위키백과:마을 펌프(제안)/Archive AC

마을펌프
- 정책
- 기술
- 제안. (iii)
- 아이디어 랩
- WMF
- 잡다한

마을 펌프(제안) 아카이브

이 페이지에는 빌리지 펌프(제안)에서 보관된 토론이 수록되어 있다.이 페이지의 내용을 편집하지 마십시오.이러한 토론 중 하나를 다시 시작하려면 새 스레드를 시작하거나 해당 주제와 관련된 대화 페이지를 사용하십시오.

< 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

영화에 대한 접을 수 있는 개요 섹션

WP필름에서는 영화 기사의 시놉시스 섹션의 길이를 두고 오랜 논의가 있었다.나는 500~600단어의 길이에 대해 어느 정도 합의가 이루어졌다고 말할 위험을 무릅쓰겠다.그러나 WP 필름과 다른 사용자들은 시놉시스가 가능한 한 통합되어야 한다고 생각한다.그러나 모든 기고자가 영화의 전체 줄거리를 몇 줄에 담을 수 있는 재능을 가지고 있는 것은 아니다.긴 시놉시스로 짧은 버전과 반대로 되돌아가는 것은 있었지만, 아직 (내가 알고 있는) 큰 편집 전쟁은 없었다.내가 선호하는 것은 사소한 일에 탐닉하지 않는 풀 플롯이지만, 글의 길이에 있어서 스포일러를 해도 긴 부분을 거치지 않으려는 사람들을 존경한다.우리는 영화의 긴 개요를 위한 별도의 페이지를 만드는 것까지도 논의했지만, 위키피디아에서는 그것들이 기회가 없다는 것을 알게 되었다.그래서 나는 지식있는 구성원이 붕괴할 수 있는 부분을 만들도록 격려했다. 그리고 여기 그 결과의 전시가 있다.사용자:호버피시/노트북#접을 수 있는 긴 줄거리 테스트.나는 접근성과 오래된 브라우저에서는 어쨌든 섹션이 보여진다는 것을 알고 있다.그래서 나는 빌리지 펌프에게 이 CSS 기법을 양쪽 모두를 만족시키기 위한 시도로 사용할 수 있는지 묻고 싶었다.호버피쉬톡 17:09, 2007년 1월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 알기로는 붕괴가 모든 피부에 작용하는 것은 아니다. -- 레이브루조 17:49, 2007년 1월 19일 (UTC)[응답하라]

나한테는 사소한 반대인 것 같아.나는 그 제안이 마음에 든다.

2007년 1월 19일 (UTC) El Ingles 17:54 (UTC)[응답]

아니, 미디어위키에 있는 붕괴 코드:공통.js.그래서 어떤 피부에서도 효과가 있을 것이다.하지만 자바스크립트를 지원하지 않는 브라우저에서는 작동하지 않을 것이다.Tra (Talk) 2007년 1월 19일 18:38 (UTC)[응답]

정말 그렇다.그것은 모든 피부에서 작동하지만 일부 브라우저에서는 작동하지 않는다.그러나 드물게 효과가 없을 경우, 어떤 정보도 숨겨져 있지 않기 때문에 위키피디아에 위반되지 않는다.내게 필요한 옵션물리적 조치가 필요한 기술을 사용하여 정보를 제공하지 마십시오.다만 불편한 점은 어차피 긴 개요를 볼 사용자도 거의 없을 것이라는 점이다.호버피쉬톡 20:26, 2007년 1월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

개인적으로 요약본이 너무 길어져서 자체 기사나 접을 수 있는 섹션이 필요하게 되면 과도하다.그러나, 기사를 가능한 한 맨몸으로 남겨둔 불필요한 것을 숨기려는 공감대가 있다면, 나는 반대하지 않는다. -- 레이브루조 20:33, 2007년 1월 19일 (UTC)[응답][응답하라]

500~600단어 제한은 현재의 합의에 따라 롱 시놉시스에 적용될 것이다.우리는 잘 쓰여진 짧은 시놉시스가 존재하고 거기에 덧붙이기를 원하는 사용자들이 그것의 질을 떨어뜨리는 몇몇 기사들을 가지고 있다.다른 경우에는 더 긴 개요가 잘 쓰여져 있고 사용자들은 그것을 줄이려고 애쓰고, 또한 그것의 질을 떨어뜨린다.이것이 이 제안의 주된 이유로서 지나치게 긴 요약을 장려하지 않기 위함이다.호버피쉬톡 21:04, 2007년 1월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

나 같은 친척 신참들에게는 사용이 복잡할까?2007년 1월 19일 몬트리올 21:38 (UTC)의 숀[응답]

아주 사용하기 쉽다.만약 당신이 할 수 있는 것보다 짧은 개요를 읽고 싶다면.전체 줄거리나 보다 자세한 내용을 보려면 "쇼" 버튼을 클릭하여 전체 개요를 확인하십시오.그렇게 하면 당신이 읽고 싶은 선택이다. --Nehrams2020 21:43, 2007년 1월 19일 (UTC)[응답하라]

미안, 내 말은, 영화에 관한 기사를 만들고 편집하는 사람으로서, 내가 얼마나 더 많은 코드를 배워야 할까?접을 수 있는 섹션을 만드는 방법에 대한 튜토리얼이 이미 있는가?2007년 1월 19일 몬트리올 21:45 (UTC)의 숀[응답]

내가 아는 바로는 그것은 기사의 한 부분을 편집하는 것과 같다.섹션을 "표시"하면 텍스트를 수정할 수 있는 편집 단추가 있다.작업을 마치면 일반 편집으로 저장할 수 있다.—앞서 서명되지 않은 코멘트는 Nehrams2020 (토크 • 기여) 22:00, 2007년 1월 19일 (UTC)에 의해 추가되었다.[답답하다]

아니, 그건 정확하지 않아.{{LongSynopsis}}라는 템플릿이 있다.{{LongSynopsis {{LongSynopsis {{LongSynopsis {{LongSynopsis}}}이것은 꽤 긴 줄거리라서 전부 다 읽고 싶어하는 사람은 거의 없을 것이다 등....푸바, 푸바, 푸바, 푸바, 푸바, 푸바, 푸바, 푸바, 푸바, 푸바, 푸바, 푸바, 푸바, 푸바, 푸바, 푸바, 푸바, 위키텍스트에서 푸바, 푸바, 푸바, 푸바, 푸바, 푸바, 푸바, 푸바, 푸바, }}.그리고 다음과 같이 표시된다.

{{LongSynopsis This is a quite long synopsis that few people will want to read in it entirety, etc....foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar,}}

시놉시스를 수정하려면 '과'} 사이의 텍스트를 수정하면 된다.전체 예는 User:호버피시/노트북#테스트_collapable_long_synopsis.나에게 이것은 기사에는 좋지 않은 생각처럼 보이지만 확실하지는 않다. --Superm401 - Talk 22:06, 2007년 1월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 스포일러처럼 시작 시놉시스와 끝 시놉시스를 가지고 싶다.템플릿 안에 텍스트가 많은 것보다 깨끗한 것 같다. -- 레이브루조 22:08, 2007년 1월 19일 (UTC)[응답하라]

이 섹션은 실제로 주요 "시놉시스" 섹션의 하위 섹션이 된다.스포일러 템플릿은 두 가지 경우 모두 제공되어야 한다.호버피쉬톡 22:12, 2007년 1월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이 생각에 매우 반대한다.현행 가이드라인에는 '플롯 요약은 400~700단어(약 600단어) 사이여야 하지만 복잡한 플롯 등 특별한 이유가 없는 한 900단어를 초과해서는 안 된다'고 명시돼 있다.이것들은 지침일 뿐이니 융통성이 있을 수 있다.펄프 픽션의 줄거리 요약은 1,303개의 단어로, 가이드라인 위에 있지만 영화의 연대기 때문에 정당화된다.이 요약본은 이전의 2,592개 단어와 극명한 대조를 이룬다.또 다른 예는 사이코다.줄거리는 1469단어에서 687단어로 바뀌었다.두 가지 버전을 비교해 보십시오. 여기 이전 버전과 현재 버전이 있습니다,훨씬 더 짧은 버전에서 필수적으로 빠진 것이 있는가?

우리는 또한 항상 최종 사용자도 생각해야 한다.플롯을 알고 싶지 않은 사용자는 목차를 클릭하여 플롯을 건너뛸 수 있다.클릭 한 번으로 그는 걱정스러운 호환성 문제를 일으키는 자바스크립트의 필요 없이 긴 줄거리를 건너뛰었다.그가 줄거리의 간략한 요약을 원한다면 메인 줄거리 이전에 스포일러 프리 요약이 있어야 한다는 새로운 지침을 만들 수 있다.그런 부분들은 여기와 같이 여기저기 흩어져서 찾아볼 수 있다.나의 마지막 반대는 페이지를 어지럽힌다는 것이다.--수퍼넘리어 22:14, 2007년 1월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

글쎄, 나도 동의해.그러나 요점은 일부 사용자들이 줄거리를 몇 문장, 즉 기껏해야 두어 단락으로 낮추려고 한다는 것이다.호버피쉬톡 22:20, 2007년 1월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

이 사용자들은 틀렸고, 우리는 그들의 편집 내용을 되돌림으로써 그들의 관행을 단념시켜야 한다.만약 그들이 항의한다면, 우리는 토론, 제3의 의견, 논평 요청 등을 통해 우리의 길을 갈 수 있다.--수퍼리어리 00:13, 2007년 1월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

그런데 여기서 WP필름에서 했던 마지막 큰 토론은 다음과 같다.위키백과 대화:위키프로젝트 필름/아카이브8#긴 개요 - 다시 + 그 뒤에 몇 섹션: #확장 플롯 하위 기사.나는 너의 관점과 줄거리에서의 뛰어난 업적이 마음에 드는데, 일이 해결된 것처럼 보이니?호버피쉬톡 22:26, 2007년 1월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

분명히 해결이 안 됐거나, 아니면 아직 얘기하지 않았을 거야.--수퍼수퍼리 00:13, 2007년 1월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 염두에 두고 있던 것의 한 예가 최근 <박물관의 밤>에서 일어났는데, 거기에는 전체적인 줄거리가 사라지고 지금은 몇 줄의 "충분히 말했다"고 되어 있다.호버피쉬톡 22:40, 2007년 1월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

윽. 추악한 음모에 대해 말해 봐.단조롭기만 한 것이 아니라 이제는 산문에도 없다.나는 그것을 다시 점잖은 줄거리로 되돌릴 생각인데, 그것은 누가 이런 나쁜 짓을 하더라도 우리가 할 수 있는 일이다.--수퍼리 00:13, 2007년 1월 20일 (UTC)[응답하라]

줄거리 시놉시스의 크기를 줄이기 위해 뭔가 조치를 취해야 한다.편집자들은 완전히 읽을 수 없는 거대하고, 패러그래프되지 않은 시놉시스를 제작하고, 그들의 거친 산문을 맹렬하게 방어한다.이것은 나쁜 작가들에게 흔한 반응이다. 그리고 그들이 나쁜 작가인 이유: 그들은 스스로에게 "이것을 읽고 싶은 사람이 있을까?"라고 묻지 않을 것이고, 독자들의 어떤 피드백도 방어적인 허풍만 불러일으킬 뿐이다.내가 아는 출판사 작가들(공상과학소설과 판타지 작가들 상당수는)이 작품을 출판사에 보내기 전에 시험독자들에게 보내는데, 누군가가 "이것은 효과가 없다"고 하면 귀를 기울인다.긴 시놉시스의 컷아웃은 특별히 우아하지는 않지만, IMHO는 긴 시놉시스 작가들을 끝도 없이 바글바글 거릴 수 있고 아무도 지루함을 지나칠 필요가 없는 막다른 골목으로 돌리게 하는 방법을 제공한다.이상적으로 우리는 단지 규칙만 가지고 있을 것이다. "짐보로부터 교황의 면죄부 없이는 600단어보다 더 긴 것은 없다."라고 말하는 것이다. 단 1천 달러에 살 수 있다. 하지만...이걸 통과시킬 수 있을지 모르겠다 :) 조라 23:19, 2007년 1월 19일 (UTC)[응답하라]

우리는 정말로 나쁜 작가들이 마구 지껄이도록 격려하고 싶은가?나는 우리가 그들의 형편없는 편집을 되돌림으로써 그들의 버릇을 없앤다고 말한다.또 한 가지는 이 것이 진정으로 백과사전이 아닌 재료를 추가하는 것을 묵인한다는 것이다.WP를 원하는 사용자:굳이 읽을 필요가 없더라도 '요약'을 엄청나게 길게 줄인 것으로 알려질 영화들?방금 생각났는데, 나쁜 작가들이 위키백과에 좋은가?기사를 추가할 때 그런 것 같지만, 어느 때인가 제대로 된 문법과 구문을 자신들보다 나은 사람에게 맡겨야 한다는 것을 배워야 한다.---2007년 1월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

당신이 나쁜 작가를 더 많이 사냥하고 되돌릴수록, 그들은 당신이 위키백과를 당신이 원하는 것으로 만들려고 하는 위키 스낵이라는 것을 더 확신하게 될 것이다.그들이 얼마나 나쁘다고 생각하든지 간에, 만약 당신이 그들을 공격한다면, 그들은 그들의 총에 더 강하게 달라붙을 것이다.나쁜 작가를 좋은 작가가 되도록 지도하라. 단순히 경험이 부족하고 지나치게 예리하다고 그들을 몰아붙이지 마라.

퍼펙트블루 11:53, 2007년 1월 20일 (UTC)[응답하라]

그래, 이런 글을 올린 지 반나절쯤 지나서야 나쁜 작가가 좋은 작가가 될 수 있다는 사실을 간과했다는 것을 깨달았다.--수퍼넘리어 00:38, 2007년 1월 21일 (UTC)[응답하라]

내가 그 논쟁을 읽었으므로, 나는 반대되는 사람들, 특히 마지막 두 개의 주장에 동의한다고 말해야겠다.나는 생계를 위해 영화 시놉시스를 쓴 것이 행운이거나 저주받았고 이야기를 적당한 길이로 풀어내는 것은 로켓 과학이 아니다.그것은 재능과 편집을 필요로 하는데, 자기 편집이나 위키피디아가 독특하게 제공하는 종류의 것이다.2007년 1월 20일(UTC) 03:30 몬트리올의 숀[응답]

그러나 읽을 수 있는 시놉시스에 신경을 쓰는 것 같은 영화 기사를 쓰는 사람은 비교적 적다.제멋대로 구는 보어들이 우리보다 훨씬 수적으로 우세하다.시놉시스를 제거하려는 시도는 종종 길고 고통스러운 편집 전쟁을 초래하는데, 요약자는 이 전쟁에서 질 수도 있다.문제는 영화프로젝트가 개발한 400~600단어 가이드라인에 대한 집행 메커니즘이 없고, 새로운 편집자에게 이것이 규칙이라는 것을 알릴 방법이 없다는 점이다.사람들은 경고나 차단을 받았다면 3RR 같은 것을 알아차리는 것 같지만, 시놉시스의 길이에 대해서는 그런 시행이 없다.

나는 우리가 어떻게 그들에게 이 규칙을 알릴 수 있는지 알고 있다.환영 템플릿에 추가하거나 필름 템플릿에서 편집 지침에 추가할 수 있다.그러면 모든 영화 기사에 상기시키는 글이 실릴 것이다.--수퍼넘리어 15:50, 2007년 1월 20일 (UTC)[응답하라]

나는 모든 시놉시스(소설과 같은 비영화 시놉시스도)가 줄거리나 시놉시스 헤더 직후에 짧은 노위키 경고가 있어서 "요약어는 600단어 이상이어야 한다"는 식의 말을 한다면 도움이 될 것이라고 생각한다.더 긴 요약은 무자비하게 편집될 것이다."아마도 가장 좋은 표현은 아닐 것이다.제안 초청.나는 엄격한 no-wiki 경고가 링크스팸에 대한 일부 편집자들의 의도를 단념시키는 것을 알아챘다.조라 04:23, 2007년 1월 20일 (UTC)[응답하라]

사용자가 "쇼"를 클릭하면 보다 긴 시놉시스로 확장 가능한 짧은 시놉시스가 가능한가?이것은 가장 이상적인 것으로 보이며, 짧은 시놉시스와 긴 시놉시스를 상호 전환시킬 수 있는 버튼이다.질문 23:13, 2007년 1월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

위키프로젝트 공간에서 (기사)삭제 토론 개최

위키백과 대화 참조:삭제 조항#더 자세한 논쟁을 위한 토론의 탈중앙화를 위한 제안.기본적으로 아이디어는 백과사전을 삭제하기 전에 먼저 개선하고 필요한 경우에만 삭제하는 과정을 만드는 것이다.또한, 토론은 통보받은 사람이 알려야 한다. --Keitei (대화) 01:04, 2007년 1월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

으, 아니.지금보다 더 토론을 어렵게 만들지 말자. --tjstrf talk 06:31, 2007년 1월 14일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 tjstrf와 동의해야 한다. 이것은 몇 가지 이유로 좋지 않은 생각이다.

1.' AfD 토론을 위한 중앙집중화된 하나의 장소를 갖는 것이 중요하다.기사는 주제 자체가 검증할 수 없거나 알 수 없는 경우에만 삭제되어야 한다. 따라서 단순히 개선이 필요한 기사는 삭제되지 않거나, 최소한 삭제되어서는 안 된다.

2. 위키피디아는 자신의 범위에 해당하는 기사에 집착하는 경향이 있고, 실제로 어떤 것이 삭제되어야 한다 하더라도 어떤 기사에 대한 삭제를 추진할 가능성이 적다.

3. 단일 위키백과 주제의 범위에 속하지 않는 기사는 어떠한가?만약 이것이 시행된다면, 그들은 프로젝트에 들어가는 기사들보다 더 적은 보호를 받을 것이다.

4. 위키백과대상이 아닌 기사보다 더 나쁜 것은 다수의 프로젝트에 속하는 기사들이다.예를 들어, 재생 가능한 에너지는 에너지의 위키백과 제목, 환경의 위키백과 제목 및 국제 개발의 위키백과 제목에 적합하다.위의 프로세스와 같은 프로세스는 프로젝트 간에 발생하는 문제를 쉽게 야기할 수 있다.

