Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 5

< Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
Village pump (proposals) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals). 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: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR · 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, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211

Wikipedia:Templates with red links

I notice that this project has fallen into defunctness. Probably my fault for moving on to other things, but it's a good and useful project that could probably provide some real benefits if it were rebooted and adopted by Wikipedians who work on templates in general, and on articles in some of the specialized areas that have been singled out there (Olympics, wars, tv/radio stations, etc.). Cheers! bd2412 T 09:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

National Institute of Science Media / Joel Ball author adding

How do I add the company National Institute of Science Media and their books by Joel Ball? joelballJoelball 15:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

First, you should read our guideline on what articles are and aren't appropriate for Wikipedia. Then you should read our conflict of interest guideline, since your name ("Joel Ball") and the author you are interested in writing about seem to be one and the same. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
(Similar information has been posted, by another editor, on the user talk page of Mr. Ball.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Content warning and refferal links?

It's great that wikipedia has various warnings about content, but links from search engines completely bypass that warning. Would it be possible to have some kind of visible alert appear at the top of articles when the user has clicked a link from another site, giving them proper warning about what to expect on wikipedia? If your gonna have disclaimers, you should make sure people actually see them.

Just an idea... --Carterhawk 19:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure where you get the idea that clicking a link from within Wikipedia will result in a disclaimer being displayed at the top of an article, because that doesn't happen. Someone arriving via Google sees exactly the same page as someone arriving at a page via an internal Wikipedia link. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

User signatures should link to both the user page and user talk page by default

The bugzilla page for this is here.

The default signature links to a user's page but not the talk page. This is inconvenient, since the talk page is needed just as often (or more) than the user page. I propose that the default signature should be changed to link to both, something like:

-- Name (talk)

This will require a change to the Mediawiki code, which I can write and submit for review, that will make the default signature editable in the Mediawiki namespace. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree both. Sensible. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd strongly support this, makes things much easier for new users and less experienced users, and quicker for the rest of us. Nick 21:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, definitely a good idea - there must be thousands of times every day when an editor has to click on the user name in a signature in order to get to the user talk page.
I suppose there isn't any possibility of changing existing useraccount signatures as well as new ones? I'm thinking of only cases where (a) the "Raw signature" box is not checked, and (b) the contents of the signature field are blank. (Just asking, in case there is, which would be a huge help; otherwise we'll have to wait a while for the change to really make an impact.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I could support the idea more if, for simplicity's sake as much as anything, there was just one default link, as now, but it went to the talk page. I cannot see the point in linking to both pages. I use just one link now because I consider user pages, nice though they are, to be very much secondary to talk pages. One caveat with that, though, I admit; those red links are handy for spotting new editors. Adrian M. H. 01:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
(resp. to John Broughton). The patch I have submitted would change the signature for everyone who does not have the 'raw signature' option checked. It would work whether or not they set a 'nickname' in their preferences, and would respect the nickname of course.
(Resp. Adrian M.H.) The patch would allow us to customize the default signature using a page in the Mediawiki: namespace, so whatever format is agreed upon could be used. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, time's a wastin' - it looks like a great idea, and if I hope there are no hinderances in implementing it. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Strongly agree. --Quiddity (talk) 08:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I've suggested this before and it didn't take off. Hopefully it does this time. -- John Reaves 20:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Does this need a bugzilla request? -- John Reaves 20:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I already submitted a patch to bugzilla to show the devs how easy it is. I'm waiting for the patch to be reviewed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

For anons, it should link to contribs, in addition to (or instead of) the User: page, analogous to how it does on article history. —Random832 17:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've linked the bugzilla page at the top. bug#11315 is related to the anon enhancement (would probably need to be implemented as two separate mediawiki: pages, one for anons and one without) —Random832 18:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Those two bugs should be resolved at the same time, since they involve exactly the same lines of code. I agree the way to do it is with two messages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, and it'll be useful for those who don't use popups. But it'd be much more useful if there was something that could be done about the editors who sigs are of the form [[User:MyUserID|SomeOtherName]]. It's a great nuisance not to be able tie up the names in a revision list with the names that appear onscreen, and to have to mouseover each sig in turn to find that the User:KingZogShootsAcidInTheWhiteHouse is the person who chooses to sign themselves as MaryPoppinsFiresAnAK47. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The updated version does respect the 'nickname' a user specifies in their preferences. But since uses can have raw signatures that completely bypass the defaults, there isn't much that can be done with the defaults to fix this issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Updated in svn

