. It is the user's choice. I am just suggesting that we use an implementation of TOTP, which is an open standard. Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 18:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I am proposing it as an opt-in feature, too, meaning users have the choice of whether to use it or not, most likely in "Preferences". Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 18:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Mogism, the problem is, you add 2 possible attack places, one is on the WMF side where all the telephone numbers are stored in connection with the login name and on the other side when you have a keylogger/RAT on your mobile phone, i checked for a better page for it, targeted advertising is closer than contextual and keep in mind that Google knows the telephone numbers from Android phones already, i think it has to wait till all mobiles are fully encrypted, os memory etc.Mion (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mion: Could you please elaborate? 1)Telephone numbers are not needed and thus are not provided to the WMF. 2)The mobile phone with the app installed does not need to know what the two-step authentication codes are for; the user chooses a name for the key. (The phone does not need to know that it is set up with Wikipedia, or what the user's username is.) 3)An Android phone is supported but not required. You can use an iPhone with the app as well. If a user is choosing to use the Android phone, they are already providing Google with the information so there is nothing more to be lost. Thanks, Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 19:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Google Authenticator:"The server provides a permanent shared secret key to the user over a secure channel, to be stored in the Authenticator app. This secret key , see Shared secret, will be used for all future logins to the site." You can name it a key or a telephone number its both ment as variations on uuid. Mion (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this really true two-factor authentication? It appears to be a challenge-and-response system, but it appears that both items of authentication are "what you know". True two-factor authentication is the use of an ATM, which requires both "what you have" (debit card) and "what you know" (PIN), or logon to a work computer via badge and password. It is also true two-factor authentication if a fingerprint reader is used, which is "who you are". It appears that this is a more secure authentication, but not true two-factor. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is a shared secret key, not an identifier, because the key is only used for generating the one time codes. The key is to be generated by the WMF server, and then the client app scans a barcode with the key and stores it so that it can generate one-time codes. In this process the key is not used for anything else, and no one else gets it. Unlike a phone number, a key cannot be used to identify the user, as the client app does not share/display the key to anyone, and no one knows who has the key besides the WMF, who can only associate the key with a username, not an actual person's identity. It is not like a cookie, either, because the key is secret and not sent anywhere. Maybe (ping) @Jackmcbarn: will understand what I am saying and help me explain this. Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 21:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

True, it is not completely "two factor", but this is the best we can do without requiring the purchase of physical tokens, such as U2F tokens. Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 21:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

But it is not completely "what you know" and "what you know", either, because the one time codes change every minute (or more frequently), and the key used to generate it is only stored on the server and your phone and transmitted once, thus mitigating the risks of keylogging and other password leaks. Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 21:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I see. It's somewhere between one-factor and two-factor, sort of 1.5-factor. An ATM really is two-factor. To be "classical" two-factor, we would have to distribute hardware tokens, which isn't practical. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Tony Tan 98, have you read mw:User:MZMcBride/Attacks? Legoktm (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Legoktm: I have not but I am reading it now. Thanks, Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 21:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Legoktm: That was a very interesting read. It seems like the attacks described further shows the importance of keeping admin and bureaucrat accounts secure, and I think two-factor authentication can be a very good way of achieving this. Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 23:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Dispelling myths

Okay, there's a bunch of misinformation in the above discussion. Here's some facts to help clear everything up:

• This has nothing to do with your phone number.
• The WMF would get no more information about you (at all, not even a little bit) with it.
• Two-factor authentication is totally unrelated to mobile edits.
• We would use TOTP.
• Google isn't involved whatsoever. They were only mentioned because they make an app that supports TOTP.
• This is two-factor authentication since the shared secret itself is never used to log in with; rather, a token generated from it is used (and you can't reuse the token or reverse-engineer the secret from it).

Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I think Roberts questions are mostly answered, so the upfront Shared secret key is unique or not ? Mion (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Every users key is unique, and a one time key is provided using that as a hash. "The service provider generates an 80-bit secret key for each user." I think that two step authentication is a cool idea, will provide some degree of added security for those who want it. I've done some research, and there are two media-wiki extensions already developed: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:OATHAuth provides basic manual HOTP implementation, and https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:TwoFactorAuthentication allows, in addition, automatic implementation with programs such as Google Authenticator. There is also third party software for most platforms, meaning that automatic authentication is in reach on most platforms. All that is needed is for an extension to be installed in the WP software, and for the user to sign-up for it.

The only real complication is providing for lost secret keys. If the key generator is lost, e.g. a phone gets broken, then there has to be some method of disabling the authentication, which is I think provided by editing LocalSettings.php for a user. So there would need to be some mechanism for resetting users settings so the authentication can be turned off in these circumstances. But having the secret key on two devices would make this most unlikely, which presumably would be possible.