5. 이를 통해 "정보제공자가 토론 내용을 알 수 있다"는 개념은 타당하지 않다.현재, AfD에 대한 기사가 올라갈 때, 해당 페이지에 공지가 올려져 있고, 그 글과 유사한 기사를 보통 편집하는 사람은 그것을 보고 어쨌든 관여할 가능성이 있다; AfD 토론의 정기적인 기고자로서, 나는 실제로 주제에 대한 약간의 전문 지식을 필요로 할 수 있는 드문 소수의 AfD가 그렇게 한다고 말할 것이다.행동하고, 그 사람들을 끌어들이라.게다가, AfD는 절차적이고 실제로 이런 지식을 요구하지 않는다; AfD의 토론에서 중요한 질문은 문제의 기사가 위키백과의 지침/정책들을 충족시키느냐 하는 것이다.어떤 것이 주목할 만한지, 혹은 출처가 있는지 결정하는 데는 전문가가 필요하지 않다. --The Way 04:13, 2007년 1월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

리: "기사란 주제 자체가 검증이 안 되거나 통고할 수 없는 경우에만 삭제되어야 하고, 그래서 단순히 개선이 필요한 기사들은 삭제되지 않거나, 적어도 삭제되어서는 안 된다." --
만약 그 일이 사실이라면관리자(admins 포함)를 포함한 꽤 많은 사용자들은 기사가 개선될 수 있었을 때 삭제된다고 믿는다.대부분의 경우 관리자는 기사에서 두 가지 결함을 발견하게 되는데, 예를 들어, 방법 안내문이나 잘못된 참조문단을 찾는 것과 같은 두 가지 결함을 발견하게 되며, 템플릿이나 두 개를 설치하는 대신 전체 기사를 삭제 검토용으로 게시하게 된다.그러면 일주일 후, 자주 방문하지 않는 기사라면 (템플릿을 올리지 않았기 때문에) 문제가 여전히 존재하고 기사가 삭제된다.항문 스트레칭의 기사에서 바로 그런 일이 일어났는데, 이 기사는 존재해야 하지만 어떤 관리자도 굳이 템플릿을 내세우려 하지 않는 것이었다.

기사 수정 대신 기사 삭제는 주요 이슈로 보이며, 이를 해결하기 위한 어떠한 제안도 환영할 것이다 :) Rfulf 13:49, 2007년 1월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이것이 널리 퍼진 문제라는 것을 확신할 수 없다.나는 정기적으로 AfD 토론에 참여하는데, 기사가 삭제되어서는 안 될 때 삭제되는 경우는 매우 드물다. 사실 그 반대인 것 같다. 필요한 것보다 더 많은 기사가 보관된다.기사는 거의 항상 공신력을 검증하고 확립하는 역할을 하는 출처가 부족하기 때문에 삭제된다.실제로, 나는 위키피디아 주체가 무엇이 남아있고 무엇이 삭제되는지를 결정하도록 허용하는 것은 정책에 반대함에도 불구하고 많은 기사들을 보관하는 결과를 가져올 것이라고 생각한다; 위키피디아 주체는 아무리 사소한 것이라도 자연스럽게 그들의 관할권에 속하기를 원할 것이다.게다가, 이런 성격의 어떤 것을 시행하는 것은 내가 이미 언급했듯이 '사법화'의 문제를 주요 문제로 만들 것이다.분산형 AfD 및 XfD 프로세스는 공식 정책/지침을 균등하게 적용하지 않도록 할 것이며, 일부 위키백과 제목은 다른 언어보다 삭제하는 것이 더 빠를 것이다.많은 위키백과 주제가 그리 크지 않으며 이 제안을 시행하면 소규모의 편집자들이 '어젠다'를 가져야 하는 것보다 더 많은 힘을 갖게 될 것이다.AfD와 XfD의 분리성을 유지하는 것은 객관성 수준을 유지하고 있으며, AfD와 XfD의 논의는 현재 완전히 투명하고 모두에게 공개되어 있다.분산시키는 것은 그들을 덜 투명하게 만들 것이다. --The Way 06:58, 2007년 1월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

다국어 기사 상호 참조

다국어 위키백과에서 작성된 항목이 영어 위키백과에서 동일한 항목을 가질 수 있도록 작은 팀.아마도 '구축할 계약' 섹션에는 항목 이름만 번역하면 될 것이다. 더 모호한 항목만 전체 번역하면 된다.—앞서 서명되지 않은 코멘트는 71.102.4.19 (토크) 12:09, 2007년 1월 22일 (UTC)에 의해 추가되었다.[답답하다]

두 번째로, 이 기능은 매우 유용할 것이다.각 페이지에 사용 가능한 언어의 선택 상자(드롭다운 목록)가 있다면 가장 좋을 것이다.—앞서 서명되지 않은 코멘트는 89.10.24.32 (토크 • 기여)가 추가되었다.

피드백 단추

내가 이 기사를 고맙게 여긴다고 말하기 위해 피드백 버튼을 누르지 그랬어.—앞서 서명되지 않은 의견은 86.219.255.154 (대화) 14:08, 2007년 1월 21일 (UTC)에 의해 추가되었다.[답답하다]

단답: 왜?나는 사람들이 당신이 기사를 고맙게 여긴다는 것을 듣고 기뻐할 것이라고 확신하지만, 그렇게 말하는 버튼은 백과사전을 개선하는 데 도움이 되지 않을 것이다.우리는 인기나 유용성에 따라 페이지의 순위를 매기지 않는다.Trebor 19:50, 2007년 1월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

"토론" 버튼 82.36.120.68 07:10, 2007년 1월 22일 (UTC)[응답] 사용

제안

첫 번째 항목을 다음으로 변경 제안:

1556년 - 중국 산시 성에서 사상 최악의 지진으로 83만명이 사망하였다. --Tengu syariful 17:52, 2007년 1월 23일 (UTC)[응답]

자동 서명

나는 위키피디아를 처음 접한다.내가 가장 먼저 알아차린 것 중 하나는 토크 페이지에 서명이 자동으로 추가되지 않는다는 것이었다.나는 "서명"에 대해 아무것도 몰랐고, 내가 '대화' 페이지에 쓴 단락 뒤에 내 이름이 삽입될 것이라고 추측했다.나는 나중에 한 봇이 "위험한 윌 로빈슨!"의 효과에 뭔가를 외치며 나를 위해 우스운 서명을 했다는 것을 알아차렸다.위험해!Xerxesnine은 서명을 하지 않았다!중단, 중단!계산 안 해!"

이건 정말 말도 안 돼, 비록 몇 가닥이지만 수작업으로 서명하는 관습이 이렇게 오래 지속되었다는 게 믿기지가 않아.컴퓨터 세계에서 정의에 의한 "서명"이라는 용어는 소프트웨어에 의해 자동적으로 부가되는 것을 의미하므로, 그것은 그 용어의 남용이다.하지만 이것은 요점을 벗어난다. 왜냐하면 소프트웨어가 그들을 위해 쉽게 할 수 있을 때 사용자들에게 어떤 것도 하도록 요구하는 것은 정당화될 수 없기 때문이다.

제발, "아, 그냥 몇 가닥일 뿐이야."라고 대답하지 말아줘.임의적이고 쓸모없는 후프 점핑은 항상 나쁜 것이다.이런 것들이 앞뒤가 맞는다.노인들은 그런 비합리성에 익숙해지지만 나 같은 신참자들은 그것이 무엇인지에 대해 어리석음을 본다.

위의 서명 지침에는 이 모든 것이 명시되어 있다--- 분명히, 그러한 "지침"은 사용자의 뇌에 업로드하기 보다는, 소프트웨어에 입력되어야 한다. --Xerxine 14:25, 2007년 1월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

그 봇의 본문은 IMO는 괜찮지만, 자유롭게 제안을 추가해라.

As for automatic, there are many cases where the signature must be omitted (e.g. in WP:RfA summaries), or preceded (e.g. when placing a quote from a source), or altered (e.g. when only sig, [~~~] or only date [~~~~~] is required), or duplicated (e.g. when intermingling 2-3 responses in different parts with one edit) and the software would not know구별하는 법익숙해지도록 노력해봐.다음 내용:니코실버 14:39, 2007년 1월 15일 (UTC) :-[응답]

그러나 첫 번째 통과 대답은 명확하다: 모호하지 않은 새로운 단락이 있을 때 자동으로 서명을 추가한다.나는 방금 내 시그니처도 잊어버렸고, 시사회 때에만 알아차렸어.2007년 1월 15일 15시 12분 (UTC)[응답]

위키 소프트웨어로 하여금 봇이 하는 일을 하게 하는 문제에 대해서는 - 풀타임 (파트타임?)의 유료 프로그래머가 몇 명밖에 없고, 그들은 작업해야 할 특징과 문제들의 많은 목록을 가지고 있다.어떤 것이 봇에 의해 구현될 수 있다면(즉, 핵심 위키 소프트웨어를 변경하지 않고), 그것은 프로그래머들이 할 수 있는 한 가지 덜한 일이다.그리고 프로그래머들이 유지할 수 있는 것이 한 가지 적다.어쩌면 결국 다른 할 일이 없을 때, 그들은 다양한 봇들을 보고 핵심 코드로 대체하기 시작할 수도 있겠지만, 나는 (개인적으로) 그런 일이 일어나기를 기다리면서 숨을 참지는 않을 것이다.존 브로든 ♫ 2007년 1월 15일 14시 47분 (UTC)[응답]

나는 "봇"과 다른 소프트웨어 사이의 구별이나 선호를 암시하려는 의도는 아니었다.나는 자동 서명이 어떻게 구현되든 상관없어.내 요점은 현재의 사인봇이 조용히 임무를 수행하기보다는 그것에 대해 (크고 산만한 논평) 큰 거래를 하는 것처럼 보인다는 것이었다.2007년 1월 15일 15시 12분 (UTC)[응답]

니코 실버가 말했듯이, 당신은 항상 같은 방식으로, 혹은 전혀 서명된 것을 원하지 않는다.자동 서명 봇은 이미 한 페이지에 내 서명을 완전히 잘못 추가했고, 모든 상황에서 다른 자동 시스템이 제대로 된 서명을 받는 것을 볼 수 없다.Trebor 14:52, 2007년 1월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

서명 없이 모호하지 않은 새로운 단락의 경우, 그것은 항상 옳을 것이다.서명이 필요한 페이지와 그렇지 않은 페이지의 구분이 이미 있기 때문에, 서명을 항상 원하지 않는다고 말하는 것은 정색이다.2007년 1월 15일 15시 12분 (UTC)[응답]

이것은 "항상 옳다"는 것은 아닐 것이다.(요약이나 자문과 같이) 서명해서는 안 되는 새로운 단락이 일반 토크 페이지에 추가되는 예는 얼마든지 있다.

나아가 {{unsigned}}}메시지에는 사용자가 서명하지 않았다는 점에 주의를 끌게 되어 있어 향후 본인(및 타인)이 서명하도록 유도하고 있다.그러나 그 표현은 사실 다소 온화하다.수치심은 없다.—David Levy 19:49, 2007년 1월 17일 (UTC)[응답]

현재의 서명 봇은 서명하면 안 되는 문단을 포함하여 이미 그러한 모든 문단에 서명할 것이기 때문에, 나는 당신의 요점이 타당하다고 보지 않는다--- 내가 "항상"이 아닌 "대부분 항상"이라고 말했어야 했다는 것을 제외하면.너의 "더 먼" 부분에 대해서는, 내 모든 주장은 애초에 터무니없는 수동 서명을 없애야 한다는 것이다.주의를 끄는 것은 봇이 해서는 안 되는 일이다; 그것은 불필요한 소음이다.위에 있는 내 글을 읽었니?2007년 1월 18일 (UTC) Xerxine 16:45 [응답]

1. 실제로 해이먼봇도 같은 결점이 있다.개인적으로, 나는 그것이 은퇴되었으면 좋겠어.(또 다른 문제도 일으킨다.)

표현으로 있다.2 "대부분 항상"은 과대포장된 상태로 남아 있다."보통"이 더 정확하다.

3. 그래, 너의 초고를 읽었어(그것이 내가 암시했던 것이다).당신은 그 메시지가 '위험한 윌 로빈슨! '의 효과에 대해 무엇인가를 외친다고 주장했다.위험해!Xerxesnine은 서명을 하지 않았다!중단, 중단!계산하지 말라!'"는 현재 설정에서 유효한 목적에 해당하는 가벼운 문구를 어리석게 과장한 것이다(설정을 변경해야 하는지 여부와 무관).—David Levy 00:29, 2007년 1월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

명확히 하기 위해 다음 사항을 고려하십시오.

사용자가 서명이 필요한 페이지를 편집했다.
사용자는 명확하고 모호하지 않은 추가 섹션을 편집했다.
사용자는 하나 이상의 해당 섹션에 서명을 추가하지 않았다.

세 가지 조건이 모두 유지되면, 봇은 하나 없는 섹션에 몇 가지 표준 서명을 조용히 추가해야 한다.

"조용히"라는 말은 봇의 디프플 코멘트가 매우 짧고 주의하지 않아야 한다는 뜻이며, 또는 디프피가 전혀 없어야 한다는 말이다(아마도 이는 코드가 별도의 봇 실체가 아닌 커밋 후크에서 실행된다는 것을 의미할 것이다.

당신은 어떻게 생각하나요?2007년 1월 15일 15시 57분 (UTC)[응답]

나는 자동 서명에 대해 동의한다.필요할 때마다 Wiki가 자동으로 내 사용자 이름에 서명하도록 하는 것은 좋은 기능일 것이다.나는 방금 삭제하려는 Bot 메시지를 보는 것을 싫어한다.내가 추천하는 것은 봇이 서명되지 않은 메시지를 사용자의 대화 페이지에 게시하고 메시지를 사용하지 않는 것이다.론보76 16:12, 2007년 1월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

그리고 안 바뀌면 편집하기 20초 정도 기다려야 할 것 같아.나는 내가 서명하지 않았다는 것을 단 한 번의 대화로 깨닫고 돌아와서 헝거맨봇과 편집상충을 겪었는데, 나는 그것을 부르는 것 같다.

—Nethac DIU, 여기서 말하는 것을 멈추지 않을 것이다.
2007년 1월 15일 18:56(UTC)
이번에는 알아차렸다.[답글]

사용자:HagermanBot/OptOut.봇을 좋아하지만 새로운 대화를 바닥으로 옮길 수 있으면 좋겠다(신규 사용자들은 보통 밑바닥 대신 맨 위에 올려놓는다).-- ReyBrujo 23:05, 2007년 1월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

하게르만봇에 대해 칭얼대는 사람들이 정말 빨리 절름발이가 되고 있다.봇이 마음에 들지 않으면 수동으로 서명하는 법을 배워라.그렇게 간단하다.만약 하게르만봇이 존재하지 않았다면, 유일한 차이점은 우리 중 한 명이 어떤 주제에 혼란을 일으키고 있다면 {{unsigned}}}}}을(를) 사용하여 당신의 게시물에 서명해야 한다는 것이다. --tjstrf talk 22:58, 2007년 1월 15일(UTC)[응답]

물론 이것은 단순히 현상에 대한 권위주의적 입장일 뿐이다."좋아하든지 내버려 두든지."그것은 내가 처음 올린 글에서 언급했던 근본적인 문제를 다루지 않는다. 사실, 나는 이 논쟁을 예상했고 그것이 왜 결점이 있는지 설명했다.2007년 1월 16일(UTC) 12시 53분 Xerxesnine (53)[응답하라]

그렇다면 문제가 있다고 생각하기 때문에, 당신과 의견이 다른 사람은 누구나 '권위주의자'라고 생각하는가?우리 대부분이 문제가 있다고 생각하지 않는 것만이 아닐 수 있을까? -- 네크로테스프 14:33, 2007년 1월 18일 (UTC)[응답하라]

그 반응은 권위주의적이다, 그렇다.요점조차 거론하지 않고 "맞아, 처리하라"고 하는 것을 권위주의적인 대응이라고 한다.단순히 "그렇지 않아!"로 대답하는 것도 마찬가지로 약하다.요점까지 합리적으로 논해야 한다.2007년 1월 18일 (UTC) Xerxine 16:22 [응답]

원래 코멘트로 돌아가서, Xerxesnine은 "컴퓨터 세계에서, 정의에 의한 "서명"이라는 용어는 소프트웨어에 의해 자동적으로 첨부되는 것을 의미하며..."라고 말하며, 위키 코드 ~~~서명 시스템은 그러한 정의에 맞지 않는다고 말한다.그러나 전체 [[사용자:]를 입력할 필요가 없으므로, 나는 동의하지 않을 수 없다.9네티네 4 <퐁 컬러=녹색> 9네티</퐁트...이것저것, 간단하게 ~~~를 타이핑할 수 있어서 자동 서명 메커니즘을 가지고 있다.2007년 1월 16일 (UTC) 90 ^wazup? 00:13[응답]

합리적 반론을 제시함으로써 얼마든지 동의하지 않을 수 있지만, 정의를 바꾸고 그것이 반론인 척할 자유는 없다.내가 사용한 것처럼 "자동"은 분명히 "사용자 개입 없이"라는 의미고, 이것은 나의 원래 게시물에 분명히 언급된 것처럼 타이핑을 포함한다.그것은 또한 당신이 "하지만 이것은 요점을 벗어난 것"이라는 나의 원래 글에서 그 조항을 빠뜨린 것처럼 보인다.2007년 1월 16일(UTC) 12시 53분 Xerxesnine (53)[응답하라]

소프트웨어에서 추가 서명이 필요한 시기를 결정하는 것이 간단하거나 가능했다면 이것은 좋은 기능이 될 수 있지만, 나는 그것이 무엇인지 모른다.위에서 제안하는 규칙은 사람들이 서명할 필요가 없는 템플릿 등을 추가할 때 서명을 부적절하게 할 것이다.크리스토퍼 파럼 (토크) 2007년 1월 17일 (UTC) 19:33[응답]

더욱 명확히 하기 위해 소프트웨어는 사용자측의 불필요한 작업을 절대로 요구해서는 안 되며, 가능한 한 모든 곳에서 수동 노동을 최소화해야 한다.때때로 서명을 원하지 않는다는 주장이 제기되었다.그러시죠.사용자가 서명을 원하지 않는 시간의 99.9%, 서명을 원하지 않는 시간의 0.1%인 경우 소프트웨어는 어떻게 해야 하는가?분명히 서명 태그(틸드) 대신 "서명 없음" 태그("!~")가 있어야 한다.또한 서명이 추가되지 않는 특별한 예외도 있을 수 있다. 예를 들어 특정 템플릿으로만 구성된 문단에서 "!~"의 수동 사용을 0.0001%로 낮춘다.--Xerxes9 17:06, 2007년 1월 18일 (UTC)[응답]

1. 수치가 크게 부풀려져 있다.