The patch I submitted was added to revision r27473 in the Mediawiki source code. I don't know when it will become live. I created the special pages Mediawiki:Signature and Mediawiki:Signature-ip and added documentation on their respective talk pages. The format currently there will make signatures of these forms:

It would be possible to format these other ways if desired. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, this is a wonderful change, thanks! —Remember the dot (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Excelllent--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 21:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you please remove the "--" from the begging of the default signature. It's both unnecessary and interferes with those who use their own preferred dashes or similar variant (or choose not to use any). Thank you. ~ -- UBeR (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I started a thread below [1] to resolve this issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Separate footnotes from references

There should a <references/>-type section specifically for parenthetical footnotes, separate from the section for references. This is necessary because a typical Featured Article might need four footnotes, but over a hundred references. See the Bugzilla bug report. Thanks.--Pharos 19:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. As a less-than-ideal fix, I sometimes use the {{note}} templates for a separate notes section if it is needed, having seen some other editors do that, but that method predates the cite.php system and so is technically not the best system that we could have. Adrian M. H. 20:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
One very reasonable solution is to use Harvard references for the references and <ref> for footnotes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
See William Gibson#Footnotes for an example of this. I think it works very well. --Quiddity (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have used {{note}} myself; this is the same clumsy system that was used for references before <ref> tags were implemented. I feel that the awkwardness of this system discourages its use, which is a detriment to the readability of our articles.---- Pharos (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
This has probably been discussed in the archives for Wikipedia talk:Footnotes, and several Bugzilla items are mentioned. (SEWilco 20:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC))
I did a survey: Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#A survey of four weeks of Main Page articles; the survey found one case where the {{Note_label}} template was used and one where the {{cnote}} template was used. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, for anyone who agrees that this is a problem, they should vote at Bugzilla to increase the chances of getting this fixed. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Privacy of contribution lists

Recently, an acquaintance of mine was reading a talk page where I had made a contribution, and he recognized that I was the editor (my contribution was specific enough to identify me as a likely author, and my username made sense to him). He then proceeded to embarrass me by reading all my other Wikipedia contributions to other people at a social event. I was quite offended, and annoyed that Wikipedia allowed him to access my contribution history without knowing my password. Fortunately, none of my contributions revealed anything too private. However, I know there are many people with embarrassing medical problems or private personal background issues, who may prefer to keep their edits more anonymous. I see no legitimate reason for ordinary users to access other users' edit histories. Surely this privilege should be reserved for admins? Unfortunately, of course, a determined stalker will still find my edits using Google, but not in the same organized format. I propose two measures:

  • An option to keep contribution lists private from ordinary users (selected by default, or very clearly signposted for new users);
and/or
  • A clear warning for new users stating that Wikipedia does not guarantee anonymity, and explaining the ways in which people may find your contributions.

