Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and Appleseed (2004 film): Difference between pages

Revision as of 15:17, 23 December 2006

Revision as of 17:24, 21 June 2007

Line 1:

{{Infobox Film

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

| name = Appleseed

<noinclude>{{Villagepumppages|Proposals|The '''proposals''' section of the village pump is used to discuss new ideas and proposals that are not policy related (see [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]] for that).

| image = Appleseed.jpg

| image_size =

| caption = Promotional poster for ''Appleseed''

| director = [[Shinji Aramaki]]

| producer = [[Fumihiko Sori]]<br/>[[Hidenori Ueki]]<br/>[[Naoko Watanabe]]

| writer = [[Haruka Handa]]<br/>[[Tsutomu Kamishiro]]

| narrator =

| starring = [[Ai Kobayashi]]<br/>[[Jurota Kosugi]]<br/>[[Yuki Matsuoka]]

| music =

| cinematography =

| editing =

| distributor =

| released = {{flagicon|Japan}} [[2004]]<br/>{{flagicon|USA}} [[January 14]], [[2005]]

| runtime = 105 min.

| country = [[Japan]]

| language =

| budget =

| gross =

| preceded_by =

| followed_by = ''[[Appleseed EX Machina]]''

| website = http://www.appleseedthemovie.com/

| amg_id = 1:316288

| imdb_id = 0401233

}}

:''For other uses, see [[Appleseed]].''

Recurring policy proposals are discussed at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals)]]. If you have a proposal for something that sounds overwhelmingly obvious and are amazed that Wikipedia doesn't have it, please check there first before posting it, as someone else might have found it obvious, too.

{{nihongo|'''''Appleseed'''''|アップルシ－ド|Appurushīdo}} is an [[anime]] film, directed by [[Shinji Aramaki]] and originally released in [[Japan]] on [[May 17]], [[2004]]. It is based on the characters created by [[Masamune Shirow]] in the original ''[[Appleseed (manga)|Appleseed]]'' manga series that was published in [[1985]]. Although it shares some characters with the original series, this film's storyline is not connected to it.

== Plot outline ==

'''Before posting your proposal:'''

Set in 2131 AD, Deunan Knute, a young legendary female soldier is a survivor of the Third World War which has brought Earth to the brink of destruction. Alongside her former lover and comrade Briareos, who is now a cyborg, Deunan is brought to a Utopian city called Olympus, also inhabited by a genetically-engineered species called Bioroids. There, she integrates into the prestigious ESWAT organization to serve as the city's guardian. But what she discovers is not the promised land of peace, but rather a deadlier, more elusive battlefield than before.

* If the proposal is a '''change to the software''', file a bug at [http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org Bugzilla] instead. Your proposal is unlikely to be noticed by a developer unless it is placed there.

* If the proposal is a '''change in policy''', be sure to also post the proposal to, say, [[Wikipedia:Manual of style]], and ''ask people to discuss it '''there'''''.

* If the proposal is for a '''new wiki-style project''' outside of Wikipedia, please go to [[m:Proposals for new projects]] and follow the guidelines there. '''Please do ''not'' post it here.''' These are different from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject|WikiProjects]].

<!-- Villagepumppages intro end -->|[[WP:VPR]]}}

__TOC__

{| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;"

|-

|This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by Werdnabot. Any sections older than '''7''' days are automatically archived to '''[[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive]]'''. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

|-

|}<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-7 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->

These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

<br clear="all" />

Bioroids have a lifespan much shorter than those of humans, due to the suppression of their reproductive capabilities. When the facilities that were used in the Bioroid's life extension processes are destroyed by a secret faction of the Olympus Regular Army in a terrorist attack as part of its demonstration of fear and hatred for the Bioroids, a crisis which requires immediate resolution is formed, and the Appleseed data is revealed to still exist, even though most thought it destroyed.

[[hu:Wikipédia:Kocsmafal (javaslatok)]]

[[ka:ვიკიპედია:ყავახანა/წინადადებები]]

[[zh-yue:Wikipedia:城市論壇 (提議)]]

[[zh:Wikipedia:互助客栈/建议]]

[[Category:Wikipedia community forums|{{PAGENAME}}]]

[[Category:To Village Pump (assistance)|navigational category, redirected to (assistance)]]</noinclude>

[[Category:Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot]]

Under the surface, as we can see, Olympus is plagued by conflicting factions. Some believe that Bioroids are a threat to the future advancement of mankind, whilst others believe that humans themselves are the threat. The ultimate question is over everyone's right to life, and whether or not one group deserves life more than the other. At the centre of this battle is Appleseed, the data that is able to extend Bioroid life, by restoring reproductive functions.