2. 나는 그러한 설정에 반대하지 않고 오직 선택적이고 기본이 아닌 설정으로만 반대한다.그렇지 않으면 집단 혼란이 뒤따를 것이다.—David Levy 00:29, 2007년 1월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

1. 명백한 가설의 사용("만약 99.9%의 시간이라면...") 명백한 과장된 표현("Danger Will Robinson!")은 한 점을 설명하기 위한 기법이다.그들은 특수상대성이론 1학년 학생들에게 주어지는 빛의 3/5 속도로 움직이는 기차와 관련된 숙제 문제와 같은 목적을 가지고 있다.빛의 3/5 속도로 움직이는 기차?네 수치가 엄청나게 과장되었어!

2. 맞아, 물론 현재의 서명봇의 행동을 완전히 바꾸는 것은 적절하지 않을 것이다.사용자들은 분명히 그러한 행동에 찬성할 것이다.2007년 1월 19일 (UTC) Xerxine 15:14 (UTC)[응답]

이 실마리가 마무리됨에 따라, 사용자들이 습관이나 현상에 대한 임의적인 애착으로 인해 열악한 사용자 인터페이스가 지속될 수 있다는(여기서든 어디에서든) 일반적인 한탄을 표할 것이다.나는 네 가지 장점과 관련된 나의 주장과 여기의 주장에 대한 반응이 이 문제를 잘 보여준다고 믿는다.2007년 1월 19일 (UTC) Xerxine 15:14 (UTC)[응답]

나는 자동서명이 좋은 생각이라는 Xerxesnine에 반드시 동의하는 것은 아니지만 이 논의에서 실질적인 반론이 제시되지 않았다는 것에 분명히 동의한다.나는 서명 문제에 대해 교육적인 결론을 내릴 수 있는 위키백과의 경험을 가지고 있지 않다. - 내가 생각하지 못한 것을 자동적으로 실행하지 않는 좋은 이유가 있을 수 있다. - 만약 그렇다면 나는 그것이 여기서 아직 언급되지 않았기 때문에 무엇인지 알고 싶다.2007년 1월 23일 트립퍼 17:41 (UTC)[응답하라]

그리스와 로마의 신 병합

같은 신을 위한 2개의 기사가 있고, 그리스 이름을 위한 1개, 로마 이름을 위한 1개의 기사가 있다.나는 문화마다 이러한 신들의 의인화에 약간의 차이가 있다는 것을 인정하지만, 내가 그 기사들을 병합하는 것은 이치에 맞을 것이다.위키백과에서 이 문제에 대한 언급은 보지 못했다.위키프로젝트 신화 또는 WP:그래서 여기 사람들 생각을 물어보고 싶었어.—dgies^{t c} 01:11, 2007년 1월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 두 기사가 적절할 정도로 차이가 많다고 생각한다.블루보어 01:54, 2007년 1월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

마이크로미디어 -Macropedia

나는 많은 기사들이 꽤 길고, 또한 항해하기도 어렵다는 것을 알아챘다.기사의 일부 partd가 많은 키워드 아래 있어야 한다는 문제도 있다.짧은 요약 기사에 큰 기사를 나누어 많은 헤더 아래에 포함할 수 있는 (짧은 서술 헤더를 사용하여) 하위 기사에 (루돌프 디젤과 디젤 엔진의 두 기사에 있는 디젤 엔진의 역사에 대한 자세한 설명과 같은) 기사를 나누어 보는 것은 어떨까?발음을 훨씬 더 잘 읽을 수 있는 끈이 많이 있다.2007년 1월 24일 (UTC) 16:57, 시니어애그[응답]

우린 이미 이 일을 하고 있어.위키백과 참조:방법에 대한 요약 스타일. --tjstrf talk 16:59, 2007년 1월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

동일한 아티클의 여러 버전

영어 위키피디아는 엄청난 기고자 기반 때문에 지금 너무 거대하기 때문에, 나는 아이디어를 생각해냈다...어쩌면 우리는 같은 기사의 몇 가지 버전을 할 수 있을지도 모르는데, 각각 다른 문체를 가지고 있어서 그들이 다른 독자들에게 더 잘 적응할 수 있도록 할 수 있을 것이다.예를 들어, 나는 유명한 전투의 특정 기사에 관심이 있을 수 있지만, 그 기사가 내 필요를 충족시키기에는 너무 길다는 것을 발견하고 단지 리드만 읽는 것은 일반적인 개요에 충분하지 않다.여기서 더 짧은 버전이 유용할 수 있다.아마도 서로 다른 기여자들이 기사에서 품질은 다소 동등하지만 양립할 수 없는 판을 만들어 냈을 것이며 두 판을 모두 유지하는 것이 유용할 것이다.이미 논의된 내용일 가능성도 있지만 그럼에도 불구하고 이 아이디어의 실행 가능성에 대해 토론할 수 있도록 이 글을 쓰겠다. --Taraborn 12:47, 2007년 1월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

아마 기사를 동기화하고 서로 모순되지 않도록 하는 데 문제가 있을 것이다.WP:POVFOK는 왜 이 '콘텐츠 포킹'이 나쁜 아이디어인가에 대한 소량의 정보를 담고 있다(대부분 사람들이 POV를 홍보하기 위해 기사를 나누는 것에 관한 것이긴 하지만).나는 Wikinfo가 그런 종류의 일을 하는 것을 기억하지만, 거기서 기여자가 되는 것은 아니다. 나는 그것이 어떻게 작용하는지 정확히 모르겠다(다중적인 관점과 관련이 있다는 것을 제외한다면).--ais523 13:10, 2007년 1월 24일 (UTC )

리드가 부족하고, 기사가 너무 길다면, 우리는 그것을 쪼개서 요약 스타일로 요약하는 작업을 해야 한다.큰 주제는 다양한 측면을 다루기 위해 수많은 기사로 나뉜다. 주요 부분에는 짧은 요약이 있다.필요 없는 작품이 있으면 빼라.Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:39, 2007년 1월 24일 (UTC)[응답하라]

간단한 영어로 된 기사들을 의미하는 "간단한"이라는 프로젝트가 있다.그것이 당신이 찾고 있는 것일 수도 있다.나는 한 가지 주제에 대해 여러 개의 기사를 작성하는 것을 추천하지 않는다.나는 위키의 목적을 파괴하는데, 그것은 하나의 기사에서 주제나 하위 주제에서 가능한 최고의 전체 콘텐츠를 만들기 위해 수많은 사람들의 결합된 노력이다.

예를 들어, 좋은 기사는 개요를 위해 리드를 읽고, 더 자세한 그림을 위해 첫 번째 섹션을 읽고, 그 이후의 섹션에 있는 전체 그림을 읽을 수 있는 것이어야 한다.만약 그 기사가 그렇게 하지 않는다면, 그것은 잘 쓰여지지 않고 그것이 쟁점이다.나는 여기 있는 대부분의 긴 기사들은 그렇게 하지 않을 것이라고 확신하지만, 이 프로젝트는 시간이 지나면서 전반적으로 나아지는 것 같다.수정을 요청하거나, 필요에 따라 과감하게 기사를 편집하십시오. --EMS Talk 16:20, 2007년 1월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

기본_페이지의 이미지

나의 경험으로 보아, 많은 새로운 사용자들은 홈페이지의 기사 옆에 있는 이미지들이 그 기사들과 직접 연결되기를 기대한다.너무나 많은 사이트(구글 뉴스 1개)가 이런 식으로 이미지를 사용하여 뉴스 기사나 기사에 연결하기 때문에 이것은 이해할 수 있다.특히 홈페이지는 위키백과 초보자들이 많이 찾는 곳이기 때문에 이미지를 클릭해서 이미지 페이지를 얻으면 사람들이 화가 난다고 생각한다.이러한 이미지를 기사와 직접 연결하도록 하는 것이 더 사용자 친화적일 수 있다.아니면 타협점을 찾기 위해서.Pdubya88 03:46, 2007년 1월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

이 이미지들은 저작권상의 이유로 설명 페이지에 링크할 필요가 있다(공영 도메인이 아닌 경우는 드물다).한 가지 가능한 절충안은 <ImageMap>을 사용하여 설명 페이지로 연결되는 구석에 있는 아이콘과 별도로 전체 이미지를 연결하는 것이 될 수 있지만, 그렇게 하면 메인 페이지를 우글거리고 큰 혜택을 주지 못할 것이다.어쩌면 우리는 메인 페이지 이미지 보호 템플릿에 무슨 일이 일어났는지 설명하는 공지를 붙일 수 있을까? --ais523 10:33, 2007년 1월 22일 (UTC )

아마도 사용자가 이미지를 뒹굴어야만 글에 대한 작은 링크가 구석에 나타날 수 있을 것이다(이것은 여전히 너무 추할 수도 있지만).이미지 보호 템플릿에 무언가를 넣는 것이 효과가 있을 것 같아... 즉, "메인 페이지에서 기사에 접근하려 했다면 돌아가 텍스트 링크를 클릭해 줘." 하지만 더 멋지다.Pdubya88 21:46, 2007년 1월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

난 이 아이디어가 좋아, 뿌비야88.대부분의 신규 사용자들이 이미지를 클릭할 때 이미지 페이지를 찾지 않는 것이 맞는 것 같고, 이로 인해 사용자 친화성이 더욱 높아질 것이다.델도트톡 22:51, 2007년 1월 24일 (UTC)[응답]

축사 간소화 및 임명 절차

나는 종종 바스타가 너무 쉽게 주어지고 받는 사람이 한 일을 충분히 반영하지 못한다고 느낀다.지명 과정(아마도 Rfa와 비슷할 것이다)은 이 수상에 대한 훨씬 더 많은 신뢰를 얻을 것이다.그것은 또한 단순화 될 수 있기 때문에 수여되는 것이 몇 가지밖에 없다. (내 머리 위로는 기물 파손, 축간별 편집, 축간별 편집, 상징적인 기여 축간별 및 마이너 편집 축간별 편집(지칠 줄 모르는 업무용)나는 내가 받을 만하다고 생각하는 첫 번째 것을 방금 주었지만, 이것은 2007년 1월 19일 (UTC) RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:04, 아무나 그들에게 줄 수 있기 때문에 보여지지 않는다.

나는 그것이 백과사전 편집으로부터 사람들을 끌어내어 더 관료적인 투표로 이끄는 것이라고 생각한다.헛별은 한 사용자가 다른 사용자의 기여를 감사하는 상징으로 남을 수 없는가?Trebor 23:08, 2007년 1월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 분명히 이것에 반대하며, 당신의 직책에 대해 더 이상 오해의 소지가 있는 직함을 생각할 수 없다.당신은 단순히 그것들을 만들고 싶은 것이 아니라, 오히려 지시의 소름끼치는 것을 만들고 싶은 것이다.Superm401 - Talk 23:16, 2007년 1월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

그러나 확실히 그것은 사람들이 편집하도록 자극할 것이고, 그들의 기여는 의미 있는 '위키피디아상' 라이언 포스틀스와이트^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:18, 2007년 1월 19일 (UTC)[응답하라]로 보상받을 수 있을 것이다.

너무 관료적이고, 게다가 헛소리는 그렇게 중요하지 않다.한 편집자는 다른 편집자가 다른 편집자를 받을 자격이 있다고 생각하기 때문에 지금 당장 모든 헛간 스타들은 자격이 있다.내게는 충분히 좋았다.가리온96 (대화) 03:35, 2007년 1월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

헛별의 요점은 한 편집자가 다른 편집자를 감상하는 상징으로서만 의미가 있다는 것이다.그것은 합의된 성과주의 보상이 아닌 매우 개인적인 비공식적인 것이다.미트볼:반스타.이상적으로, 사람들은 헛간을 찾는 것을 편집하지 않는다.그들은 장려책이 아니라 명예가 되어야 한다.Superm401 - Talk 04:43, 2007년 1월 20일 (UTC)[응답]

헛스타는 단순히 작은 감사의 표시로 여겨지지 않는가? --J.L.W.S. 2007년 1월 23일 스페셜 원 14:05 (UTC)[응답]

네, 작고 개인적인.내가 빅딜처럼 보이게 했다면 그러지 말았어야 했어.Superm401 - Talk 06:35, 2007년 1월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

진실성

때때로 증명할 수 있고 명백하며 검증할 수 없을 정도로 사실이 아닌 기사가 제출된다.아마도 고의적으로, 때로는 우발적으로.그런 기사가 {{speed}}} 태그를 얻지 못한다고 가정하면, 아마 {{AfD}}}까지 갈 수 있을 것이다.이 시점에서 AfD 고장의 이유로 WP:TRUE. 하지만 이 태그는 존재하지 않는 것 같다. (TAG WP:진실은 그렇다, 그러나 내가 위키피디아에 있어서는 안 된다고 생각하는 유머러스한 에세이로서만 그렇다.다른 항목).나는 그것이 가능하다는 것을 알고 있는데, 이 태그를 만드는 것이 합리적일까?의심할 여지 없이 사실적으로 사실이 아닌 것으로 보일 수 있는 기사는 그대로 유지되어서는 안 된다.보통 다른 태그가 적용되니 고맙지만, 이번 태그가 아주 편리할 것 같아.그리고 전적으로 동의한다. --Anthony.bradbury 17:22, 2007년 1월 21일 (UTC)[응답하라]

주제가 사실이 아닌 것으로 알려져 있고, 애초에 기재된 이유가 되는 것에 대한 페이지를 어떻게 다룰 것인가.예를 들어, 장난?

퍼펙트블루 17:56, 2007년 1월 21일 (UTC)[응답하라]

나는 이 제안된 템플릿이 무엇을 포함할 것인지, 그리고 그것이 이미 존재하는 것에서 어떻게 벗어날 것인지에 대해 매우 불분명하다.기사가 날조라는 의미에서 사실이 아닌 경우, {{hoax}}} 이미 존재하고, 신속한 삭제 기준을 충족하지 못하면 기사를 게재하거나 후방으로 가져갈 수 있다.이 새로운 태그가 여기에 어떤 것을 더할까?새로운 빠른 삭제 기준을 제안하는 경우 WT에서 제안할 수 있음:CSD. 하지만 여기, 여기, 그리고 다른 방법들에 대한 사전 논의를 주목하라.기사의 진실성에 의문을 제기하는 경우, 그 (무)진실에 대한 짧은 대답은 올바른 연구, 즉 기사의 주장된 진실과 대상자의 주장된 진실, 즉 논의 없이 삭제하기에 적합한 문제가 아닌 올바른 사실을 입증하는 연구에 의존해야 한다.

만약 당신이 그 주제에 대해 의문을 제기하지 않는 기사에 대해 말하고 있다면, 단지 기사에서 그 주제에 대해 다루는 것, 나와 대부분의 편집자들은 삭제가 올바른 경로가 아니라고 믿는다.우리의 정책은 이미 신뢰할 수 있는 출처, 검증가능성, 그리고 독창적인 연구를 금지하고 있으며, 논쟁중인 어떤 비협조적인 진술들은 기사에서 삭제될 수 있다.그래서 만약 편집자가 기사를 진실되게 편집하려고 하거나 편집하지 않는다면, {{fact}, {{unreference}, {{disputed}, {{totallydisput}} 등의 기사 태그와, 이와 같이 주장된 허위사실을 삭제할 수 있는 능력이 이미 이 영역을 커버하고 있다.

그래서 만약 여러분이 어떤 기사가 거짓에서처럼 사실이 아니라고 말하는 것에 동의한다면, 삭제의 근거는 그것이 거짓이라는 것, 그것이 독창적인 연구이거나 검증할 수 없는 것이라는 것, 또는 심지어 진실에 관계없이 더 넓은 세상에서 쓰여지지 않는 덕목으로 주목을 받지 못한다는 것이다.만약 여러분이 "현재 쓰여진 텍스트는 이 실제 주제에 대해 사실이 아니다"라고 말한다면, 여러분은 삭제하는 것이 적절한 대응책이 아니라는 것을 듣게 될 겁니다.그래서 이 태그가 실제로 뭐라고 할까?--Fuhgett it 18:53, 2007년 1월 21일 (UTC)[응답하라]

나의 의문을 불러일으킨 진술은 삭제된 이후, 2002년에 그는 WP의 제안 없이 기존의 데이터 베이스를 검색함으로써 명백히 거짓인 세계 랭킹 100위 안에 들었다고 주장된 한 테니스 선수에 대한 기사에 포함되었다.OR. 내가 보기에 아무리 잘못해서 장난으로 의도한 거짓과 속이거나 오도하려는 의도를 가지고 고의적으로 말하는 거짓 사이에는 차이가 있다.

사용자가 묻는 질문에 답변하려면:Fuhghtt에 대해, 태그에는 "이 기사는 사실적으로 사실이 아닌 진술들을 포함하고 있다"라고 쓰여 있을 것이다.편집자는 다른 삭제 태그 또는 명령과 함께 사용할 수 있는 일반적인 기록을 여전히 가지고 있을 것이다.그냥 물어본 거야 - 제발 물지 마!---앤소니.브래드베리 19:43, 2007년 1월 21일 (UTC)[응답하라]

거짓은 "속이거나 속이려는 의도된 행위"이기 때문에 "속이거나 오도하려는 의도를 가지고 말하는 고의적인 거짓"과 거의 유사하다.난 차이를 모르겠어.Trebor 19:49, 2007년 1월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그것을 동기부여의 차이로 본다.속임수는 사람들을 짜증나게 하거나 혼란스럽게 하거나, 그들이 그렇지 않았다면 하지 않았을 방식으로 행동하도록 하기 위해 고안된 것이다.거짓말은 어떤 식으로든 진술을 하는 사람에게 유리하도록 고안된 것이다.하지만 그것은 정말 큰 문제가 아니며 나는 내가 그것을 제안하지 않았더라면 좋았을 것이라고 생각한다.시간과 인내심에 감사하다.--Anthony.bradbury 19:54, 2007년 1월 21일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 "Frake"라고 했을 때, 나는 정말로 "Frake"에 관한 페이지를 의미한 것이지, "Frake"라고 말한 것은 아니다.예를 들어, 한 신문에서 뽑은 주목할 만우절 농담을 다룬 페이지.그 페이지는 그 내용이 허위라는 것을 알면서도 신문을 인용할 수 있었다.퍼펙트블루 07:47, 2007년 1월 22일 (UTC)[응답하라]

산 세리프는 이런 일을 다루는 전형적인 예야2007년 1월 22일 23:46(UTC)

아니면 필트다운 맨.사용자:조이 (대화) 19:37, 2007년 1월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

WP:BOLLS 도움?>래디안트< 15:57, 2007년 1월 22일 (UTC)[응답]

참조

</노위키>

WP:FOOT를 발견했는가? (SEWilco 19:43, 2007년 1월 12일 (UTC)[응답하라]

참조 서식은 그렇게 어렵지 않다.참고문헌의 URL을 <ref>에 동봉하면 된다.</ref> 태그.예를 들어 참조가 http://google.com인 경우 다음과 같이 참조 형식을 지정한다: <ref>http://google.com</ref.