I am writing this message from a sockpuppet account, for obvious reasons. Thunderfish 01:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Contributions lists are required for GDFL. Choose a name that is not identifiable in future would be my suggestion. ViridaeTalk 01:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I assume you mean GFDL? I agree that lists of contributors for a given article are required, but not lists of contributions for a given user. Only admins should need the latter. I also agree that unidentifiable usernames are better for privacy, but that's something you learn in retrospect: hence the second of my recommendations above. Thunderfish 01:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
If you feel that the username of your main account has some negative consequences for your everyday life, you might want to consider requesting a username change to something less recognizable for the people around you. AecisBrievenbus 01:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
This won't hide my identity from someone who already knows my edit history, as he can find my new username in the history logs of the pages I've edited in the past. It will merely demonstrate that I'm trying to hide, and perhaps encourage further "stalking". Fortunately I don't have anything to hide; I just prefer not to be asked "Why were you reading about XYZ?", and "How do you know so much about ABC?". Thunderfish 01:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
In addition to GFDL requirements, many users other than admins revert vandalism and quite often a user that makes one vandalism edit has made others. Wikipedia:Username policy suggests considering choosing a user name not related to your real name. I think the bottom line is that this is highly unlikely to be changed. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that user histories are useful for reverting vandalism. However, I think the same information could be provided in a limited form for non-privileged users - e.g. a scoring system which keeps track of the number and percentage of reverted edits, without revealing the subject matter. For casual editors, this might even be more useful than a full contribution history. Thunderfish 02:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
It is absolutely 'essential that every editor can examine contribs. If you have ever worked with any form of dispute resolution, reverted mass vandalism or bad ELs, commented at editor review or RFA, or dealt with things like 3RR and other violations, you will know what I mean. Adrian M. H. 02:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Presumably most people who work with mass vandalism, arbitration and policy violations are admins, though? Thunderfish 02:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Nope. I, for one, have been involved in trying to end mass vandalism from a user as well as policy violations. Also, arbitration is mainly regular-user input. The ArbCom makes the final decision, but a lot of the legwork comes from regular user's efforts. -- Kesh 03:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Some editors have the impression that admins are the only serious and actively involved editors, but lots of us are active in all of the above tasks and many more besides without ever feeling the need to request the mop. Adrian M. H. 13:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
OTOH, feel free to add whatever warning you think is appropriate wherever you'd like (most of the help pages are not protected). -- Rick Block (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, most people don't read help pages until they have a problem. What I'm suggesting is an up-front warning for every user who signs up: not in a box of terms and conditions that nobody reads, and not on a help page. It should explain exactly how much privacy a user can expect, i.e. "All of your contributions will be permanently searchable by any user who knows your username. Your username will be publicly visible in the history page of every article or discussion that you edit". This search facility is not standard on other forum websites (except via external search engines), so new users cannot be expected to anticipate it. Thunderfish 02:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Specifically where would you like to see this? Pretty much the entire interface is editable (some of it only by admins), but if you let me know more exactly where you'd like this warning I think we can figure out a way to get it there. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Somewhere on Wikipedia:Introduction would be sensible. I notice there's a warning in boldface at the bottom of the "Sign up / create account" page, but it's underneath the form submission button, in a place where users who are too eager will not read it. Also it doesn't emphasize the fact that all users can search by username, and that your entire edit history will be cataloged systematically and permanently. Currently it just looks like an ordinary "We accept no responsibility..." warning of the type that only lawyers bother to read. Thunderfish 03:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
This is slightly off the topic of this discussion, but I thought you might like to know that you can request that specific edits that reveal your private information be permanently deleted through Wikipedia:Oversight.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I've added a disclaimer on the create account form (near the top). Better? -- Rick Block (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The basic tip for anyone on the internet is to not reveal any personal information. If you stuck to that, no one would've been able to link you to your username to begin with. - Mgm|(talk) 09:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Image gallery

There is a this nice template on the French Wikipedia which can make a frame on an image you made, and if you click on an arrow there, you'll get to see the next image and so on, I think it's far more professional than those awful "Gallery" article sections that are spread all over the English Wikipedia. Shouldn't we have something like this? --escondites 10:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I do not speak French, I read an automated translation. Therefore, I might have misunderstood some of the description.
It looks pretty cool, but it (based on my understanding) requires JavaScript. I do not know how many readers are actually affected by that, but I think there might a noteworthy percentage of users that has javascript disabled or cannot use it for other reasons.
Also, how does this work with alternate text (a critical function for screen readers and text-only browsers)?
However, I think this would be great (much better than the current gallery function). If we can adress or disregard the above issues, then I'd really love for this to be implemented. Puchiko (Talk-email) 12:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Not wanting to distract from the original point too much, but the French Wikipedia is altogether so much better presented than en., in my opinion.
With that gallery feature, It normally requires javascript, but if you turn off javascript in your browser, you can see that it degrades pretty gracefully, by simply showing all the images and captions in a column instead. -- DatRoot 13:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
As DatRoot already said, without JavaScript, it would simply show the images with the captions, and for text-only browsers, it would show the caption only.--escondites 13:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
You might want to discuss this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration, to see what they think (and to build support). Also, if it's a template, you don't really need anyone's permission to implement it. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
This template requires edits to MediaWiki:Common.js (and possibly also MediaWiki:Common.css or other global CSS files, I haven't looked). Consensus for such additions (here and/or at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)) is usually required for the {{editprotected}} request to be performed. -- Anomie (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
All right, so let's form consensus. I agree with this change because it is less messy, saves space (not in terms of bytes but in terms of the stuff a reader sees on the screen), and in general looks more professional.
Of course, there will be situations in which the gallery function is more practical, and therfore it should stay too. What template to use in an article will be decided by the editor, and resolved on the talk page should there be a disagreement which method to use. Puchiko (Talk-email) 22:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. The printable version of the page works like the no-javascript version, but perhaps they images should be positioned elsewhere, perhaps at the end of the article, so that they do not affect the rest of images which are placed carefully within text. Shyamal (talk) 06:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Should the default signature have two hyphens in front of it?