Implementation would mean that there would be no risk in using public computers with keyloggers installed. But in that case authentication could be over the net; apparently this is possible, but I'm not sure how available it is. But of course if you had your phone with you, you could generate a manual key, and then use the public computer without risk. So in a way a mobile phone or similar device is a requisite for use.

Two step authentication is becoming pretty popular. My bank demands this for online access, by giving me a little smart card device that works in exactly the same way. I think this is probably the same for most people here, so you're already using it probably. --Mrjulesd (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd: There are already MediaWiki Extensions for it? That's great news. Regarding having the same key on multiple devices, I am fairly certain that this is possible at setup, when the key is displayed as a QR code for scanning. One would simply scan the code with two devices before finishing up the process. Perhaps we need to think more about the account recovery process, though. Should we allow users to disable two-factor based on a verification email, or is that too risky? Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 23:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Tony Tan 98: Actually, it's been enabled on wikitech: for a long time. You can give it a try there (Note that it's not integrated into SUL, so you'll need to create a separate account). Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 00:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Tony Tan 98:Well that's an interesting question. There is already a mechanism for resetting passwords at Help:Reset password. If the password reset also cancelled authentication then it would be a simple matter, but whether this could be the case I'm not sure. As Zhaofeng Li suggests you could test it at wikitech, and see how it works.

Whether this will be implemented probably depends in part to how much WMF and the WP community think that account hacking is a problem. If they don't see it as too bad a problem then they may not want to implement it. But this is the place to find out what the community thinks. ----Mrjulesd (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Zhaofeng Li:@Mrjulesd: I gave it a try, and it seems like 1) The two factor authentication set up and log in process are as easy as expected and pretty user friendly (for users who had previous experience on another service). 2) I cannot find a way to reset the token without being able to generate codes using the current token. (You cannot reset it if you lost your token.) However, I think a user can set it up on two devices to prevent a lock-out. It'd be better if the user is allowed to reset the token through email, though. Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 02:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

2) Did you try https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:PasswordReset ? ----Mrjulesd (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd: Yep. It resets my password, but keeps the token. Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 02:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd: But I do remember that during initial setup, it provided me with a few one-time-use backup tokens that it advised me to store in a secure location. These tokens can be used to sign in if the actual token is lost. In that case, a token reset would then be possible. Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 02:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

There's also WP:COMMITTED, but it's a pity that there isn't a formal way to regain access to an account with it (We don't even know if it's actually acceptable yet). Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 02:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The main problem with wp:committed is that it is about regaining a hijacked a/c, rather than preventing an a/c from falling into another's hands. But nevertheless it is a good thing to do.

@Tony Tan 98: well that seems pretty good. But if the backup tokens are lost there would still be a problem, this would have to be addressed. Question: what does https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ResetTokens do? --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that WP:COMMITTED is a good measure to prove that you have regained control of your account, but I don't think there is currently a way for users to request a password reset through it.

@Mrjulesd: It seems like unfortunately https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ResetTokens does not have to do with the two step authentication token. It gives me this:

You can reset tokens which allow access to certain private data associated with your account here.
You should do it if you accidentally shared them with someone or if your account has been compromised.

Tokens:	
Token for the web feed (Atom/RSS) of changes to pages on your watchlist (current value: **value removed**)

I think it is for managing tokens used to access watchlist feeds. The link for resetting two factor credentials is here: https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:OATH&action=reset&returnto=Special%3APreferences, and it requires me to have valid tokens (either generated or from backup list) to proceed. Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 17:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the probability of someone losing both their phone and the backup codes is high, especially since this is supposed to be an opt-in feature, and the setup process requires that the user successfully generate at least one valid code before completion. (Most likely people who enable it would know to keep them safe.) Losing both methods of authentication would be equivalent to forgetting a password without an email attached to the account: loss of the account. Of course, one can always choose to be extra safe by storing the same token on two devices that are kept separately. Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 17:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Tony Tan 98: it occurs me that wikitech must have some mechanism in place for when a person using two factor authentication loses the secret key, whatever they would do would probably be appropriate for WP as well. Maybe it is possible to find it out.