"외부 링크" 섹션 위에 (기사가 있는 경우) 다음 태그로만 구성된 "참고" 섹션을 추가한다. <참고/>

URL이 아닌 참조를 어떻게 포맷해야 할지 모르겠어. --J.L.W.S. 스페셜 원 09:13, 2007년 1월 13일 (UTC)[응답]

WP:CITET는 인라인 또는 종단 부분의 참조를 인용하는 데 사용할 수 있는 몇 가지 템플릿에 대한 링크를 제공한다.Night Gyr (토크/오이) 09:43, 2007년 1월 13일 (UTC)[응답]

몇 가지 더 살펴봐야 할 곳이 있다.위키백과:인용문 빠른 참조, 위키백과:매뉴얼 오브 스타일(링크)과 WP:CITE. 그러나 나는 그들이 얼마나 "평범한 영어"인지 잘 모르겠다.존 브로든 토크 2007년 1월 13일 (UTC) 15:52 (응답)

다른 누군가가 "참고"나 "각주"에 문제가 있어서 다행이다.내가 알아낸 것은:- 이것은 끝부분에 열거된 참조 목록을 참조할 수 있는 작은 위첨자 "[1"을 제공해야 한다는 것이다.그러나 동일한 참조가 두 번 이상 참조되고 따라서 두 번 이상의 참조 번호가 지정된 경우 어떻게 해야 하는가?(이 질문에 대한 답을 읽을 수 있도록 이 페이지를 다시 찾을 수 있기를 바래!!)오스본 11:24, 2007년 1월 19일 (UTC)[응답]

동일한 참조를 두 번 인용해야 하는 경우 를 사용하고 다시 참조해야 할 경우 이름이 동일한 위치를 사용하십시오.무적의 15:04, 2007년 1월 23일 (UTC)[응답하라]

감사합니다, 여러분.그것은 효과가 있다. 하지만 한 번의 실수가 있고 나머지는 촬영에 들어간다!그러나 한 가지 더 궁금한 점은:…."와: ...고맙다는 것 사이에 차이가 있는가이다.Osborne 09:03, 2007년 1월 25일 (UTC) Oh ...는 편집이 아닌 "편집"에만 나타나 - QuereOsborne 09:05, 2007년 1월 25일 (UTC)편집일 때만 감상(말씀)이 된다.오스본 09:09, 2007년 1월 25일 (UTC)[응답]

...는 단지 하나의 예일 뿐이었다.원하는 이름(...보다 한 가지 더 설명적인 이름)을 사용할 수 있다.참조를 사용할 때마다 이름이 동일한지 확인하십시오.메타:Cite.php#Multiple_uses_of_same_machnote를 참조하십시오.Superm401 - Talk 08:03, 2007년 1월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

일부 단락

통념과는 달리 하늘은 파랗지 않다.^[2]

링크를 포함한 각주에 대한 쉬운 안내선을 발행하십시오.

나는 초보라서 간단한 각주 단추나 기술적으로 어려운 사람들을 위해 간단한 영어로 된 웹 기사에 대한 링크를 만드는 방법에 대한 어떤 종류의 지시사항도 찾을 수 없다.인용 링크를 만드는 방법에 대한 간단한 지시사항을 게시할 수 있는가?어떻게 하는지 알 수 없기 때문에, 나는 그 정보를 포함시키고 싶은 사람을 위해 편집 라인 요약에 참고 자료를 넣어 왔다.하지만 나 혼자서는 할 수 없다.그 지시들은 나에게는 전혀 희랍어다.도움말? —앞서 서명되지 않은 코멘트는 FirthFan1(토크 • 기여) 18:40, 2007년 1월 12일(UTC)에 의해 추가되었다.퍼스팬1, 2007년 1월 12일 18:40[응답]

여기 정말 간단한 예가 있다. 도움이 되기를 바란다.—dgies^{t c} 18:46, 2007년 1월 12일 (UTC)[응답]

  == [[Wikipedia:Images for Upload]] ==  I have created [[Wikipedia:Images for Upload]]. I wonder if someone can change the text in [[MediaWiki:Uploadnologintext]] to inform unregestered users tbat they can suggest an image that is online for creation there.--[[User:Natl1 Natl1]]<small> ([[User_Talk:Natl1 Talk Page]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Natl1 Contribs]])</small> 23:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC) :Place your proposed text on [[MediaWiki talk:Uploadnologintext]] and place an {{tl editprotected}} template on the page; that will (eventually) attract the attention of administrators who will make or decline the change. --[[User:ais523 ais523]] 13:20, 29 January 2007 ([[User:ais523 U]][[User talk:ais523 T]][[Special:Contributions/Ais523 C]])  == Thesis ==  Wondering if anyone has posted a finished thesis?  I just finished mine and think it would be a great learning tool/exercise to see what the Wiki-gang would edit.  Also anyone know how i would go about posting it?  Thnx <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Bkado Bkado]] ([[User talk:Bkado talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bkado contribs]]) 21:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> :Well there are a number of problems regarding this. First, Wikipedia does not [[WP:NOR publish original research]] which, most likely, is what your thesis is. Secondly, depending on the institution and country where you submitted your thesis, the copyright might not entirely be yours (I know this is the case in Canada). Thirdly, Wikipedia consists of mostly short articles. A much better idea is for you to start editing pages related to work presented in your thesis and to share your knowledge of both the subject and the literature concerning the subject. If you have been able to write a thesis, you should be able to make very significant improvements to a number of articles. Cheers, [[User:Pascal.Tesson Pascal.Tesson]] 21:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC) :You probably could post it on wikibooks or wikiversity; they're not limited to encyclopedic writing. [[User:Night Gyr Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over Oy]]) 13:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)  == [[Auschwitz concentration camp]] ==  I do fully understand the policies enshrined in[[WP:BLOCK]] and in [[WP:PROTECT]]. But there are some articles, such as this one, which carry a significant emotive significance to many peoiple, and yet appear to be a prime target for vandalism. Yes, I know it can be reverted, and I spend a fair bit of time doing this. Is it not possible for selected  articles, chosen by consensus or by whatever means the community accepts, to be permanently semi-protected?--[[User:Anthony.bradbury Anthony.bradbury]] 23:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC) :[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046890.html Jimbo Wales on the matter] Some pages are sprotected continuously, but I think a very high level of vandalism would be needed to justify it (I haven't looked at this page in particular). [[User:Trebor Rowntree Trebor]] 19:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)  How high would you classify as very high? This article averages a vandal hit on a daily basis. An addtional point, which I tried to suggest earlier, is that vandal edits here can have a highly damaging emotional impact on people who are/were closely involved; Jimbo's example of [[George W Bush]] may well be hit more often, but I would suggest with less damage to people concerned. Except for George and prospective Republican candidates. --[[User:Anthony.bradbury Anthony.bradbury]] 20:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)  :Four vandalism edits today. How high is very high, I ask again?--[[User:Anthony.bradbury Anthony.bradbury]] 22:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)  ::The current semi-protection policy clearly discourages preemptive semi-protection. However, I think it would be reasonable to tweak the policy so that semi-protection could be used in such cases where typical vandalism is extremely offensive to a number of people. In any case, this is probably something you should bring up on the policy's talk page. [[User:Pascal.Tesson Pascal.Tesson]] 17:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)  :::I personaly think that this page should be permanently sprotected.  == smarter random articles ==  Why not provide users with intelligent suggestions based on personal usage as well as random articles. It shouldn't be too difficult to implement, a fairly simple neural network would suffice. Pandora.com is able to do it with music, a medium exponentially more difficult to analyze then a web of text data, imagine what Wikipedia can do with all the data it has combined with a person's viewing habits. Assuming ofcoarse the user is logged in while viewing and wiki records which pages are viewed. [[User:Vahe.kuzoyan Vahe.kuzoyan]] 23:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)  :Unfortunately, it falls down on the latter - no data like this is viewed. The only user-linked things recorded are edits and similar "interaction" activities; pageviews and the like aren't tracked in any significant way. [[User:Shimgray Shimgray]]   [[User talk:Shimgray talk]]   23:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)  *You're after [[User:SuggestBot]]'s services, I believe. --[[User:tjstrf tjstrf]] <small>[[User talk:Tjstrf talk]]</small> 01:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)  :I hit "Random article" ten times, and got four sportsmen. That's wholly disproportionate, but at least made me think the current situation over. :One idea was to somehow rate all pages as either main, subtopic of different level or leafs; Hockey being a main topic, NHL a subtopic and Wayne Gretzky a "leaf". I believe, in some part, this is already done, though I'm not all THAT familiar with Wikipedia. Anyway, the next part would be either making Special:Random point only to main or subtopic pages, and/or put a toggle for it in each user's settings. :This is just one possible solution to the problem I perceive with the Random link - that I, after 20some clicks still hadn't found a topic I found interesting to read. :[[User:From from]] 16:05, 23 January 2007 (GMT) ::I usually get towns. Though 10 clicks just now got me 2 sportsmen, a composer, 3 towns, 2 movies [[House of Sand and Fog one of which I'd seen]] (and hated), a river, and [[Charles Dickens]]. But there actually is a reason to let Random really be random: it's supposed to show the complete breadth of Wikipedia's article content. Not just the important stuff. --[[User:tjstrf tjstrf]] <small>[[User talk:Tjstrf talk]]</small> 23:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC) :or perhaps an option for a simple 'Random Popular Article', which would use page views as criteria for the pool of random articles.  Set an arbitrary pageview threshold - say, 5000 in the past 6 months.  It would effectively eliminate many small towns, bad movies, forgotten actors, non-legendary sports figures, unimpressive landmarks, etc.  But leave the old random article navigator for those who do enjoy finding out about a village in Irkutsk, pop 101. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/68.142.59.155 68.142.59.155]] ([[User talk:68.142.59.155 talk]]) 04:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> ::There is no data available on page views of en.wikipedia.org pages.  Given the volume handled by servers, it was decided that this feature would be turned off.   ::On a more constructive note, it would be nice to have options for random pages:  Featured articles only, Featured and Good articles only, articles over a certain size (bytes) only, come to mind.  -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:18px;">[[User:John Broughton John Broughton]] </font>  <sup>[[User talk:John Broughton  ☎☎]]</sup> 20:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)  == More detailed statistics ==  Hi, I've recently done quite a few edits to philosophy-related articles - there are a lot of articles there that sure can use some help, even if it is just adding cleanup or warning messages when necessary. So the question for me is: what to edit first? Which articles really ''need'' to be good, mostly due to the fact that they are visited so often ergo that they are relied on so much. I've checked the wikipedia statistics but there seem to be none for individual pages - am I missing something?  Secondly, if this could be combined with a rating system for articles (perhaps only for registered users and invisible for normal users, perhaps for everybody) there would be a quick and effective way to judge which pages need work most urgently, namely for a rating of 1 to 5:  (5 - avg rating) * pageviews = urgency Of course the numbers only make sense when you compare different articles, but I think it would be a nifty feature. Haven't posted it yet to BugZilla as suggested because I'd like your opinions first.  [[User:Stdbrouw Stdbrouw]] 14:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC) :For overall statistics, there's the ever-amusing [http://hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org/%7Eleon/stats/wikicharts/index.php?wiki=enwiki&ns=alle&limit=100&month=01%2F2007&mode=view Wikicharts], although you can only see the top 1000-2000 pages. [[User:Trebor Rowntree Trebor]] 16:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC) ::And for those top 1000, minor cleanup or warning messages isn't what is needed.   ::So, to get to the root cause of why this isn't possible within the wiki:  the English Wikipedia has roughly 100 million views per day, and the view counter for articles has been turned off for performance reasons.   -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">[[User:John Broughton John Broughton]] </font>  [[User talk:John Broughton  (☎☎)]] 18:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC) :::Hm, good point, didn't know that. It might be possible, though, to get some approximate information with google statistics tho (# of searches of *article title*). [[User:Stdbrouw Stdbrouw]] 18:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)  :We have a rating system where articles are assigned a class and importance, which I think is pretty adequate really. I don't think allowing just anyone to rate an article and taking the mean is better, since a lot of people wouldn't be a very good judge (e.g. rating an article highly because it has simple language and pretty pictures). A consensus rating is much better, and I also feel the same about importance (which shouldn't be judged by popularity). All we need is more good editors working on focused WikiProjects. [[User:Richard001 Richard001]] 18:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC) ::I'd basically just like _any_ sort of rating, a system where everyone can submit his rating is merely one of the simpler ones and perhaps interesting for alerting editors when an article is rubbish when previously they might not even have ''known'' about the article its existence. Concerning the existing importance/class designations: in general these are useful, but e.g. for editors like myself who concern themselves with a single and limited field (e.g. philosophy) it is possible that all but a few articles are of lower ''general'' importance while being, within their field, of a relatively higher importance. But anyhow, a rating system is not of paramount importance of course. [[User:Stdbrouw Stdbrouw]] 19:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC) :::You could tag it and notify the appropriate wikiproject. [[User:Night Gyr Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over Oy]]) 21:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)  == links to disambiguation pages == Wikipedia could have a special page that shows pages that have links to disambiguation pages (ie, with the tag), allowing the community to fix up those links. This would utimately make the "what links here" tag more useful.   Hmm - maybe a bot could send a user a mesage if they add a link to a page and that link is to a disambiguation page.  [[User:Paul Murray Paul Murray]] 23:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)  :There's [[Special:Disambiguations]]. [[User:Tra Tra]] [[User:Tra/MyComments (Talk)]] 17:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)  ::I think the idea of a bot is a good one; you might want to post something at [[Wikipedia:Bot requests]].  -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">[[User:John Broughton John Broughton]] </font>  [[User talk:John Broughton  (☎☎)]] 18:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)  == Better Random article ==  Could someone improve the random article feature? For example, it would be very useful if one could randomize among science-related articles and so. --[[User:Taraborn Taraborn]] 22:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC) :Computer programs can't determine what an article is about. So, it would have to grab it from categories, which excludes articles that haven't been categorized, and it would probably cause far too much server load. -[[User:Amarkov Amark]] <small>[[User_talk:Amarkov moo!]]</small> 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC) ::Computer programs can, but that wouldn't be easy to program. Obviously I meant grabbing from categories, anyway. It would be just a filter for articles that don't fit your requirements, I don't think that would cause too much server load. --[[User:Taraborn Taraborn]] 13:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC) :::See also the discussion above: [[#smarter random articles]].  -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">[[User:John Broughton John Broughton]] </font>  [[User talk:John Broughton  (☎☎)]] 18:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC) ::::Oh, sorry. Thanks. --[[User:Taraborn Taraborn]] 10:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)  == Read an article aloud ==  An idea came to me today, though I'm not sure if it has been discussed before. How about creating audio files of good/featured Wikipedia articles so that people can hear the content of the article read aloud. The audio files would only be a snapshot in time, and would be periodically updated by the community. Eventually, the community could work towards making Wikipedia navigable for the blind: one could use a microphone with voice commands to move throughout the website. -- [[User:Lask3r Lasker]] 00:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC) :See [[Wikipedia:Spoken articles]] ;-) --[[User:Quiddity Quiddity]] 03:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC) ''Italic text'' ::Wikipedia works very well on [[lynx (web browser) lynx]] and [[ELinks]], so I'm sure it works OK on braille and speech synthesis terminals.  But here's a better idea:  Why don't we include a picture-to-speech engine as well?  It should only take about 1000 words per diagram.--[[User:Slashme Slashme]] 12:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)  == Disable ''What links here'' from transcluded templates ==  The ''[[:meta:Help:What links here What links here]]'' function, I find, is a very useful tool in building up connections between articles.  Its effectiveness, however, has been limited recently by the development of very elaborate [[Wikipedia:Navigational templates navigational templates]].  Very few of the articles on these templates are actually directly relevant to each other, and navigational templates with dozens of items can seriously cloud up ''What links here'' research.  So I ask, #1 Is it technically possible to disable the backlinks, and #2 Are they any downsides I haven't anticipated?  Thanks.--[[User:Pharos Pharos]] 20:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC) :I think it would require a special additional parsing, because the tables of links are generated from parsed pages; and you'd need to generate a separate table for non-template links, or tag them as template or not.  This is a software thing, so you'd need to file a bug on it. [[User:Night Gyr Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over Oy]]) 22:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC) ::Thanks; I've discovered this has been reported as [http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1392 Bug 1392].  Please voice your opinion there.--[[User:Pharos Pharos]] 07:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)  == Dating Of articles ==  I think that people should be discouraged from using phrases such as "to this date", "recently" and any other of the many phrases that relate to the present. If such phrases must be used users should state the present date, e.g. "Over the last few months (Dec 2006 - Jan 2007) ...".  I have not edited many articles myself but as I read many articles I think about how others will read it in the future and how some of the authors comments will have lost much of their meaning because they have not been dated. Even now when I look something up I read sentences that are meaningless because you cannot tell when they have been written. Sure, the date that the article was last edited is at the bottom of the page but that doesn't mean much in such cases.  A couple of examples: <blockquote> From [[Darjeeling tea]]: "In recent years a high percentage of top quality Darjeeling tea has been bought by Japanese consumers at relatively high prices." </blockquote> <blockquote> From [[Total Annihilation]]: "Although Total Annihilation is over 9 years old it is still played actively today." - OK, this one's not quite so bad but you get the idea. </blockquote> Is there any way of flagging such occurrences so that the author can go back and fill the date in (or in some cases other people may be able to)?   Mark Speake 22:07, 24 January 2007 (GMT) :You're right, statements that become dated are discouraged under [[WP:DATED]].  I'm not aware of a way to mark these though.  If you want to change them, you can change them to use <nowiki>[[As of (year) As of]] instead. delldot   talk 00:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC) [답글]