At this moment, the default signature at MediaWiki:Signature has two hyphens at the front. Some people like this, some don't. I want to figure out what the overall opinion is, so we don't end up with people switching it back and forth. Personally, I have no opinion. Thoughts? — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I prefer it included by default, somehow, to act as an intuitive visual-clue.
    The only problem is the graphical button in the Edit toolbar already includes an added double-hyphen (--~~~~), but the link in MediaWiki:Edittools does not (~~~~). These 3 locations need to work together, for consistency and to avoid double-sets of double-hyphens. All while keeping in mind that many editors (like me) hand-type the 4 tildes, and use a hyphen in their own custom sigs.
    I suggest removing the double hyphens from the Edit toolbar signature button (I don't know where its variable is stored?), and adding them back at MediaWiki:Signature. I think this would result in the least number of people having to learn new habits.
    The only other question is whether to have a space between the double-hyphen and the username? I'd suggest yes. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I would prefer the (-- The Placebo Effect (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)) method. It shows where the message ends and makes the signature easier to find. -- The Placebo Effect (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As I stated above in the thread that discussed changing the signature, I would like to see the two dashes removed. As I explained above, some people prefer no dashes ("Final sentence. John Doe"), while others prefer their own, manually inserted dashes or similar variant ("Final sentence. ~ John Doe"). The default dashes interferes with this. Remember, it's not difficult, if one so choose to have a dash, to insert it on one's own. The original default signature had no such dashes inserted. The recommendation above was to add a link to user talk pages, nothing more. The dashes are unnecessary and cantankerous. ~ UBeR (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove automatic hyphens until the edit toolbar is changed to no longer insert them (--~~~~ needs to be ~~~~). After that happens, then we can debate whether or not to include them by default in ~~~~. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikimedia Italia made this "pin" http://www.wikimedia.it/index.php/Immagine:Spilla_8_copy.jpg which was just posted to the foundation-l mailinglist, and includes the double-hyphen ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I hate the double-hyphens, which is why I always manually type the tildes. Anchoress (talk) 06:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • o_0 Er. Can I boggle slightly? Just because something can be put to a long and detailed discussion doesn't mean it should be - David Gerard (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    See the thread above for context (recent changes to default sigs, adds (talk) link for everyone).
    This is preventative medicine discussion, to get it out of the way, and point future complainers to. See, the 4 pages of archives at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Not that we have any agreement above... -- Quiddity (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    Ah, OK, I was of the impression this was spontaneous, rather than being due to a recent change :-) - David Gerard (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Patrolled new pages

As you may or may not have noticed, a change has been made to Special:Newpages to enable patrolled edits there. This allows users to mark a newpage as reviewed. See full details here. However, for unknown reasons, it has been set so that only admins can patrol pages. I would request input on the poll on the talk page as to who should be given the ability to patrol, so that the developers can be assured they are implementing community consensus. Mr.Z-man 01:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The ability to mark pages as patrolled has been changed to allow all autoconfirmed editors to do this. ("Autoconfirmed" editors are editors who registered more than four days ago, although this parameter can be changed if the community wants it to be, for example, to require a certain number of edits as well.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A How-To Wiki?