Well I'm not sure how to proceed from here. But I would imagine if you laid out all the details, and explained how it already worked at wikitech, then that might be a good continuation. --Mrjulesd (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd and Tony Tan 98: The password reset process on wikitech is quite informal, handled manually by WMF staffers on a case-by-case basis. I don't think that'll work on large communities like enwiki, though. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 11:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm in favour of two-factor authentication for admins (or higher), but if I ever became an admin I'd want a mechanism that doesn't involve my phone, e.g. a smart-card reader such as I already use for VPN-ing into my work network and for on-line banking. A phone is a convenient device but a lazy way of implementing security, because (a) it's too hackable and (b) having your phone number in multiple systems means that it'll leak sooner or later (probably sooner). I never use my mobile phone as an authentication device – I get too many nuisance calls and texts already. Stanning (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Stanning: You don't have to use a phone. Look at Google Authenticator there are implementations on most platforms, e.g. for Windows there is gauth4win, MOS Authenticator, WinAuth. But phones make the best choice. e.g.: you had to use a public computer. You would be unable to install the necessary software. But if you had a phone handy you could use that to get the authentication code, input that on the public computer, and then use the public computer to edit WP. Your account would be fully protected, as if a keylogger was installed on the public computer, the authentication code would be single use only. ----Mrjulesd (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Stanning: To clarify, this has nothing to do with your phone number. Your account will not be associated with your phone number (Read the top of the sub-section for more details). But unfortunately, I have to agree that phones are too hackable. If you are truly paranoid about security, you can use a physical token specifically designed for this purpose (Roll your own with an Arduino). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhaofeng Li (talk • contribs)

@Stanning: I see what you are saying about phones being hackable, but having two factor authentication is better than not having it even if the token can be theoretically hacked; it increases the difficulty of hijacking an account by a lot and effectively makes keylogging on computers useless. I really want to see WP start with phones because it has already been built as an extension for MediaWiki and is currently being used at wikitech:, as Zhaofeng Li mentioned in a comment above. Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 10:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Reducing USA cultural bias

The OP has been blocked per checkuser

I wanted to reduce cultural bias at Template:Authority control, where USA-related LCCN is listed before ISNI. Details at Template talk:Authority control#USA bias. Now, two users drag the whole thing into a weird discussion. One reverts my edits, without any reasoning except for ~ "discuss", but he does not say what he wants to discuss. There should be some office in Wikipedia to properly treat such trouble making. John B. Sullivan (talk) 11:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC) I am not sure what you want here. You made a bold edit to Template:Authority control/doc. You were reverted. Now it is time to discuss your reasons for the changes with the editors who reverted you or disagree, as is happening on the associated talk page. It is not proper to revert again]. -- GB fan 11:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC) I wrote what I want here, and told that there is not discussion of what was changed. Andy Mabbett only started edit warring for sake of it. He made no reasoning for why the USA centric content should be before the international one. John B. Sullivan (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC) This is forum shopping. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Can Andy Mabbett substantiate that claim? Where was that brought up before by me? John B. Sullivan (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC) FWIW, I don't agree with John that listing LCCN before ISNI inherently creates a bias. However, it is rarely unhelpful to alert people to discussions taking place on lightly watched pages, even though it means that some of these private little fifedoms gain wider attention. Especially when there are thousands upon thousands of articles that could see a change - small as it might be - if this template were modified. Resolute 16:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC) Could you give substance to "I don't agree with John that listing LCCN before ISNI inherently creates a bias."? Just "I agree" or "I don't agree" is no substance. LCCN is USA centered, do you dispute this? John B. Sullivan (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Reported at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias#Bias preferring USA based LCCN over ISNI. John B. Sullivan (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC) That, too, is forum shopping. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Hmm. Mr Sullivan has been editing Wikipedia for less than a month, so let's give him the benefit of the doubt & assume he does not understand what he's doing is wrong. He should take the time to not only read WP:FORUMSHOP (as well as forum shopping) but the rest of the page at Wikipedia:Consensus & understand what Andy is saying. Otherwise, his career here will be much shorter & more unpleasant than it should be. -- llywrch (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Portal for "in need of mathematical typesetting"?

I found and fixed some articles on economics that use mathematical formulas but are poorly typeset, like Phillips curve and Aggregate demand (they are now improved by me, so you might want compare history). Should we create a portal to put on articles like this that needs proper mathematical typesetting? Or is it just too picayune and trivial? --Worst regards, Greek Fellows. Visit ma talk page and ma contributions. 14:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Portal? Do you mean a template? Or a help desk? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Oops sorry, I meant a template. That notice you put on top of entries with issues. --Worst regards, Greek Fellows. Visit ma talk page and ma contributions. 15:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

There used to be {{wikify}}, which was deprecated for being too vague. But I think it could be brought back, with a more specific purpose - "This article lacks formatting or contains formatting errors. Please add formatting and correct any errors so the article meets Wikipedia's standards." I think, if we bring this back, math formatting errors would be part of this, possibly. On the other hand, you could just be bold, create the template, and tag articles that need it, but it sounds like you'd rather just fix it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Greek Fellows: You could mention them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