 there's also {{update after}} for statements that you know will become dated, like "George bush is the current president of the united states." Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] A caveat: Some people go overboard with this. I was once accused of using dating prose for saying something like, "Jaunde Station was the German name of the city today known as Yaoundé." Now, there is absolutely no indication that that name will change anytime soon, so I fail to see the utility in saying, "Jaunde Station was the German name for the city that changed the spelling of its name to Yaoundé in 1918." — BrianSmithson 08:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Proposal: RfC/User Clerks
 There have been recent concerns raised about the Requests for Comment - User Conduct process, surrounding the functionality of the process and its results. Because the RfC process is open-ended and essentially uncontrolled, there are questions about its effectiveness in providing a venue for editors to express concerns and ensure that discussions about the actions of their fellow editors are productive and not simply a sanctioned method of attack. As well, the process of certifying RfCs as well as the lack of a closing method may cause other issues. 
Thus, I would like to propose the creation of a volunteer clerk corps to help smooth the RfC process. A draft of this proposal is available in my userspace (since I wasn't sure where to put it otherwise) and outlines the guidelines by which I suggest such a clerk system should work for RfC, as well as discussing some possible methods by which RfCs could be closed in a productive manner. It's had minimal outside input at this point; Guy has graciously provided some comments and ideas along the way, and I feel (especially after seeing two threads appear on WP:AN this morning regarding an uncertified RFC and a disputed closure) it's at a point where the community can take a look.  
Please do note that this is in no way intended to be a bureaucracy of any kind; these clerks would be no more than aids to smoothing the process - they would ensure that assistance is available for opening RfCs properly, certified RfCs are placed properly and uncertified ones are removed (protecting users from claims of inappropriate deletions), ongoing cases are monitored by neutral parties to ensure they remain on topic and don't devolve into attacks, and close and archive those that have reached the limit of their usefulness (again ensuring that users are protected from claims of improper closures). 
I appreciate any discussion the community may have, either here or on the proposal talk page. Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 I would strongly support this idea. At the moment WP:RFC/USER can often end in a mess and as such the process lacks community respect. Making it work better might also ultimately have a knock-on effect in reducing the number of cases that need go to ArbCom. Clerks seem a good way to manage the opening and closing of cases, and to ensure that the RfC process is stuck to. They can also offer help and advice to newer users wishing to start an RfC but unsure of how to go about it, or direct them to a more appropriate forum (e.g. informal mediation). WJBscribe 10:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 I don't think this is needed. This part of RFC functions well as it is, and in fact, with more input and regular maintenance happening than the rest of the RFC areas.  Nevermind, I read that as pertaining to the RFC username page (title being RFC/User is confusing), not user conduct. I don't think we need clerks for the username page. Do what you want with the conduct page.pschemp   talk 15:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 I'd note that of the bottom six open cases right now, most of which were opened in November, one was idle except for some signings from December 8 to January 25, when a previously uninvolved user added information; one has been edited once since December 9; one was idle from Dec. 31 to Jan. 23, when a user added a couple of signings; one has been idle since Jan. 2; one was entirely idle from Dec. 19 to Jan. 19; and the last was idle from Dec. 30 to Jan. 23. There is also one uncertified RfC - that has a bit of an issue in that it has no certifying editors but a number of editors in agreement with it - that should have probably been delisted almost a week ago. These are some maintenance jobs that could be handled by clerks who have a set of guidelines to work with. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 I feel this is a solution looking for a problem.  Right now the volume at RFC is not so great as to require such intervention, and we should not be adding needless levels of bureaucracy to Wikipedia.  Inactive requests just prove all the more how little this is needed.  Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 I appreciate the comments. This proposal came about after a short discussion on WP:AN, as there has been an issue noted with the lack of results from RfC. As I state above and in the proposal, there is absolutely zero intention of this being a bureaucracy, and I'm uncertain as to how you might see it as one. Inactive requests, to me, indicate a lack of efficiency in the process that could be assisted through the suggested creation of closing summaries and eliminate situations such as that surrounding the closure and subsequent reopening of the InShaneee case. That case also indicated that having someone to monitor whether an RfC is turning into an attack session or not could be useful. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] I may come off as crass saying this, but instead of creating some process to handle it, why not just handle it yourself?  Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 I would tend to agree with Peter; is there a need for a special group to do this? In other areas, the clerks are used to assist users with additional powers (Checkuser, ArbCom), and make most effective use of their time. Here, there's nothing stopping any editor performing these tasks (in fact, isn't that how the usually get done?), so there's no need to assign the tasks to a specific group. Am I missing anything with my appraisal? Trebor 00:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] I'm not saying that it would not be useful to have editors work together towards this common goal.  Rather, I am saying that there is no need for some formal structure as a "clerk corps" would be.  Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 I think my main thinking here is that there's no real structure for these kinds of tasks right now, so a random editor who wants to close an RFC hasn't got a specific route to take. I've absolutely no idea what to do with that one RFC that's been sitting there since the 19th, uncertified but signed by numerous editors, for example. And, I suspect that a random editor closing some RfCs, even after a period of inactivity, would get bitten. That's kind of where I'm coming from, as well as the fact that the system now has no firm closure to it - most RfCs just sort of stop. Some move to mediation or arbitration, but others just end; having a group who can put together a summary at closing and post it to the participants, to me, would provide an end point. Maybe referring to this as a "corps" is making it look too formal or official; perhaps I should have used "group" instead. I'm not suggesting a secret society or anything, and I apologize if that's the impression that was conveyed. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Well, the person closing after a period of inactivity shouldn't get bitten; it says archiving can happen "If no additional complaints are registered for an extended period of time, and the dispute appears to have stopped." If you think these RfCs need more structure (including, perhaps, a closing summary), then suggest it on the talk page and see what the consensus is. But I don't think there's a particular need to have a specific group to do this. Trebor 14:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Thanks to everyone who has participated in this discussion; it looks like somewhere along the line I misread the interest and need for this kind of service, so I'll withdraw the proposal as lacking community support. Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Wiki Translator idea
 I read recently how computers translate languages. Some use other text as references so i was thinking that you could make a translator that people can edit. For example you translate a Spanish sentence to English and it comes out all garbled but then you fix the grammar and maybe some of the words then send it back the next time someone translates a similar sentence the grammar would be much improved. After many edits it would work really well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.179.114.122 (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply] 
 The problem I see with this is that correct language so reliant on context; a word or phrase can mean something very different depending on what's being written about. So the fixes which work great in one case may be totally incorrect for another. Trebor 22:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yes, and let me stress the complexity of the problem. But first: computers don't translate languages very good – one can achieve a pretty acceptable (but not a poetic) machine translation for a limited topic field, or one can achieve an extremely bad machine translation for any sentence whatsoever, an extremely bad translation that might actually be partially intelligible for the knowledgeable reader. Now: (almost) everything is possible, given enough thought, enough resources and enough time, so we wish to make a translator that can create acceptable translations for any topic. Then we need a machine grammar – not too hard, and we also need a semantic notation for distinct meanings of words – in short: a new special language that unambiguously is able to describe anything of the source language and the translated language. The matter of different meanings of a word is technically solvable, but our special language must contain a distinct word for all those meanings. Now, the central problem is this: in order to make a translator, we need an entire nation of people speaking our artificial language to get enough volunteers to be able to make this dictionary. Rursus 23:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 A new concept for the display of time-related Wikipedia information
 I have been working on an intuitive display of decade, century and millennia information. It will be presented to the International Technology, Education and Development Conference in Valencia (Spain) on 7-9 March. Here is the gist of it: 
Today’s global world is experiencing the interaction between civilizations more than ever before. But the study of history and civilizations is still largely focused on one civilization at a time and does not encourage a time-synchronous view. This is obviously necessary for any in-depth study, but it narrows the viewing field by blanking out what happened in other parts of the world at the same time. 
‘Civilizations of the World’ is a web-based application developed to overcome this limitation of histo¬rical study. It presents a time synchronous view of different civilizations that existed since 3000 B.C. It shows the events that occurred and the prominent people who lived different civilizations on a common timeline. The user interface we designed is user friendly and organized in a way that all important information is typically just a ‘click’ away from the client’s location. The application is available on a portable media such as DVD and can be run effectively on any commonly used computer equipped with either Internet Explorer or Mozilla browser and at least 512 Mb of RAM. 
The entire package (database, maintenance mode and runtime mode) is supplied as a stand-alone DVD and can thus be used without connection to the internet. By copying the DVD content to their computer users can personalize their copy of the Time Atlas by adding new entries, deleting unwanted entries and modifying entries to their requirements. Alternatively, the Time Atlas can be opened up for data entry by anyone. This will require installation of the Time Atlas and its maintenance facilities on the web. The authors intend to approach the Wikipedia team with a proposal to use the new Time Atlas as a display tool for Wikipedia’s vast amount of information. 
The full short paper is available from http://www.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/civilizationspaper.pdf for download. Please glance through it and see what it's worth. If there is enough support for the concept I'll try and get a group up to see it implemented. Matthias Tomczak 12:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 A coherent stub is better than incomprehensible, machine-translated gibberish
 As a regular patroller of the copy-edit backlog, I often come across awful articles that are just dumps from those amazing machine-translation tools out there on the Internet. There's no way one can copy-edit the article into something coherent. Can a guideline be written up that states that a coherent stub is much more beneficial to Wikipedia and its readers, than a long, incomprehensible, machine-translated article? I tend to stub/remove gibberish anyway (see my contributions), but a guideline would be nice to point to on the off-chance some editor goes ballistic after finding his/her few seconds of hard work copying/pasting/hitting translate is nuked to a short summary. BuddingJournalist 12:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 Isn't Wikipedia:Translation#Caveats sufficient? TERdON 12:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Ahh, thanks. Didn't know my thoughts were written down somewhere already. :) BuddingJournalist 12:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Special:Upload should link to the deletion log
 I want to suggest that the Special:Upload page have a link to the deletion log. That way, when clicking on the red link of an image that used to be there, it's easier to see what happened to it. Where, if not here, can I suggest this? — coelacan talk — 02:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 I completely agree here. It is a paint to have to "create" the link by hand. -- ReyBrujo 02:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Make a {{editprotected}} request on MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext with a formatted link. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 crap, I just tried using the link from mediawiki:newarticletext and it doesn't work because the pagename is "Special:Upload", not the name of the image.  Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] I was trying to figure out the syntax and you beat me to it. It does seem to be working now; I just tested it at a place where I know an image once was. I'd only suggest now enclosing the link in <span class="plainlinks"></span> to make it not stand out. — coelacan talk — 03:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 I propose a brand new section that will help improve and make learning new information more fun; "Wikiquiz".
 This is a suggestion about a new section for Wikipedia. Now and again, i like to increase my general knowledge here, but it generally can get boring, especially reading long articles. "Wikiquiz" would help learning become more exciting and enjoyable, and it brings something different to the mix, as it's interactive. 
What it would comprise is you read through seperate small to medium random passages (or from a specialized category) You read through it, and you have to memorize it, click to the next page and then answer the questions corressponding to that passage, and then you get a mark of the ones you got correct out of so many questions. Now it could be the sensible users(not open to edit for non-users) who make the questions up, or in some computer generated way, i don't know how, i'm not that knowledgable technically. There is really nothing like this on the internet at present.  
I think this is a great idea and would be a great addition to Wikipedia. I hope you value my opinion and consult it with other users, and the administrator, or whoever is in charge of this site. This will enhance memorising skills as well as expanding your general knowledge, because simply reading articles can get too boring over time. 172.202.245.129 18:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 There have been games and contests like this in the past; you might try looking at this page to start with.
 ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk Contribs)}problem solving 20:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 Thanks, i never noticed this link, however you would say it's limited(only one round in wikiquiz)I'm talking about something that has questions for nearly every topic, and allows you to memorise facts in the same article, which helps young people's revision skills. We're talking about something more widespread. You could have potentially a questions tab for an article, and it will be very accessible to get from one random topic to another. So i'm not the first one to come up with the Wikiquiz game lol, but that doesn't matter.
 Hall of Fame
 I request everyone's input regarding this idea, to create a hall of fame to celebrate the editors who've made lasting, non-revertable contribution to the Wikipedia project and deserve some permanent form of recognition, which may serve as an inspiration to the growing community of newer editors. Rama's arrow 18:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 https secure wikipedia
 Would it be possible to set up an https server for wikipedia too? --Timmywimmy 16:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 It's here. Tra (Talk) 17:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Picture of the Year/2006/banner1
 Does this belong in article space?  Corvus cornix 23:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 It has been moved to template space.  -- John Broughton   (☎☎) 18:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Thank you. Corvus cornix 17:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 AfD new articles with "awesome"
 I am virtually certain that this idea will be jumped on from a great height, bu It make it because of my extreme irritation generated by new page patrolling. Is there any way in which any new article containing the word "awesome" can automatically be listed for deletion review? Any editor who does NP patrolling will recognise this phenomenon immediately.--Anthony.bradbury 23:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 I do WP patrolling, what happens if the article mentions awesome from an independant review? there are many words like awaesome which come in new articles, however there are also legitimate uses for these words and tagging for deletion would be unfare to these RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 I did say deletion review, not deletion, but ok, fair point.--Anthony.bradbury 20:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] I don't think that a bot to list articles at AfD is a good idea; if nothing else, a human is better at reviewing an article to determine if speedy delete is better than an AfD, and better at explaining why whatever kind of delete is being recommended is in fact appropriate.  -- John Broughton   ^(♫♫) 00:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Suggest "awesome" be added to the various vandalism/bad new article watching bots/programs out there.  User:Lupin has one, the IRC anti-vandalism folks have one, there may be others I haven't thought of... JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 
 "You have new messages"
 I changed MediaWiki:Youhavenewmessages and MediaWiki:Newmessageslink so the new messages bar read "Your user talk page has been edited (last change).".  I made these changes because not all edits to user talk pages are caused by the posting of new messages.  I have since reverted my edits because two people didn't agree with them and I'm starting this discussion so more people can comment.  J Di 19:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 Most (the vast vast majority) of the time it does correspond to new messages, and saying "user talk page has been edited" is less obvious to people who aren't familiar. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] I tried to change the message earlier (look at the history) but people wouldn't go along with it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 If memory serves me, there are are two links in a row in that yellow box. It could possibly be made clearer if we added the word(s) "see" or "see the" before the 2nd link.
 It is very often the second "meta" interaction users have with the site, after creating an account or making a first edit; leading them to welcomes or warnings. "(last change)" by itself might sound confusing. --Quiddity 20:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 You have new messages (see last change) 
 I think the message should definitely be understandable for new users, and 'you have new messages...' does just that. Most new users won't understand what a user-talk page is. There is a risk that the infamous orange box will just be ignored by users if they don't understand it. --ais523 16:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC) 
 What I think causes a lot of confusion is that clicking on "last change" doesn't clear the message bar - users continue to see until they click on "new messages".  I think something like this might cause less confusion:
 You have new message(s) at your user talk page (option: see just the last change to that page) 
 -- John Broughton   ^☎☎ 19:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Last change clears it for me. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Wikimedia sister projects
 I'm not sure if I've come to the right place, I guess this could be placed under technical discussions too, though it is a fairly general sort of request. 
I frequently want to visit a related sister project page - for example I'll be editing the slug article and I'll notice it has no commons link, so I'll go to commons and look it up. But from the wikipedia page there are no direct links to the commons page, or even commons itself. I suppose I should have bookmarked a few of the sister sites I visit more often, but wouldn't it be easier if each page had links somewhere to the other projects? The first place I considered was linking simply to the sister projects as on the main page right down the bottom left, with tiny thumbnails on the right of the Wikimedia project logo. The other possibility is linking to existing pages on other sister projects down the left hand side above or below the language links. This may actually be a better idea, as links could be placed in a similar fashion to languages. 
Perhaps this a proposal that should be taken to meta, or perhaps it has already been suggested before by others, I don't know. Just thought I'd put it forward and see what response I get. Richard001 20:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 There are templates for linking to sister projects.  {{commons}} and the rest of Category:Interwiki link templates.  Integrating it into the software would be a bit less flexible, since there isn't much room in that column for a description of what you're linking to. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Yes, adding the links manually would basically be a less effective form of what we have at the moment now that I actually give it some thought. How about a collection of links to the other project's main pages from the bottom left corner, perhaps under (or to the right of, in some screens such as the editing layout) the Wikimedia project logo? Do you think it could be worked into the layout, or is there not really room for such?
 They are only a click away, and I've moved the ones I use most often onto my bookmarks toolbar anyway, though it could still be a useful addition to the layout if there's room, and by using small icons of each project's logo they may fit in. Richard001 08:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 (See also these templates: Wikipedia:Sister projects#Several/All Wikimedia Sister projects in box)
 Something like the following mockup; but I also would've thought it had already been suggested? and hence either rejected or bug-requested?
  this topic at
  Wiktionary
 Wikiquote
 Wikisource
 Commons
 