Well, There is A Wikipedia, a Encyclopedia... There is Wikitionary, a Dictionary... But there isn't anything like a "how-to" wiki guide, is there? I mean, if there is, point me to it, but I don't think there is a big wiki book of how-tos. I think it is a good idea, because a Encyclopedia and a Dictionary don't seem appropritae for that sort of thing. Thats all I have to say. -- Bovinepro

There is, see WikiHow, which has 27,000 articles. Mr.Z-man 18:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A Change in Color Scheme

It might be a good idea to switch the Wikipedia color scheme to an all black background with white text to mimic the blackle.com idea. Besides saving power, I find it to be much easier on the eyes. As far as criticism goes towards the idea behind blackle, I think that that, considering Wikipedia's high level of traffic, it would definitely have a positive effect in terms of energy consumption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.44.17 (talk • contribs) 11:52, November 17, 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is a good idea, for reasons outlined below.
  • Printing issues Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a reference source, meaning it is likely to be printed out. Having a black background would be a huge waste of ink.
  • File size A black background takes longer to load, and takes up more of the cache. This would also be an issue for downloadable versions of Wikipedia.
  • Professional look At the present, black font on a white background is used for serious things, while the reversed is more for Gothic/emo teenage websites.
    Furthermore, Wikipedia's colour scheme is not it's own. Wikipedia uses the MediaWiki software meaning you would have to make your proposal there.
    Also, it would be great if you could sign your posts, either by typing four tildes (~~~~) or by pressing the signature button ( ) in the tool bar above the edit box.
    By the way, welcome to Wikipedia! Hope to see you around. Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that switching to white-on-black is not a good idea, your file size argument is, frankly, nonsense; changing the background is a matter of adding a few lines in the style sheet (admittedly, it would take many more lines to change all other colors so they match the new background, but this is still no issue). Also, wikis like Memory Alpha [2] prove white-on-black is possible with MediaWiki as it is. --Dapeteばか 16:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The "printing issues" and "Wikipedia's colour scheme is not it's own" arguments are also invalid. CSS allows us to use different rules for printing, and gives us a very high degree of customizability. Still, you have a point about making Wikipedia look professional. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
If you would like to view wikipedia yourself with a black background (or any other color scheme, font, etc), you can create an account and edit your special:mypage/monobook.css file to have the appropriate code in it. —Random832 16:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

cross-wiki editor identification

I don't know how to describe this, or even if it could be done, but if it can, it should. Please bear with me. Often as an English-language user, I find myself going into other language Wikipedias, and editing where there are contributions to be made. But the edit summary always comes up with the IP number of the computer I am using at the time. To distinguish registered, legitimate editors of other Wikis, there should be a way that [[User:Joe Smith]] can edit the Japanese or Russian or Vietnamese Wikipedia, and have his signatures and edits show as [[en:User:Joe Smith]] rather than [[User:123.45.678.90]]. Will technology support this? This would also be good for our editors to distinguish good edits from possible questionable ones, and also to contact the editors at their home Wikis, to ask questions, collaborate on articles... Chris (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

meta:SUL would probably fix this, but we don't know when (if ever) that will happen. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Single user accounts would certainly fix Chris' concern, but he is I think asking for something rather less than SUL. He wants someone who is not logged in on wiki A to have his signature on wiki B to appear if logged in there, and have his signature on wiki A to appear if he is logged on there. That is not SUL. However, what happens if you are logged on on wiki A and B and you make an edit on wiki B. Which sig would it use? --Bduke (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
It would use the signature set for wiki B. Tra (Talk) 23:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
One option would be to make an account on each wiki you use and put links on the user pages for each wiki that link to the other accounts. That way, a person wondering who you are would know whether you are an experienced user on another wiki when they see your userpage. Tra (Talk) 23:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That's obvious, but cumbersome, and would not be universally followed by editors. I am talking about something automatic, that by the act of logging in brings over your id to any other language Wiki that you edit, even when interwikiing a link from same articles in different languages. Chris (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Yup, you're talking about the proposed single-user login. It's a fantastic idea, but isn't likely to be rolled out at any point. The best option is to just copy and paste the sig into each account; I know it's not as easy as doing it once, but it's also not that bad. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Newarticletext - include references

(Cross posted from MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext#Include references for more visibility/comments.)

Most articles that end up at CSD, do not have any references. I think that a little bit of emphasis to remind users to include references could result in less CSD work (and maybe in fewer useless submissions). I recommend a small change telling people what TO do, not just what NOT to do. Take the line "Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted" move it higher, and tweak the wording:

  • Be sure to include references to the source(s) of your information. Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted.