"WikiStats" - A statistics database, table, & charting engine for Wikipedia

Long project proposal

Problem: Currently, when someone adds a table, chart, or graph to a Wikipedia article, that item is based on a table of information (usually a CSV) that came from a referenced source. That means the data in the article is either in the form of a static table or a static chart/graph. There are various shortcomings however with this method: Statistics that update over time have no easy way of being updated in the articles without someone re-creating the image or table. For example, take the table "US Crime Rate by Year". When the next year rolls around and the justice department releases 2014's stats, there's no "master table" where you can go to just add that one single row and then every single wiki article that has a chart or graphic that references that data, gets automatically updated by adding that years rate to the graphic. The information can't be joined or cross-referenced with other wikipedia article data that shares common columns. This is really the biggest reason I'd like to see this feature. If I want to compare the table, "Unemployment Rate by Country" to the table "Crime Rate by Country" and graph both rates on the same chart to see if there's a relationship between the two, there's no way to do that in wikipedia, let alone keep that graphic updated over time. Solution: Having one central repository for all statistics would solve both of these problems, and provide major benefits when structured in the following way: Every article on wikipedia would have a related list called "Related Statistics". This list would consist of every statistics table where a column value in that table references that wikipedia article. So for example, the table "Unemployment Rate by Country" would contain (among other countries) "United States", "Canada", "Germany", etc. Every one of the countries referenced in that column would see that table as a "Related Statistics" record on those countries articles. This would give people instant accessibility and visibility to any statistics related to another article, that might not be found in the article itself. People could use a standardized "WikiStats" table and graphic creator that would generate a table that could be dynamically updated as the referenced data gets updated over time. This would include any reports/charts that were created, where data from one article is joined and referenced by the data in another article. So in the above "Problem #2" example, "Unemployment Rate by Country" and "Crime Rate by Country" would be automatically updated on the "Statistical correlations of criminal behaviour" wikipedia page or the "Criminology" wikipedia page that show those two tables side by side in a graphic to show their correlation (even though the WikiStats data they reference isn't *directly* stored on that page). Summary The goal here is to essentially do for wikipedia tables, charts, and graphs, what CSS did for HTML. It would reduce redundancy and errors, while simplifying the process of updating information that gets used in multiple places. It would standardize statistical data by requiring all columns in a table to refer to their equivalent Wikipedia article names, instead of whatever name it was referred to by the table's source author. For example, in various statistics tables, it's common to find 5 or 6 different names for the same country or data set being analyzed (US, USA, U.S.A., United States, United States of America, etc, so you would be unable to compare the data in separate tables unless they had the same exact spelling for the "United States of America"). Requiring users to map all unknown column values to the Wikipedia article's "Name" equivalent (when they upload their CSV files through some kind of "WikiStats Uploader Wizard"), would ensure uniformity across all the different types of data tables that refer to that country or data set. It would allow users and visitors to utilize Wikipedia as a versatile and customizable source for statistical data, like an almanac on steroids. I'm a statistician by profession, and the reason I love this field so much is that people can argue until they're blue in the face about how "X causes Y!" or "A is related to B!", but it's only through the magical process of doing a MySQL join between 1 or more tables and then charting the result, that suddenly you can see exceptions to an assumption, consistent causes and effects, as well as various other types of key relationships that you normally would have never seen. There are literally millions of pages on wikipedia that are devoted to the relationships between different phenomena (most of which have their own wiki articles or associated statistical data). This would allow countless pages to easily show the correlations between the various topics discussed in those articles, as well as provide an easy/central way to update those tables, charts, and graphs indefinitely after their initial creation.--Chrisbat92024 (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

A lot of this is the eventual goal of Wikidata. --  Gadget850 ^talk 00:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gadget. Thanks for the response. That was my initial assumption when I learned about Wikidata. But after researching it and trying to slog through the process of creating a Wikidata item, it left me with the impression that Wikidata's current structure wasn't geared to be a statistics database/engine, but more of just a general archive for all kinds of data. Can you actually upload a CSV file to Wikidata and run queries on it for use in dynamically generated graphs or tables? Or do you mean this is just the eventual goal of wikidata, even though it's not currently setup to do this at the moment?--Chrisbat92024 (talk) 01:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

"Eventual" goal - Wikdiata is still being developed. Please see the road map on that project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks Andy & Gadget. I can't even begin to describe how excited that makes me! --Chrisbat92024 (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)