 
 Feedback? --Quiddity 07:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 This is Bug 708, there is also a mockup at the top of the bug page (very similar to yours Quiddity :-).--Commander Keane 03:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Perfect! Thanks :) Duly voted. --Quiddity 21:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Userbox policy/guidline
 I am proposing that we have a userbox policy or guidline, there have recently some rather heated discusions at the admin noticeboard as to what is acceptable and what isn't for a userbox. These discusions can be found here and here. This policy would bring clarity as what is acceptable and not and mean that these debate would not be as heated RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 That would be something like Wikipedia:Userboxes, Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes, or Wikipedia:Userspace abuse?  -- John Broughton   (☎☎) 01:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Naming issues with new category
 I'm not sure this is the right place for my question, but I couldn't find a better place. I was thinking about creating a category for sports structures/surfaces, like tennis court, football pitch, cricket field, boxing ring, baseball field, volleyball court, basketball court, dojo, dohyo, hockey rink, etc. But what to name it? Category:Sports fields? But many of these are not fields. Sports pitches? Same problem. Sports structures? That would seem more appropriate for stadiums, not for the sports "fields" around which the stadiums are built. Sports facilities? Same problem. I'm lost for ideas. Does anyone have any suggestions? Aecis^Brievenbus 11:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 Sports playing surfaces? FT2 ^{(Talk   email)} 00:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Thanks a lot for the suggestion and the help :) I must say that "playing surface" makes me think of the substance that the rinks/fields/courts/etc. are made of (e.g. grass, astroturf, gravel), not the rinks/fields/courts/etc. themselves. I think Sports fields ("An area reserved for playing a game") comes closest to what I had in mind. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Semantic-Web edition
 We could make a Semantic Web edition of Wikipedia. It will be immensely useful in Artificial Intelligence. --Masatran 10:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 Just like the Semantic Web has been. *snicker* Seriously, it's easy to read hype about the Semantic Web and assume it can do things it doesn't do, such as organize a body of knowledge as vast as Wikipedia and successfully do any reasoning with it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  11:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 There are projects specifically intended to do this. See Semantic wiki, and there are also specific tagging schemes in place for things like biographical data. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Wikipedia:Notability (news)
 In a recent deletion debate about an article on someone who was murdered, there were several calls for a centralized discussion of whether a news story about a murder, a disappearance, or a human interest feature, which met the requirements for verifiability and multiple independent coverage in reliable sources, technically satisfying WP:V and [[WP:RS} by widespread coverage for a relatively short while, might still not be encyclopedic. To allow this proposal be discussed, I have created the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (news), and comment and contributions are welcome there. Thanks. Edison 21:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 I think it needs to be expanded quite a bit, however in principal I think its a good idea. My only concern is, that in it being a news item, wouldn't it simply automatically come under the juristiction of wikipedia:Notability? If its in the news, theres going to be plenty of reliable sources to back it up RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 This topic came up in discussion a little while ago, and I think there is a need for something like this. We live in a source-heavy time, where meeting the multiple non-trivial mentions in published works isn't especially hard, but most people still feel relatively small news events should be deleted. GabrielF had some ideas for how to measure the notability of recent events. Trebor 22:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] That one was deleted because it was already covered in the article, and didn't suffice for its own because of narrow scope. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 This proposal is contrary to the fundamental meaning and purpose of Notability on wikipedia.  It's a low bar; we're not paper, and major news events deserve coverage.  You can talk dismissively about anything, and that's why our notability isn't subjective.  We don't care if things are worthy of what an encyclopedia ought to cover; we just care if we can cover them to our standards. WP:UA is nothing but articles that a typical encyclopedia wouldn't have. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] But the last couple of times this came up, consensus seemed to be there was some limit. The example used previously was that of a fat cat, who had got caught inside a doggy door. It was a slow news day and multiple news services had covered it, so it was verifiable and notable. Under existing guidelines and policy there was no real reason to delete it. But is anyone arguing that this story is encyclopaedic, that it is worth its own article? Of course not. Not everything that is covered by the news, even by multiple news services, can seriously be considered notable. Trebor 23:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Single days events counts as single coverage.  If the only thing the cat ever did was get stuck in a doggy door, then no article.  If it's recognized by the mayor and gets the key to the city or something, then we've got more and we can get an article on it.  Why not have an article on it?  We don't have articles on people's pets because there's nothing we can say about them without violating policy, but we can write a good article on such a pet with sources and everything.  Since we're not paper, it's not hurting anything else.  Wikipedia's notability is not subjective, we can include anything that meets our policies, whether you think it's notable or not. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Observing other comments, it would be a really good idea to have a seperate news notability guidline, as I've said already, it needs to be expanded. I'm already thinking of the {{db-news}} template now! RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] "Single days events counts as single coverage." Do they? I haven't seen that before. Bug going back to the Beckham transfer (mainly because I've only just noticed your response). It was covered in a lot more detail in the specific article than in the other related articles and since when was "narrow scope" a reason for deletion. It happened over several days, it involved a lot of media attention, yet people still felt it should be deleted. Trebor 23:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Like having articles on single regularly football games where all you can say is a play by play and are better off being merged into a seasonal article.  A detailed article would be excessive, so narrow scope counts for deletion or merging there.  A single event, the single move, can and is covered in about as much detail as is possible without getting into trivia in the main article, so a specific article for the event has no reason to exist. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] But trivia is relative to the topic at hand. What may be trivia in David Beckham might be useful or pertinent information in the page specifically related to the move. Same for the judgement of how much information is excessive. I'm seeing your point (and I agree with most of it) but I think something somewhere needs to be changed to make it clearer. It's perhaps not necessary to create a full notability guideline, however it would be nice to have something more objective than the debates on the issue at the moment. Trebor 23:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 I don't think the propsal would put asside any major news articles, it would simply create a guidline for entry. There should be a guidline in place to stop minor news artilces getting into wikipedia due to reliable sources. Some thought to WP:RS should be given though RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 WP:RS is a guideline of its own.  If they can't meet that then use that as an argument for deletion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] I wasn't opposing it! I was saying that it should be an additional criteria to gain entry via reliable sources. There would be reliable sources to meet news articles. The new guidline would mean that no minor news stores were added RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Suggestion
 How about we move it out of wikipedia space and try and work on it to make it acceptable as a guidline, then we can re-propose it. I am more than happy to work on it RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 Wikipedia talk:Notability (news) might be a good place. And see there the internationally carried story over a 2 week period of Molly the cat, who got lost or stuck in the spaces inside the brick walls of an historic New York deli. Multiple international coverage for 2 weeks or so. Encyclopedic? Edison 00:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] We've got plenty of crazy stuff.  Whether anyone feels it's encyclopedic is irrelevant. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Being allowed to nominate ones own photos as "Featured"
 I think this is dumb. This one guy has over 1/10 of all the FP on WP. He nominated every single one of them (at least that I have seen.) I think WP users need to PULL the nice pictures they come across towards the community, not the nice photographers PUSH his or her photographs at the community. Does this make sense? --Indolences 05:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 No, not really. It's not like people here have enough social status that they can cause a featured picture discussion to end up however they please, unless the picture truly deserves it. So what's the point of banning people from nominating their own pictures? -Amark moo! 05:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 It just seems kind of stuck up to me. If it's good, someone will probably nominate it. Otherwise it just seems like a popularity contest. OH LOOK AT ME I HAVE 46546 FEATURED PICS! 
 I do have some strange opinions, however. --Indolences 05:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 For some reason I sense a certain amount of envy. Anyway, the decision is ultimately made by other editors as to whether or not an image is featured. Nominating your own photo might be vain at most, but it is not against policy. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 As said above, the judging is objective. A couple of users do account for a lot of the FPs, true, but that's not a problem. Considering the majority of pictures nominated are promoted, the alternative is to have a bunch of featured-quality pics not being promoted until someone "notices" them. Trebor 11:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Considering I know the guy you're referring to (this guy), I don't think it's dumb at all. It's like editcountitis. Do you see people going "Hey guess what. I have 5000 edits". That seems ludicrous as the article says. Image count is no different. We should be thankful that we have high-quality photographers, drawers and the like, rather than dismissing them for being "too good". Harryboyles 11:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Net contribution in bytes
 Would it be possible to create a feature that shows a user their net contribution (in bytes) to Wikipedia? This feature would show the net contribution by namespace (Main, Talk:, Wikipedia:, Wikipedia talk:, User:, User talk, etc.) and the net overall contribution. 
Even more useful might be showing the net change in bytes for each edit on the history page. 
This would just be an extension of an existing feature on certain pages (Special:Watchlist, Special:Recentchanges) that shows the net change in bytes made to an article (+ in green, - in red). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twas Now (talk • contribs) 05:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply] 
 Hehehe, so we could say "I have contributed 761 mb to Wikipedia"? :-) I think this cannot be done with a simple query, so don't expect anything like this, though. -- ReyBrujo 05:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 IIRC any implementation of this will not be as easy as it looks, because the Recent changes database table stores data only for a certain number of changes total. With our large number of changes per day the table stores data for only a month or so. Flyingtoaster1337 05:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] I'd like to see this for certain editors with obscene edit counts. -Amark moo! 05:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Reverting page-blank vandalism would result in the numbers getting ridiculously huge for little effort. --Random832(tc) 17:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 The perennial question
 This question gets asked very often, and for good reason. The watchlist page is self-explanatory except for those spunky numbers, which are not what anyone would expect to see in their browser bookmarks, etc. -- and we need a link on that page (as well as on Recent Changes) that anyone can click on and get the answer instantly. For each person that bothers to ask about it, there are probably a few dozen who don't. So I beg the powers that be to put in an explanatory link. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 03:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 If it is so troublesome, I would suggest changing the global css to hide the numbers, and only show them with custom CSS. -- ReyBrujo 05:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] How's this? (And that page is linked directly from everyone's watchlist, via the "... pages on your watchlist (excluding talk ..." link) I think that's enough, but maybe making it more prominent somehow... JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Watchlist lines could be modified to read (for example) "(+389 bytes)" rather than "(+389)". The six extra characters wouldn't result in an extra line in almost all cases.  That should be a trivial change to make, and I'd predict these questions would essentially end.  -- John Broughton   (☎☎) 02:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Removal of admin status after inactivity
 I recently came across User:GregRobson who has been an administrator since 2005, however, he has had less than 30 edits in the past year. I propose that administrators are stripped of there tools if they are inactive for long periods of time (maybe a minimum of 50 edits per month?). Wikipedia changes quickly, and inactive admins are suseptable to making poor decisions due to not following changes to wikipedia policy and guidlines. If User:GregRobson was to go to Rfa now, he would definately fail. This would only be a minor change as the majority of admins maintain good contributions RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 This has been discussed before. No one has ever given any example of an inactive admin coming back and making a very bad decision. The consensus seems to be that such a policy in this form at least would be needless policy. JoshuaZ 03:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Its just my opinion that when you go to Rfa, you go there with a certain number of edits per month (along with many other things) and you should alway be able to show that you deserve admin tools. There are plenty of people who go to Rfa who are simply refused for the number of edits they have, or edits in particular areas or simply, they are not active enough. I just think there should be a recall process for admins who don't use their tools RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 03:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 I think edit-count is a fair reason not to give somebody admin status, but not to take it away. I mean, it is a good reason not to give someone a driver's license if they have not driven much, but it is not necessarily a good idea to take away someone's driver's license if they have not driven much recently. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Agreed with Twas. The reason people are opposed for inactivity isn't that being an inactive admin makes you bad, but that inactivity does not allow a chance to judge if you'll be any good at adminship. -Amark moo! 03:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Without naming names (unless you insist), I do recall an instance in which a Wikipedia sysop returned after an extended absence and instigated a significant controversy by violating a policy that had changed during that time.  In my opinion, it would be reasonable to request that administers inactive for an arbitrary duration brush up on various policies (and learn of any changes) before making use of directly relevant sysop tools.  —David Levy 04:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 That would certainly be reasonable, but a problem is finding out about those changes. Wikispace is huge and there is no central change log or anything. >Radiant< 16:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 For example, before the sysop speedily deletes a page, he/she should re-read the relevant CSD.  Or if the sysop intends to block a user for a Wikipedia:Username violation, he/she should first re-read that page.  —David Levy 22:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Well maybe a template should be created that can be placed on seamlingly inactive admins user talk page advising to reread over policies before making any further admin descisions. A long period of inactivity will mean they most probably will not be familiar with policy RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Please see Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Demote inactive admins (this is a proposal I support, BTW). -- Rick Block (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Conflict of interest question
 Is it allowed to create/edit the article of an organization one belongs to? I know people who have article about themselves and are recommended not to edit them. --Indolences 17:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 There's an entire guideline about that; see WP:COI. --ais523 17:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Thanks for notifying me of this. Would someone be interested in taking a quick look at the page? I tried to create it as objectively as possible. It's the page for CATESOL. Thanks! In defense 20:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Personally, I think this information should be a section in the TESOL Inc. article.  I will post further at Talk:CATESOL and I suggest any further discussion be at that page.  -- John Broughton   (☎☎) 02:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 At least ALLOW email notification when my created page is altered
 I realize that email notification for changes to pages is currently not a feature, since that would mean some admins would be getting hundreds a day. Some of us lesser mortals, however, have only created one or two pages. One of mine is for a professional organization I belong to, and they're concerned there may be vandalism. So I'd like to know each time someone (anonymous or not) makes a change to it, without having to open my browser and go to the page myself. 
Why isn't this an option? Not allowing this seems to undermine a very democratic form of transparency. Admins who don't want the excessive email could just turn off the option. In defense 22:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 The technical people, I believe, say we simply don't have the resources to cope with even a relatively small number of people turning it on.
 However, if all you want is one or two pages to be watched this way, we do provide the capacity for RSS feeds of all edits to a given page - the syntax is  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PAGENAME&action=history&feed=rss
 Is that any help? Shimgray   talk   22:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] It would be a great help if I knew how to implement an RSS feed! ;) In defense 20:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Email notification for watchlist edits is in MediaWiki, but not enable on Wikipedia due to potential volume. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Is there a big difference between opening your browser to check your Watchlist and opening your browser to check your email? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Indeed there is: I don't use web-based email for exactly that reason - I don't like to have to open my browser for it. Instead I leave Eudora on in the background. In defense 20:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Signature timestamps
 Howdy. I have come to notice that the timestamps in signatures are rather distracting on talk pages. ~~~~~ currently produces 14:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC) Would it be possible to change the standard display, perhaps use <small></small> tags, and get rid of the "(UTC)"? For those opposed to this, perhaps we could display "Coordinated Universal Time" when a user rolls over the stamp. (like over the abbreviation's in this table). 
I saw User:Jorcoga's signature, and I rather liked the way the time is displayed, in a different font, so it stands out, but not in an imposing way: 
 Jorcoga ^Hi!_{08:28, Monday, January 29 2007} 