This would be the result (minus blue links):

Sbowers3 (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with this change. It's probably more helpful to tell people what they need to do, rather than what not to do. Tra (Talk) 23:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
You should add bands in the "Do not write" part. There's always a whole bunch of nonnotable band articles. bibliomaniac15 00:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It's no wonder that people create so many useless articles

Imagine that you are a newbie. You've read articles in Wiipedia but you might never have edited any. You might never have read any of Wikipedia's policies, so you nothing about notability, verifiability, reliable sources, etc.

You know that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You have an idea for an article so you go to Wikipedia.org, type in the name of your article, press Enter. There is no page by that title, but right there is a link saying "create this page". You click and can immediately start typing your article and then Save page. Sure, there is some fine print about neutral, and verifiable, and there is a mild suggestion to read the introduction, tutorial, and guide. At the bottom of the fine print is a warning that articles without sources are likely to be deleted but most people probably don't get down to the bottom of the fine print - if they read any of it at all.

We do practically nothing to tell people what should and what should not go into an article before they are able to start creating an article.

When we give thim so little guidance is it any wonder that they produce so many useless articles? I think we could improve the quality of new articles and reduce the number of useless articles if we told them what to do and what not to do before they can start editing an article. A little time improving messages to authors could result in much less time on New articles patrol or handling CSD chores.

MediaWiki:Newarticletext is the text that appears above the edit box when creating a new page. I have separately[3] recommended a small change to its wording to tell users to include references in their articles.

MediaWiki:Noexactmatch is the text that appears when a search fails and is the main piece of text that people see before creating an article. I recommend that we change its wording to tell people to read Wikipedia:Before creating an article (possibly Wikipedia:Your first article) before we tell them to go ahead and "create this page".

The Main page has a link to Start a new article. It currently links to Help:Starting a new page. I have recommended[4] changing it to link to Wikipedia:Your first article. The former teaches many ways to create a page - ways that newbies really don't need to know - while the latter says something about what should or should not be in the content of an article.

The Wikipedia:Tutorial perhaps could be expanded to talk about creating an article. It could emphasize that articles must have verifiable references to reliable sources.

We don't want to bury users with so much policy and so many instructions that we scare them off but at a minimum we want them to include their sources in new articles. So let's think about what we should tell users before they start creating an article.

I'm going to do a little more work on Wikipedia:Your first article and will try to develop some more ideas for the other pages I have mentioned above. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree! MindstormsKid (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you're exactly right to think about this from the viewpoint of someone without any background. I do note that You click and can immediately start typing your article and then Save page. is true only of registered editors; the proposal to allow unregistered editors to create new articles failed to get consensus. So another window of instruction occurs between when an editor registers and when he/she creates a new article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
There is also the article wizard, currently under development, that when finished, will help to guide new users through the process of article creation. Its about half done now, more help is always appreciated (so far I've done about 90%) and any suggestions/questions are appreciated on the main talk page. Mr.Z-man 01:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) I just finished a major reorg of Wikipedia:Your first article. Please check it out. So now, I reiterate my suggestion that the main page link to Your first article instead of to Help:Starting a new page. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd support that. Why don't you post a note on the talk page for the Main Page? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I originally posted at Talk:Main_Page#Start_a_new_article but that page didn't get much traffic so I mentioned here where it might be more visible. The change would be at the bottom of Template:Did you know but only admins can edit it. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(update) Main Page has been updated to link to Wikipedia:Your first article - thanks. I'll be back later with recommendations about MediaWiki:Newarticletext and MediaWiki:Noexactmatch. Sbowers3 (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Guideline name change proposal

The title of WP:ASR is ambiguous, and the command it issues ("avoid self-references") can easily be mistaken to apply to self-references in general. The avoidance part of the guideline pertains to a specific type of self-reference only. Therefore, a proposal has been suggested to change the title of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references to Wikipedia:Self-references, because the guideline covers all self-references, explaining which should be avoided and which are acceptable. See Wikipedia talk:Avoid self-references#Proposal to change this guideline's title. The Transhumanist (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Cross-wiki blocks