 Maybe we could make this a standard? I wouldn't know how to implement this, but I hoped you guys would - Jack (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 I think this is a mediawiki thing, so you'd need to either find the appropriate mediawiki page for the timestamp formatting, or put in a bug to request that feature is added to the software. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] How do I do that? Sorry, I know virtually noting about MediaWiki... - Jack (talk) 12:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 It seems to me that the timestamp is less distracting than gaudy signatures. Perhaps we should disable those as well? CMummert · talk 13:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] That argument was running in about 3 different places recently, and eventually the MediaWiki developers were requested to develop a feature for shortening/disabling/reducing length in edit box of signatures. Nothing seems to have come of it yet, though. --ais523 13:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC) My last comment was mostly written to point out that User:Jrockley, who is asking how to make the date smaller, has a signature wrapped in <big>. I don't mind the date being in a regular font; I usually don't read that far when reading comments. Maybe my sarcasm was too subtle. CMummert · talk 13:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 I'm working on changing my signature to incorporate all of this, but back to the mediawiki thing, how could I take it up with them? - Jack (talk) 11:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Get an account on mediazilla: (which, unfortunately, will end up revealing your email address, so you might want to get a temporary email address), and file it as an 'enhancement bug' (something which isn't an error but which would still improve MediaWiki if fixed). The change might eventually be made if a developer is interested enough to write the relevant code. --ais523 11:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 As far as getting rid of "(UTC)" - is there any reason they [timestamps] can't be displayed in the reader's local time? We do have timezone in preferences. --Random832(tc) 14:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 I think the main reason is to ensure that everyone is looking at the same times, and don't get the sequences confused.  Allowing times to be reformatted could lead to someone referring to a time that another doesn't see. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Edit requirement for new page creating
 Would it be possible to make it so that making new pages (not counting user and user talk pages) has a requirement of about 500 edits or so. I was looking at the next edition of the signpost, and it was mentioned that editcount could be used for this type of thing. Looking over the people who create most of the articles that are speedy deleted, they temd to be people with very few edits. THat is why II beleive that this addition to current policy would be a good idea. The Placebo Effect 14:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 Editcountitis is evil.  Enforcing it is worse. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] understood, but as I said, most SD articles are created by people with a negligable amount of edits. The Placebo Effect 14:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] How many good articles have been created by people with <500 edits?  A lot.  We can add all sorts of hoops for people to jump through, or we can assume good faith and give them the chance to produce good stuff or crap. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Realistically, we're talking about making newer registered editors go through Wikipedia:Articles for creation rather than being able to create articles directly.  The pluses and minuses involve whether this would deter some users from creating useful articles; whether being able to instantly create an article encourages a registered user to do more on Wikipedia; whether the screening process for proposed new articles is better or worse than the review by the new pages patrol (in terms of accepting good articles and rejecting bad ones); and the extent to which the screening process for proposed new articles requires less time and effort than the new articles patrol process combined with subsequent AfDs and admin work to delete an article.  -- John Broughton   (☎☎) 17:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] My first edit to the wiki (I think) was adding a article about:. Making it an editcount thing can be a form of biteing and can discourage new users. FirefoxMan 21:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 You've already said that you're basing this on speedy deletions, but speedying an article is a couple of  clicks and a couple of lines of typing; articles for creation is significantly more work. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 It could be worth considering to prevent sleeper vandal accounts; if they need a few edits, then they would be seen before they can create/move pages.  But currently this is allowed for 4 day old accounts; 500 edits/4 days = 125 edits/day for a new, active user to be equivalent to the current policy.  Wouldn't 10 or 20 edits be sufficient? -Steve Sanbeg 18:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 This idea would just make it so vandals would have to make a bunch of edits in addition to the end result of a spam article. And 500 edits is an insane amount for such a plan. I would put it at more like 10, but then again I don't like the idea. Plus it's easier to get rid of articles than it is edits. One can delete an entire thing as opposed to a little portion going unnoticed. What's next, 1,000 edits to upload an image?  -Indolences 18:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 I disagree - whatever limit is placed is necessarily arbitrary, and a determined vandal can easily get around it. How long would it take you to visit 250 pages, open for editing, insert a comma, then revert? We have bigger fish to fry, like middle school kids spending their mandatory internet research in class time, trying to find pages they can anonymously vandalize? Besides, what types of edits would you count as being "valid" toward the count? All edits? All edits that the editor himself has not flagged as being "minor"? would you treat a series of edits to the same page in one day as counting as one edit? Cbdorsett 06:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Encyclopedia Dramatica
 Why did you take the article away? 
 I propose bringing the article back. 
 It has no reliable sources. Please provide reliable sources if you want it recreated. -Amark moo! 05:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Semi-protection of "day" pages?
 It seems to me that the "day pages" (e.g., May 30) get a considerably above-average amount of vandalism, and almost everything useful that is added to them is added by registered users. Would we lose much if all 366 of them were semi-protected to allow only registered users to edit them? Grutness...wha? 05:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 Semiprotection should not be used for long periods. FirefoxMan 21:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Any reason why not? Grutness...wha? 02:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Firefoxman's reasoning is probably that it undermines the definition of a wiki. Cbrown1023 talk 02:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 I'm not clear how that could undermine the definition of a wiki any more than anything listed at Wikipedia:List_of_protected_pages/Long-term_protection. If other long-term protected pages aren't against the spirit of Wikipedia, how could these be? In any case, anyone would still be able to edit the pages if they've been editing for a while with a user name. It's hardly deadlocking the door. Grutness...wha? 02:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] What about the other 364/365 days of the year where there is little vandalism? The idea of long-term protection is for pages that suffer constant, wide-ranging protection and where short semi-protection would only be a bandaid fix. A lot of these are relatively controversial articles that are prime targets all the time. Day pages, I think, would really only suffer when it is the day the article is about. Harryboyles 11:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 I'm not sure I understand... are you saying that there is only likely to be vandalism on the day itself? There have been 28 instances of vandalism to the May 30 article in the last month - an average of almost one a day, and I doubt it is alone in this. of those, all but five were by anons, and anons made only one constructive edit. Multiply that by an average year, and we'd have over 300 instances of vandalism per day page, over 80% of them by anons. And that's even if there is not an increase around the day itself. Which there would appear to be, judging by the flurry of recent vandalism to articles like January 30. Vandalism to day pages is a year-round problem for all 366 of them. Grutness...wha? 22:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Notability of albums proposition
 I have created a suggested guidline for notability of albums in my userpage due to confusion of this policy in recent Afd's (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Side_Show_Freaks). The proposed addition can be found here; User:Ryanpostlethwaite/WP:MUSIC (album). This addition would bring clairty to the what is acceptable for inclusion rather than just taking it as read that an album is notable if the artist is notable regardless of how big the actual album was. Please feel free to edit my userpage if you feel anything should be added/removed. Please note that this would be an addition to WP:MUSIC and not a seperate guidline as WP:LP was RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 Why will this be an addition to WP:MUSIC rather than WP:LP? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 I just think it would be simpler to keep everything music related under WP:MUSIC, also, albums are already included in WP:MUSIC RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 FROM PROPOSAL PAGE: 
 Comment - I think this is great!  Suggestions:
 "Charted" is a bit vague.  Any chart, any position, any (one day) period of time?
 Does "gold" status vary by country?
 Good work!  Rklawton 00:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
I'd make the "primary criteria" distinction clearer.  For example, primary criteria would be coverage in secondary sources, like reviews.  Other criteria indicate that such coverage is likely, and charting, going gold, winning an award, or coming from a notable band are all likely indicators for that, but not always sufficient for an article in themselves.  Also, I'd prefer if you used the primary criterion from WP:LP (I wrote it. :) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 It already does have that (Criterion 1). Please check out User talk:Ryanpostlethwaite/WP:MUSIC (album) for some expanded criteria I have proposed. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Make AntiVandalBot a sysop!
 can we make User:AntiVandalBot a sysop so he can use the admin rollback tool to faster revert vandalism. Since he run on the toolserver it's properbly safe to do so. 
 Laffo. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 NO WAY... the user in question has never made a positive contribution to any article... it's always delete, delete, delete!  :>) Blueboar 02:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Music Sharps andFlats
 Instead of the things you are currently using (♯ for sharp and ♭ for flats), could you use a number sign (#) and a lower-case 'b'? These look just as good, and all computers can recogize them, contrary to the two aforementioned signs, both of which look like a box to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Jeff Killer (talk • contribs) 01:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply] 
 Many pages contain a variety of Unicode characters, and (IMO) there's really no going back to plain ASCII.  Some browsers are better at this than others.  There are some suggestions at Help:Special characters.  The bottom line is you need to install a better font (or buy a Mac :) ). -- Rick Block (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 A^bB^bC^bD^bE^bF^bG^b A^#B^#C^#D^#E^#F^#G^# You know, plain ASCII with the SUP /SUP tags looks decent. Not ambiguous, and compatible with any browser, I'm assuming. The difficulty, of course, is that natural signs (♮) don't seem to have a ready ASCII analogue. I don't think things are going to change anytime soon. dreddnott 22:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 yes, why change... Mozart's Cantata for Kazoo in D(box) is one of my favorites!  Blueboar 15:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Enhancing references
 What are the technical implications of creating some sort of "enhanced" reference tag? What I'm thinking of is having a way to "tag" sections of text, thus linking them to a particular reference. (It would probably have to be a named one.) The purpose of this would be to allow a display what text a given reference supports. 
 An example might be as follows: first, define your reference:<ref name="test">Really Strong Reference Source (Notable Publisher Ltd.)</ref>
Second, mark the text it supports:<ref marktext name="test">This text is highly dubious, but my reference material is iron-clad and will dispell any doubts you might have.</ref> This claim isn't supported by anything in particular. <ref marktext name="test">This, however, is validated.</ref>
Other editors could then click on a "show ref" button (or something similar) to go to a page that has all of the article's references, and the text they support: 1) Really Strong Reference Source (Notable Publisher Ltd.) - This text is highly dubious, but my reference material is iron-clad and will dispell any doubts you might have.
 - This, however, is validated.
 The idea is to make it easier to validate text, perhaps cut down on the number of citation numbers in an article (esthetics, for avoiding¹² excessive³⁴⁵ markup⁵), and reduce the need to search through entire reference texts trying to find if that text supports the article, while not being sure WHAT text you should be looking for. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 see meta:wikicite Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 An example similar to what you describe can be found at Harpers Weekly Review. Click "Sources" (in the top right of the content-column) to have the source links shown within the article.
 Personally, I like being able to see the superscripted ref links within an article; it adds/denies probable-credibility at a glance.
 As for having all the text of a reference available for verification, that might be handy. It'd be easy if the material was at wikisource...! --Quiddity 03:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Color preferences
 I propose having options in the user preferences for changing the color of the background/text/links/etc. on all pages.  Sounds kinda frivolous, I know, but it would really be nice to be able to browse the site in a dark room without having my retinas burned by the light contrast — especially since I spend more time here than on all other websites combined.  Personally, I'd set my color scheme to something friendly like: 
 The release of Pink Floyd's massively successful 1973 album, The Dark Side of the Moon, was a watershed moment in the band's popularity. Pink Floyd had stopped issuing singles after 1968's "Point Me at the Sky" and was never a hit-single-driven group, but The Dark Side of the Moon featured a U.S. Top 20 single ("Money"). The album became the band's first #1 on U.S. charts and, as of December 2006, is one of the biggest-selling albums in U.S. history, with more than 15 million units sold.
 What say my fellow Wikipedia denizens to this idea? --G Rose (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 Caught my eye while going through this page. Dunno if that's a good thing though. Just H 02:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 You could probably do this by making the appropriate edits to your Monobook (don't ask me how to do that but I'm sure someone will know). However, a limited set of preset colour options in user prefs could well be beneficial, best solution would be a new skin for this accessibility purpose.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 I say "yuck" to those colors, but that's just me. You can edit your own personal stylesheet for Wikipedia, at Special:Mypage/monobook.css, and just add something like:
 body { background:black; color:green; }
 ...or whatever else you'd like. Tutorials here. —Down10 ^TACO 11:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Well, I guess that'll keep me pacified.  It would still be a lot more convenient to have it in the prefs, though. --G Rose (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Why limit yourself to a few set preferences when you can use any colour you like through coding? The monobook method is far more versatile. --tjstrf talk 13:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] As is often the case, it's a trade-off between flexibility and ease-of-use. Why should we force people to learn (even a little) CSS in order to change their color scheme? –RHolton≡– 12:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] You can use a premade skin from meta:Gallery_of_user_styles. Superm401 - Talk 06:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yay for pre-made skins! By the way, it takes more than just a little CSS work to adequately customize one's monobook. I still support having color settings available in the preferences. --G Rose (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Well, it depends how much customization you want.  I think the pre-made skins are a fine compromise for now. Superm401 - Talk 20:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 IIRC, yellow on black is supposed to be the best combination of colours for dyslexics to be able to easily read print. If that is right, some kind of colour options would be useful. Grutness...wha? 05:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 How about you turn some lights on! 72.140.201.32 06:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Stability of infobox templates
 The stability of infobox templates is being discused at Template talk:Infobox Writer#Stability of infobox templates. Please contribute to the discussion. Carcharoth 19:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 cite newsgroup
 I intend to make sweeping changes to {{cite newsgroup}} and wanted to discuss them here and get consensus before making them. The changes I intend to make include: (further suggestions welcome) 
 Add support for "first", "last", and "authorlink" in line with other templates.
 Change title hyperlink to the "url" parameter or automatically-generated google groups URL rather than to the message-id (rationale - news: URLs are unlikely to be active for very long, and when clicked)
 Show the message-id, when given via the 'id' parameter, in plaintext (possibly hyperlinked to the news: URL) in angle brackets
 Add support for multiple newsgroups for crossposted articles (how to do this is an open question, i'd be grateful for suggestions).
 --Random832(tc) 08:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
The current look is like this: 
 Someone (January 1, 1970). "Re: Stuff". alt.whatever. (Google Groups). Retrieved on 2007-02-04.
 I'd like to change it to: 
 Someone (January 1, 1970). "Re: Stuff" <news:msg123401@example.com> on alt.whatever. Accessed 2007-02-04.
 --Random832(tc) 20:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 These changes look good. For when the message-id is given, it might be better to specify it as &lt;[news:////msg123401@example.com news:msg123401@example.com]&gt; rather than <[news:msg123401@example.com news:msg123401@example.com]>. As for crossposted articles, I'm not sure there would be any real need to give several places where an article was posted. If it is really important, you could probably just put in two separate citations. Tra (Talk) 22:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 You should also discuss this in Wikipedia talk:Citation templates to help ensure consistency with other templates, and citation-involved people monitoring that might not notice this discussion.  (SEWilco 04:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
 citation team
 Following up on a discussion over at WP:BOTREQ, I had an idea to start a wikiproject to check references and put citations in the proper formats using WP:CITET.  Although, citations formats are important, I think the most important function of such a project would be fact checking.  I have found a number of links that claim to back up a particular statement when in fact they do not.  Would anyone be interested in joining such an endeavour? --Selket 23:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 Fact-checking is never a bad thing, and having more eyes on the subject would be great. But I see two issues to be careful of that jump out from this post: According to WP:CITE, using the citation templates "is neither encouraged nor discouraged by any other Wikipedia citation guideline" and converting articles from one citation style to another without consensus from the local editors is unnecessary trouble. Regularizing inconsistent citation style within an article is likely to be helpful, but blindly reformatting is not.
 Please be careful when fact-checking articles in specialized fields, if you intend to do so. (Though I think this project would be especially helpful digging through BLPs.) An individual fact-checker with a limited understanding of a very specific or technical subject could unintentionally introduce inaccuracies, or could be unaware of what sources are considered reliable in the field. Opabinia regalis 17:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 See m:Wikicite for more suggestions about fact checking.  (SEWilco 19:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
 In what way would the proposal be different from Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check? (SEWilco 21:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
 Cleanup template idea.
 After looking at the Karl Pilkington article, the amount of wiki-templates that are used to imply a cleanup are frightening. Is there not any possibility that there could be a simple, SINGLE template on pages which allows you to specify exactly what is wrong with the article, and then have the more in-depth templates on the talk page? 
As a quick mock-up (just a quick explanation of what i'm on about) 
     Wikipedia editor(s) have expressed concerns about this article : Factual inaccuracies
 Non-wikified layout
 etc..
 