Not sure if this is a good idea or not, so I'm asking here if it would be beneficial to have blocks given to IPs on one Wikimedia site (like Wikipedia) carry on over to other Wikimedia sites as well (like Wiktionary). This might help to cut down on vandalism since I'm sure that many IP vandals simply head on over to another Wikimedia site once they've been banned from one.--Miss Pussy Galore (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There are quite a few technical obstacles here. But even if there were not, I highly doubt this would be accepted. Other projects have different blocking policies, and demanding that everyone abide by the most restrictive blocks wouldn't work well. -Amarkov moo! 19:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above comment. I don't know how that would possibly work. Also, vandal's going around to different Wiki's when they get blocked from one wiki: I don't know if that is a problem (meaning I don't imagine that people do that). - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Generally speaking, this isn't an actual issue about 90% of the time. There have been a few cases of cross-wiki vandalism (most of them just being spam being added), and the appropriate actions are dealt with on Meta. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability proposal

I have created a proposal for a notability guideline for media outlets (newspaper, magazine, radio, TV). See Wikipedia:Notability (media) and please discuss it on the talk page. Mr.Z-man 00:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Are Admins treated differently than other wikipedians?

There have been a lot of studies on wikipedia. I am wondering if any outside group has studied our WP:ANI page? See, I have a theory, that admins get special treatment compared to the non-admins. Unfortunaly this theory is only based only on personal experiences and my own anecdotal evidence, and maybe completly wrong.

I want to show if this theory is correct or incorrect by going through maybe three or four WP:ANI. Comparing how editors were treated.

Travb (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think admins get treated more differently but rather established, long term Wikipedian accounts are treated different then anon IPs or users with a less defined track record. AgneCheese/Wine 04:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
As it should be. While we can assume good faith on the part of an unestablished new editor or an IP address with new edits, we don't need to assume knowledge of established policies or assume positive results; only assume that they meant well, not that they executed well. On the other hand, established editors, should know better; which brings both positive and negative reactions. On the one hand, we assume that a long-established (say, many thousands of edits) is probably creating an article on a notable entity even if the first edit does not indicate it yet (we assume they know what makes an article notable and have intention of fixing it up soon), while for a newbie, it is often assumed that though they mean well, they are much more likely to be unfamiliar with policy, and thus their creations are likely to undergo more scrutiny. Again, is has nothing to do with intent (which is what AGF is about), but about execution. Contrawise, established editors should know better about civility and NPOV and other policies and guidelines, and SHOULD be dealt with swifter and harsher for violations thereof. Newbies should be kindly reminded of said policies and guidelines (per WP:BITE), unless their edits show obvious disruption that needs to be stopped for damage control reasons. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know of any sociology study on ANI? Maybe a study of ArbComs would be more productive.Travb (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"Userspace Edited" Banner

We have a banner that appears when someone edits our talk page. I think that we should take this a step further. I am involved in anti-vandalism, and when we warn people, one of the easiest ways for them to take out their anger is to vandalize the user's userspace who warned them. I think that when someone else edits our userspace, a banner, much like the "new messages" banner, should appear on the page. Something like this:

<div class="usermessage">Someone has edited your userspace. [[Special:Mypage|Click here to see the page.]] (PUT LAST CHANGE CODE HERE) </div>

I would have included the code for the "Last Change," but I don't know it. Also, this dialog in particular can only cover edits to your front page, like if someone edited User:Example, not if they edited User:Kornfan71/User Page. Having said that, most of the vandalism is usually on our front pages and talk pages. It would be great if someone could help me with the code that would allow ALL of our pages to be monitored by this banner and for someone to help me code the Last Change thingamabob (for lack of a better name at the moment). It will NOT have to include our talk page, since Wikipedia already has us covered there. Please help me out with this code and include your feedback! Thanks! —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 01:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea, and perhaps it could be an option in preferences, to not display, display only when your front page is edited, or to display when any page in your userspace is edited. That way, people who don't want it don't have to have it, and people that do want it can specify when they want it to show up. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 02:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Try the following user script (install by placing it at the end of Special:Mypage/monobook.js):

I like it too. But maybe itshould be exempt from using it on your talk page.--Gp75motorsports 23:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a great idea- I've had my userpage vandalized a fair number of times. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
/* Script to warn you if your userpage is changed by another user. By [[User:ais53]]. Note that the message persists until you edit
   your userpage yourself. */
 
function upm_checkthisisme(xmlreq)
{
  var junk;
  try
  {
    var ed=xmlreq.responseText.split('<rev user="')[1].split('"')[0];
    if(ed!=wgUserName) document.getElementById('siteSub').innerHTML+="<div class='usermessage'>Your userpage was changed by "+
      "<a href='/wiki/User:"+encodeURI(ed)+"'>"+ed.split('<').join('&lt;').split('>').join('&gt;').split('&').join('&amp;')+"</a>"+
      " (<a href='/wiki/Special:Mypage'>your userpage</a>, <a href='/w/index.php?title=User:"+encodeURI(wgUserName)+"&diff=last'>"+ 
      "last change</a>)";
  } catch(junk) {};
}
 
addOnloadHook(function(){
  var a = sajax_init_object();
  a.open('GET', wgServer+wgScriptPath+'/api.php?action=query&prop=revisions&titles=User:'+
    encodeURI(wgUserName)+'&rvlimit=1&rvprop=user&format=xml');
  a.send('');
  a.onreadystatechange = function(){if(a.readystate==4) upm_checkthisisme(a)};
});

It shows a warning similar to the one you suggested as long as you don't have the top edit to your own userspace. --ais523 10:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That script didn't work for me. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 01:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, when I made this proposal, I implied that your talk page would (should) be exempted, since Wikipedia has a New Messages banner, which, to my knowledge, picks up all edits on the talk page. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 01:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The script only covers your own userpage; you're right, the new-messages banner picks up all edits to your talk page except minor edits made by bots. Remember to bypass your cache after installing it (that needs to be done for all scripts). --ais523 12:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

While the script is a good workaround, I like the original idea of having the message built in. I was thinking the same thing myself yesterday. CitiCat ♫ 17:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ais523, I tried bypassing my cache and it still didn't work. Why wouldn't it work? And, when I added that other paragraph about when I made the proposal, it was because Gp75motorsports was unclear on the fact that the talk page would be exempt from the banner. Sorry for that bit of confusion. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 00:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why it isn't working for you; it does work for me. What browser are you using? --ais523 09:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Citicat, if we obtain consensus for such a change to the software, then someone can file a bugzilla report for it. I support the idea of the userpage edit banner being built into the software. FunPika 21:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Ais, I'm using Firefox. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 00:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
So am I, and I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't work, unless it's a conflict with another script. What happens if you place it before Twinkle in your monobook.js? --ais523 16:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Nothing. I don't get it. I put it all over the place in my monobook and it didn't work. Is it JavaScript? That could cause a problem as I'm putting it in my monobook.js. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 01:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's JavaScript. I'm confused; you don't seem to be doing anything wrong at all, and I know that it works on Firefox because it does for me. Sometimes this sort of problem with username-dependent scripts is caused by unusual things in a users' username, but we both have the same sort of username (letters followed by numbers) and it can't even be that. Do you get an error when you try to run the script? You can type javascript: into the address bar to open up Firefox's window where it reports errors. --ais523 18:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I love the idea and I want to add it to my .js, but first one question: Does it work for subpages of your userpage as well, or just the main userpage? The above doesn't make it very clear. Thanks! Reywas92Talk 17:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Userpag eonly. --ais523 18:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked through the code and I noticed the very last parenthesis at the absolute end of the function right before the semicolon and the end. I read through the script and could not find where the opening parenthesis corresponding to that one was. You may want to double check me, but could that cause a problem? —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 02:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I looked through the code again and I missed a parenthesis that set it all right. I also looked at my javascript: and it didn't show errors involving the script. I don't know what could possibly be wrong. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 02:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Great idea. It's especially useful for those of us who have a bunch of pages under one username. --Gp75motorsports 23:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just wondering, how exactly would I/we go about doing what FunPika said above? ("...if we obtain consensus for such a change to the software, then someone can file a bugzilla report for it. I support the idea of the userpage edit banner being built into the software.") —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 00:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Do that by going to Bugzilla and requesting the change. Although frankly I doubt this is enough consensus for a software change (remember this isn't to delete some random non-notable article, this is a change to the actual software. More consensus is probably needed for something like this). FunPika 01:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_5&oldid=1146508839"