 Just an idea, don't bite my head off  J O  R D A N ^{[talk ]} 15:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 An issue with this idea is that it wouldn't add the articles into the categories that the individual ones do, attracting users who deal specifically with things like NPOV probs to the article. SGGH 16:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Agreed. Further issues with it may include lack of "tagged since" messeges, and corresponding links to clarify each task. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Disagree. If you look at the rating articles; i.e the one for WikiProject Physics, you can use {{Template x = y}} and a template is used there, which flags up the article in the start-class physics articles cat and others. Perhaps this could be done with the cleanup templates. At the moment, it's off-putting, even for a neuroscientist, to see about 5/6 blue/green/yellow/orange boxes at the top of an article.  J O  R D A N ^{[talk ]} 11:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 It could have a series of arguments indicating the specific cleanup items, which could be used to categorize appropriately.  I kind of like the idea of having a single multipurpose template rather than lots of single purpose ones.  -- Rick Block (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] I'm liking this, like the new template added for FA history on talk pages.  We could just make them cleanup parameters.  However, issues like factual disputes, NPOV, and NOR violations should not be lumped in with general cleanup, because they reflect deeper problems with fundamental policy, rather than stylistic ones. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 "I am under construction, check me in 5 days"
 Hey, as my experience of patrolling new pages and recent changes grows, more and more often I am coming across articles that in their present form constitute speedy deletion candidates for original research, lack of content or even just spam. However, in many cases, the user who has created the article has later got back to me complaining that they had just started! I have seen and participated in AfD debates where users have said things like "this article isn't likely to grow into anything, delete". Indeed I was prompted into putting this idea forward by a user who (allbeit mistakenly) thought I had prodded an article that he was half way through.  
All these things have made me think that there is a significant portion of new, well-meaning users having their first wiki articles crushed under AfD, and thus being so de-motivated that they never contribute again (or at least not for a long time). I know we have "in use" templates somewhere, but I have never seen these used, so I propose a slightly different system: 
Could we create a template that states that the article is under construction, thus giving the inexperienced creator the time to drag his or her new article out of AfD-candidate-ville? This would perhaps encourage more users to stick around. And to counter the intelligent vandal who just sticks this new template on what is actually a spam article, a bot could be set up who, after the new template has been in place 5 days, places the article in question into a new category which is regularly patrolled by Admins who check if the article is actually being built, or whether it is just spam?  
Simplified: A new users creates the trembling bedrock of an article, and places this new template on it. The AfD's stay away, and eventually the article turns into something worth keeping. The next day, a vandal creates a worthless spam article and places the tag on it, 5 days later it is placed in the thoroughily patrolled category, where an admin sees that it hasnt been evolved, and deletes it.  
Just a suggestion, but what do people think? (Knowing my luck, this already exists, but I am being honest when I say I've never seen it if it does). SGGH 21:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 this is the purpose of {{prod}}.  It gives the article a chance to improve, while simultaneously indicating that the article in its current state is deletable.  5 days is long enough to recover and article and contest a prod.
 speedy deletion on the other hand is meant for cases of articles with no redeeming qualities, like articles about some high school student by the same high school student, articles with nothing but hate for it's subject, unkeepable copyright violations, and totally blank articles.  If something with redeeming qualities is speedy deleted, that's something that needs to be taken up with the deleter.  i kan reed 21:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] The prod on your first article still seems to disinterest some newbies, maybe we should have more faith in their robustness.  My idea was to attempt to keep all deletion tags off on what could become a decent article, also helps to lower the prod or afd debate backlog...SGGH 22:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 You mean like this? FT2 ^{(Talk   email)} 00:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 Ah yes, it's the rarely seen invocation of Wikipedia:Edit lock.  There is an alternative, of course: Wikipedia:Userification - take the article out of play until it's fixed.
 I've thinking about another approach, somewhat similar to userification: a new namespace, call it ArticleCandidate, for lack of a better name.  Instead of 4000 articles a day added to Wikipedia mainspace and 2000 a day deleted, new articles would be reviewed in this new (holding) namespace, with the goal of (a) making them acceptable before promotion to mainspace or (b) killing them quickly because no one can find reliable sources and/or indications of notablility, with the ones inbetween (c) being userfied. (There would be a limit - say, 30 days - for an article to sit in this namespace.)  -- John Broughton   (☎☎) 01:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 How about going the extra mile and monitoring the article yourself so, if after a few days it still lacks redeeming qualities, you can do something about it then? Philwelch 06:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 I think that would bring up man power and man hour issues. Unlike the more automated ideas being suggested above. SGGH 16:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] It's a nice idea; but if you're gearing it at newbies making all sorts of blunders with their first article, how on God's Green Earth are they going to find the under construction template you propose?  ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk Contribs)}problem solving 20:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Maybe have it mentioned in Wikipedia:Your first article.  (SEWilco 20:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
 This is the second prong of the idea, it would have to be well publicised. But this bot thing is important I feel, because it helps clamp down on the vandalism opportunities that this template would otherwise create. This idea seems to be aquiring a little bit of support, is it enough to leave it sitting here for admins and such to notice and possibly take to the next stage? SGGH 21:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 is it enough to leave it sitting here for admins and such to notice and possibly take to the next stage? Umm, no.  Admins play no special role in changing policy, and this is a change.  If you want it to move forward, the next place it should go (I think) is to the talk page of Wikipedia:Speedy deletions, since that is the policy that would change if the template were to carry any weight with admins.  -- John Broughton   (☎☎) 05:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Cheeres John (hope you don't mind, i moved your comment down so it wasnt stuck to mine, just so it doesn't confuse) I think I'll wait to see if there are any other contributions here before perhaps setting up a link to this discussion on the talk page of speedy delete. SGGH 16:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 It doesn't just happen to newbies. Every once in awhile I run into someone with a trigger finger. They comb through the new posts because they are easy prey.  I haven't run into the problem lately so maybe there was a policy change I don't know about. I spend more time watching articles than monitoring policy changes.  Five days may seem like a lot to some people but my schedule can be variable and I may be a month or more before I go back and add something to an article.
 What is really frustrating is that it seems I'm expected to know some complex tagging system. Such and such a tag should be put on before a certain event but not after some other event but only by the original poster not to be confused with the other tag that should not be touched by the original author. I would rather work on the article and give the article a chance to be discovered by other people who can add to it than spend my time playing tag games.
 Just leave the article alone for a few weeks and do some research on the topic before deleting. You might not get the kill rate you want but that shouldn't be the point. Gbleem 02:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 People don't leave articles a few weeks, because you run the risk of it just getting lost and unfinished, I'm trying to propose a system that gives articles that may produce quality a chance to do so, without letting them drop off the radar. SGGH 12:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note that a New SD bot proposal is in the works, though this one is intended to warn authors when mistaken delete-on-sights by Admins makes articles "silently" vanish.  (Yes, SD brings all sorts of newbie issues.)  If your above mechanism employs a bot, it might be better to add functions to any already-debugged bot rather than to start from scratch. --Wjbeaty 07:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 prok
 A "Proposed Keep" template that can be placed on an AFD page if after one day, there are no delete !votes besides the nominator. If the template is not removed by the end of the usual period, the result automatically becomes keep. If it is removed by someone other than the nominator before then, discussion continues where it left off. The advantage to this would be to signal to people who want the page to be kept that there's no serious support for deleting it, therefore they don't need to waste their energy (such wasted energy is the only credible argument I've seen for the controversial WP:SNOW "propessaydeline") 
(if this is successful, maybe some {{kb-*}} templates to follow - of course, speedy keep would need to become a policy [though, it's already appearing in closing reasons]) 
--Random832(tc) 16:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 So basically a "Snowballed!" template that leaves it open but makes it clear what the outcome is? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yes, the general idea behind this proposal was to try to come up with a compromise on WP:SNOW. But I think the idea has merit in its own right - the very existence of SNOW demonstrates that the idea is one whose time has come, this is an attempt to implement the sentiment in a way that's a lot less unsatisfactory to those who disagree with SNOW. --Random832(tc) 18:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Do you have a mock-up of the template anywhere? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk Contribs)}problem solving 19:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Not yet, i'll throw one together in a minute --Random832(tc) 19:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 User:Random832/prok 
How about simpler wording: 
 Except for the nominator, consensus is currently unanimously in favor of keeping this article.  Further comments in favor of keeping aren't necessary.  If you disagree, remove this template and add your comment. 
  This template should only be placed on debates that have been open for at least a day, and the debate should remain open to offer a chance for additional comments.
 Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Here's a revision to the revision, trying to keep this simple.  I've added a minimum to for the number of "keep" opinions (must be at least three), and have weakened the language that tells editors in favor of keeping the article that (essentially) their opinions have no worth:
 Except for the nominator, consensus is currently unanimously in favor of keeping this article. Additional "keep" comments at the AfD may not be necessary. This template is only for debates that have been open for at least a day, and have at least three "keep" opinions.  Should two or more editors post "delete" opinions, this template should be removed from this article.
 -- John Broughton   (☎☎) 01:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] I think you need to make it less number focused, and the two more deletes implies that someone agreeing with the nom is not enough. Also, it's a debate, not an article. "Should two or more editors post "delete" opinions, this template should be removed from this article." should be changed to "If an additional editor besides the nominator supports deletion, remove this template." Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Oh, I see now, this is for the article.  There should be two, one for the debate and one for the article.  I think the article one should directly reference "the above nomination." Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 I disagree with the proposal. The present AFD process works ok without this inclusionist feature. There is such a thing as a "snowball keep" already. Edison 06:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 I'm with Edison, although "prok" is an awesome name. Philwelch 06:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 This is actually less inclusionist than snowball, because it doesn't close the debate, and it leaves the article open for anyone who actually believes it should be deleted to have a say. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 I pretty much fail to see what problem this would solve. Unless that is demonstrated, it'd be instruction creep. >Radiant< 13:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] It solves the problem of people using WP:SNOW as a reason to close early by allowing people's energy to be focused away from the debate while not preventing anyone from speaking up (which closing early does). --Random832(tc) 13:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] And please cite evidence of that happening a lot? >Radiant< 13:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 I don't really see that this is a problem...the point of AFD isn't to give people a chance to speak up, it's to decide whether or not to keep articles. Snowball closures occur when the issue of keep/delete is already decided, thus there's nothing more to talk about. If someone actually has new information to bring up, starting a new AFD not tainted by the (obviously flawed) original nomination would be the best option. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 The problem is if someone who did have new information didn't get a chance because it was closed too quickly. And, a previous decision being particularly recent can be prejudicial against a re-nomination, a review, or whatever. --Random832(tc) 02:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Have you considered bringing this up at Wikipedia:Speedy keep? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] It doesn't really fit speedy keep, since its only effect if any is to keep an AFD open for longer. --Random832(tc) 21:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 On this one, I'm with Radiant! -- I don't see a real problem going on here that needs more templates and instructions to "fix" it. If it's clearly an early keep then someone'll SK it, if not then it'll last the 5 days, either way a template is either not helpful or stating the obvious. A template change on the AFD header to read "An editor has expressed the view that..." would be good though, so that obvious keeps sitting out their time on AFD don't looki like they are prejudged as to deletion outcome. FT2 ^{(Talk   email)} 16:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a wine guide
 This is my first stab at making an essay so any comments and criticisms would be appreciated. Any constructive editing would be even better, especially if it can help gauge what the Wikipedia community would like to see in its wine related articles. Thanks in advance for your time and consideration! Agne 06:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 Actually, it turns out that wine quality is quite measureable.[1]  The wine industry is trying to keep this quiet, to avoid being run over by synthetic wines. --John Nagle 07:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 That's a good source for the Enologix article (which needs some work) but I'm sure that the "terrorist" would disagree with that news clipping. I don't think there is any worry for synthetic wines though, in my personal opinion, Yellow Tail comes close. :p Agne 07:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 And, of course, there is always WP:NOT - specifically, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s  -- John Broughton   (☎☎) 02:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Some wiki would certainly make a great wine guide. This statement has no bearing on whether WP should be one. :-) CyberAnth 07:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 "introduction" headings
 Where can I find the discussion surrounding whether to use a heading for the introductory paragraph (as is done on ru.wikipedia.org)?  I looked on "perennial proposals" and didn't find anything there. 
I hate having to edit the whole of a huge article because I want to fix a typo in the intro (and yes, I know it would break "popups", but it would be easy to fix). --Slashme 12:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 You can put code in your monobook.js to add an "edit" link for the introductory section. CMummert · talk 12:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Various scripts to do so are available at WikiProject User Scripts' script repository. --ais523 13:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 That's nice, and I will do that now as a temporary measure, but sometimes I use ELinks to edit, and it doesn't do javascript.  Also, if anonymous and new users could have access to an edit link for the intro, this might save bandwidth, and make it clear in "recent changes" if only the intro paragraph has been changed. 
Why don't we have a heading for the introduction?  Surely this is such a fundamental issue that it has been debated to death by now, so if someone knows where the debate is archived, I'll go check it out. --Slashme 13:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 Because the intro is section 0, you can edit any other section and in the address bar replace section=xx with section=0.
 I am already doing that since checking the code to the monobook extension.--Slashme 10:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Anyway what would you call the header. Introduction?
 Maybe nothing!  I've just taken another look at the ru wikipedia, and they seem to have an edit link on the top section by default.  Check out ru:угол for example.  Maybe we can just do what they're doing.--Slashme 10:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Then again the introduction should be plain obvious.Harryboyles 11:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Sorry, I didn't quite understand that sentence, please explain?--Slashme 10:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 OK, since no-one has redirected this to a prior discussion, let me just recap my points of why we should have a default link to edit the introduction: 
 We want people to edit the introduction as a section if that is the only place they're changing: It saves bandwidth
 It makes it easier to see what was done
 An edit link for the intro makes it easier to edit: You don't have to patch your monobook script
 Casual users who don't yet know what monobook is, text-browser users, and anonymous users will be able to edit the introduction without hacking the link (a nice trick but one which few will ever figure out without help)
 So why aren't we doing it yet? --Slashme 10:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 Rename Wikipedia:Wikiproject to Project: or Wikiproject:
 We can rename the Wikiproject namespace, if people want to do so. Please chime in with your opinions here or on wikien-l. Regards. -Ste vertigo 09:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 Or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject#Rename Wikipedia:Wikiproject to Project: or Wikiproject:, for those of us who don't want to have three discussions on the same topic. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 13:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Optional tagging
 I suggest adding an optional tagging feature to wikipedia.  Allow users to tag articles with words or phrases, either from a list or of their own minds.  Then allow searching and sorting based on the tags and their weight(number of times they have been assigned to each article.)  There is more of a description on my user page, and on my website which is linked there.  While I agree that the articles should be neutral point of view, I think there should optionally be some order to the articles.  Which articles share the same underlying meaning.  Which articles are more popular than others.  At the least I would like to see this option added to the base wikimedia software as not all wikis should be completely npov.  My 2c.  Wubitog 07:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 Color coded Wiki Editing Text
 Hey, does anyone know a way to make the Wiki editing text colored by default?  Anyone interested in working on it?  Let me know on my talk page if you are. Bmunden 22:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 Have you tried wikEd? --TheParanoidOne 06:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 User:Durova/Community enforced mediation
 This proposal would create a new experimental option in dispute resolution.  Advance reviews have been favorable so I'm opening this up to general feedback.  Please reply at the proposal's talk page so the discussion is focused in one place. Durova^Charge! 23:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 Favicon
 Hey, ... I would like to suggest to get Wikipedia's favicon, the one next to the site name and url to have a transparent background, ... not a white background, ... it would look nicer, ... thats just my opinion, ... if u want me to do it i would, ... have a nice day. - KrickeT                                                                                                                              [e-mail removed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.93.8 (talk • contribs)  
 I have removed your e-mail address to prevent spam. Tra (Talk) 21:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Proposed Wikiproject  template
 I've noticed that a lot of new editors here at Wikipedia are overwhelmed by the size and depth of Wikipedia, and they are often unsure how to get started and contribute constructively. Many new users bring in lots of outside knowledge, but they are unsure how to turn their knowledge into articles. I'm a frequent new-pages patroller, and whenever I see someone creating several articles on a certain topic, I leave a message on their talk page, inviting them to join a Wikiproject I have no affiliation with. I think that a simple template message should be created for this purpose, so that regular users can guide others towards Wikiprojects. Here is the boilerplate message I have been using: 
 Hello, I've noticed that you've written quite a few articles on whatever. If you're looking for more ways to expand Wikipedia's coverage of whatever topics, I suggest joining WP:WHATEVER. A Wikiproject is a group of editors with common interests who come together to write more articles, organize, review, and expand coverage of their chosen subject. They will have more articles you can work on, and other interested people who can help improve and expand your own articles. Thanks for your contributions.
 I would like to hear others' opinions on this, as well as any pointers, as I have no experience creating templates. GhostPirate 18:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 Sounds useful. Note that you can request templates at WP:RT. >Radiant< 12:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Should WP:BK be made a guideline
 Sorry for the cross-posting... There is an ongoing discussion on whether or not the long-standing proposed guideline for the notability of books should be tagged as a guideline. Everyone's input would be really appreciated as past discussions have often involved a handful of editors, making it hard to judge consensus. Pascal.Tesson 16:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 I think it would be good to have a guideline, but I don't think WP:BK is there yet.  It still needs clean up, not the least of which is the Self-publication section's reference to a non-exisitant "criteria 6." --Selket ^Talk 17:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Well I would appreciate if you could make more specific comments on the talk page. Pascal.Tesson 17:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Changing the Undo message
 Using MediaWiki's Undo  function, currently the message is "Undid revision $1 by $2 (talk)". I would like to make this into the more standard "←Reverted revision _________ by Username (talk) using 'undo'. See MediaWiki_talk:Undo-summary for details. -137.222.10.67 06:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 I realize this change has been implemented; but the problem I have with it is that it's longer, leaving less room for elaboration.  I like to elaborate on why I undid. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk Contribs)}problem solving 21:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] You can always delete/trim the default message.. --Quiddity 21:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Standardize of some wording on dispute and AFD templates
 Several of the warning templates express views such as:  
 The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.
Find sources: "Archive AC" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
 or {{Unencyclopedic}} 
The structure being: 
 "An editor has expressed a concern that (problem)."
 "If you can fix it do so   the matter is being discussed (here)"
 "If this cannot be remedied then likely action is (results)"
 I like this format. Especially, the wording of "an editor has expressed concern" may seem far more approachable to new editors and readers, than the statement "This article is proposed for deletion" etc which implies that "the powers that be" have made this judgement. 
Would people object to this style of wording becoming more the norm, on XfD and dispute tags? Thus: "An editor has expressed the view that this article does not meet relevant Wikipedia criteria, and should be deleted. The discussion is here... etc" 
I think it'd be a clearer communication. Do others like it? FT2 ^{(Talk   email)} 20:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 Sure, sounds good. >Radiant< 12:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Agreed, sounds good. However, I suggest "the matter is being discussed (here)" to be added as optional. Issues such as notability problems or POV aren't usually being discussed among the editors and this might seem unnecessary. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 In a few cases I agree, there won't be specific need for discussion (eg, where its more a request for help in adding missing stuff like cites or coverage). In many cases, like notability and POV, there is discussion and it tends to happen on the talk page. It's more the general style and approach of such templates which I'm thinking of. Within that, it'll vary case to case what specific information and links are useful and where to direct users for discussion (if any). FT2 ^{(Talk   email)} 16:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Blacklisting vandals
 What if we could categorize/list all warned vandals into a blacklist, and make it selectable to only view edits by blacklisted users in Special:Recent changes? How do others feel about such a proposal? Would this be practical? — Tutmosis 16:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 If I recall correctly, VandalProof already has a feature somewhat like that. But to categorize everyone who's been warned would be biting, especially if done from the first warning. -Amark moo! 16:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Well that's true but I was referring more to obvious vandalism. I say this because IMO blocks are extremely weak, if anyone ever has done any vandal fighting they see a portion vandalism is coming from returning vandals after their short block expires with a whole talk page of warning. Therefore easily spotting users with vandal records would only benefit the encyclopedia. Also VandalBot does not revert all vandalism and we can't rely on the bot alone. — Tutmosis 17:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 How about only those who have a {{test3}} or {{blatantvandal}} on their talk page instead? i kan reed 17:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Accounts that are only used for vandalism are routinely blocked indefinitely.  Short blocks for people who do only vandalism are the exception. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Yes they are, but that does mean they have little time to continue to vandalize. People who block/revert them don't have time to follow them around everytime they return from a block and sneaky vandalism is hard to spot without blacklisting the user as "trouble". — Tutmosis 17:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 How would this blacklist be maintained?  Obviously if it's based on warnings on a user page, the vandals are likely to delete those (as is considered, currently, to be acceptable), particularly if the warnings generate a category (Category:Blacklisted users not yet blocked?).  And if the list is undated whenever a warning is posted (again, exactly how?), what prevents a troll - or an irritated vandal - from spamming a  bunch of pages to get a bunch of admins on the blacklist?  Or, in an edit war, editors threatening each other with (say) a level-3 warning that puts the other editor on the blacklist if they continue to insist on their point of view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Broughton (talk • contribs) 
 It can be based on the block history and it doesn't necessarily have to rely on categorizing the way we do it now. Wiki software can be designed to maintain the list internally. Many different option if you think about it. — Tutmosis 19:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 I support the proposal, because it can prevent repeated vandalism.  Currently, someone can vandalize different pages from the same IP address, and the editors of those pages would consider these separate acts of vandalism, and so will not block the IP address.  On the other hand, if vandalism is tracked more centrally, repeated vandalism is easier to recognize.  Then editors can discuss whether to send messages to the vandal, suspend the account or block the IP address.  -Pgan002 01:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Edit page link to useful tags and templates.
 How often editing some article does one want a quick popup page for the right template?  
Can this be added to the pages and inserts that are quickly accessible from an edit page: 
 Templates: general headers   maintenance   cleanup   talk page   user talk   all (all open in new window)
 Note that dispute, source and similar templates which can be gamed or abused, are not directly listed (WP:BEANS). They're quickly found under "all" if needed, though. FT2 ^{(Talk   email)} 11:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 You probably know, but the page in question is MediaWiki:Edittools (which has a single link to "(templates)" already).
 I'd support this idea, if the page as a whole were compacted through some method like the drop-down box used at commons:MediaWiki:Edittools, as I suggested at MediaWiki talk:Edittools#Reducing the overwhelming size - use Commons version?. --Quiddity 21:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Antal
 please address the proposal of having multiple pages for Antal, i.e.,  "as noted near the bottom of the page for Anthony, Antal is the Hungarian version of the Latin name Antonius. Being a "brother" of Anthony, Antonio, etc., it is a rather common name in Europe and various parts of the world. As such, this meaning of the word requires treatment, perhaps via a disambiguous page." 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antal) 
Thanks. 
 Sure: write an article about the name Antal and link it from the main Antal page.  Then, depending on how good the page is, we can talk about whether there should be a disambiguation page.  Note there is already a link from Antal to Antal (Surname). -Pgan002 01:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 New Search Engine
 Seeing the inacuracies in the wikipedia search engin (WSE) [2] and the better results you could get with Google [3], I think  the WSE should be replaced by Google (done here at www.tip.it/runescape) This would help searchers find what they want, faster, more efficiently (and google puts redirects WAY down on the line). I don't know what the technicalitys are, but I'm sure they could be easly sorted out with Google. Chris5897 (T@£k) 14:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 That search within Wikipedia is poor is well known - that's why there is are alternatives such as this: Wikipedia:WikEh?.
 More to the point: either the Wikimedia Foundation pays for an internal Google search appliance, to avoid ads, or they subject readers and editors to ads on Google when doing a search (and can be accused of favoring Google over its competitors).  I'd like to see the Foundation do the first, but I've been told that it tries to use free software for everything, and certainly a Google search applicance would cost money, which the Foundation doesn't have much of.  -- John Broughton     ^(♫♫) 15:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 I have never found any problems with the Wikipedia search engine when it's working. The main problem is the number of times it chooses not to work. -- Necrothesp 15:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 So don't use it.  Use Google.  User:Zoe (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Well could we at least make a link to popular search engins (done here on the french wikipedia). This would give people who are not used to the code needed to search one site, the chance to get two or three searches. The foundation could also make money by charging search engins to have their link there. If they can do it on the french wikipedia, they can do it on the english wikipedia. Chris5897 (T@£k) 12:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 The Google search engine would be a fantastic feature to the site but as mentioned above it is probably not feasible. However, it can be argued that with almost every page in Wikipedia now being in the top three search answers in Google there isnt such great need for it. Anyone with some common sense would surely use google to search through wikipedia than using its own search engine anyway.  --Capt underpants 01:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 There is no need to change the WSE and incur the extra costs.  The WSE is acceptable, and individual users most likely know how to use Google. -Pgan002 01:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 Sort languages automatically?
 If there is an article that is in many other languages, those languages should be sorted in alphabetic order automatically, I think. --212.247.27.49 21:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 Good idea, but it sounds like a low priority. Cbdorsett 05:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Many of the bots (AWB, for one) sort the interwiki links automatically. But whether those articles get hit by the bots is totally hit-or-miss. Caknuck 07:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Video on wikipedia
 I'm not sure if this has been brought up before,  but I would like to propose video content being available as part of wikipedia articles. It would allow wikipedia to become more interactive instead of just simply relocating to videos. I would suggest that a new player is created for wikipedia, using GFDL codes so there are no copyright infringements. A similar guidline to wikipedia images could be used and implemented (with the use of bots) so that unsourced videos, or similar copyright infingement would be sppedily eradicated RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 It's already possible.  Just upload it to the commons as an Ogg and insert a link to it in the article. Annie Oakley has an old clip of her shooting, for example. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 What I actually meant was, instead of just a link to a video, how about incorporating video's within the actual page, so when play is pressed, the video can be seen on the page. As I've previously said, this would increase interactivity within wikipedia mainspace RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 It was brought recently at the other village pump. -- ReyBrujo 23:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Let's focus on getting decent video content first, before we bother to build an inline player. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. I remember when Encarta was installed with PCs, for me it's biggest coup it had was the video content in the articles - which made it a much more comprehensive source of information than a published encyclopedia.
 Also, what prompted me to look for this discussion, was that yesterday, I was watching Sky News, and they were using video from YouTube during one of their reports on Italian football hooliganism.--Macca7174 10:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 unwatch
 How about adding a button on the watchlist like diff and hist that would unwatch a page?  Would save the step of going to the page to click it out.   Tvoz   talk 09:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] 
 This functionality (and more) is in WP:Popups.  I'm not sure whether it's necessary to put it in by default: We have lots of links in the watchlist already, and new and unregistered users (i.e. those who don't use popups) typically don't have big watchlists. --Slashme 15:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Hmm, I'm neither new nor unregistered, but I don't use pop-ups. And I have   hundreds of articles in my watch list - would seem like an easy enough fix and not controversial, but then, when is anything here not controversial.  Guess I'll take a look at popups, so thanks Tvoz   talk 00:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 There is some code you can add to your monobook.js file to add an "unwatch" link to your watchlist. You can find it here. I installed it a few weeks back, and haven't encountered any problems to date. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  ^ Blogs, 2007. How to write upsidedown.  
 ^ "Crackpot Journal".

[1] Blogs, 2007. How to write upsidedown.

[2] "Crackpot Journal".

[2]