== Layered Pages ==

== Characters ==

'''ELApro''': Might an option be made available for a user to create/access a scaled down, elementary lay version of an article that is highly technical? This would eliminate the jargon and other technicalities that may be present in the parent article.

:You mean like the [[:simple:Main page|Simple English Wikipedia]] attempts to do? --[[User:tjstrf|tjstrf]] <small>[[User talk:Tjstrf|talk]]</small> 11:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

:I agree. I would like to see a '''Non-technical summary''' info box included near the top of each article. Ideally it could be turned off in My Preferences. This would help me understand what the article was talking about and give me some mental framework to hang the rest of the article on. The Simple English Wikipedia does not have many articles on technical or complex subjects, which is where this is most needed. — [[User:Jonathan Kovaciny|Jonathan Kovaciny]] <small>([[User talk:Jonathan Kovaciny|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jonathan Kovaciny|contribs]])</small> 15:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

===Deunan Knute===

co-incidentally, i was just on my way here to suggest something similar.

The daughter of Carl and Dr. Gilliam Knute, Deunan, who is considered as a beautiful and highly skilled warrior, has spent almost her entire life fighting in a war that was, for the most part, over. It was not until she was rescued by an ES.W.A.T. (Extra Special Weapons And Tactics) team, led by Hitomi and her former lover Briareos, in the middle of a ruined city just after Deunan had a short but fierce battle with unidentified enemies, that she was finally evacuated from the Badlands. When she arrived in Olympus, the change of environment was severe, but it was a greater shock to her when she found that Briareos had lost over 75% of his original body during the last Global War and was now a cyborg.

basically, theres a problem with our target audience, i.e., given that our target audience is 'everyone', it's hard to get the depth and wordage of an article right, so that it's not too complicated for those who aren't allready knowledgable in the area, but still useful to those who are. eg, if i look up an article on genetics, then i dont want it too simple -- i want some complicated meat and bones, rather than an article that just puts simply what i allready know. on the other hands, i want articles that discuss maths to treat me like the mathematical retard that i am, and lay it out simple.

The day after she was brought to the city of Olympus, Deunan learned that over half of the population of the city was composed of artificial humans called Bioroids and that her new friend, Hitomi, was one herself. Deunan also discovers that other people are looking for her, mostly because she possesses, without knowing it, the secret of "Appleseed". That interest will become extremely important when Hitomi's life will be at risk and the "Appleseed Data" will be needed to save her and the entire Bioroid population of Olympus. But the discovery of the "Appleseed Data" could condemn the human population to extinction without Deunan knowing about this detail. But that would mean defying the powerful Olympus Regular Army (O.R.A.), composed entirely of humans and under the command of General Edward Uranus III and Colonel Hades.

obviously, catering for me would piss other people off :-D. not catering for me pisses me, and similar people, off. so, you see the problem?

{{anime voices|Ai Kobayashi|Amanda Winn Lee}}

why not, at least for sci/tech articles, for decent articles (B-list or above, say), fork the article into simple, normal, advanced, and expert versions? example definitions could be:

===Briareos Hecatonchires===

'''simple''' presumes no background knowledge. aims to get the basic concept across, tho not neccesarily any details on how/why the concept is/works/etc

At one time, Briareos was Deunan Knute's lover, as well as a comrade-in-arms in battle. During two years of hard separation for both of them, he was severely injured on the North African front. When Hitomi and the Elders saved him, he had over seventy-five percent of his body replaced by state-of-the-art mechanical components, making him a highly advanced cyborg. During Deunan's stay in Olympus he is assigned by his ES.W.A.T. superiors to protect her and also begins to search for the "Appleseed Data." In the original story, Briareos was a black man who lived in the mediterranean who served under Colonel Carl Knute, Deunan's father. In the original manga, Briareos and Deunan are not separated, and she is well aware of his cyborg body replacement.

'''normal''' presumes basic/no background knowledge. aims to get the basic concept across, with some understanding of how/why the thing is/works/etc

{{anime voices|Jūrōta Kosugi|Jamieson Price}}

'''advanced''' presumes some background knowledge. aims to get the concept fully accross, along with more detailed how and why

===Athena Areios===

'''expert''' presumes deep background knowledge, and a reader that wants to fully and deeply comprehend the subject, and who is willing to wade through a complicated article to do so.

Prime Minister of Olympus, Athena Areios is a first-generation Bioroid created by Deunan's mother, Dr. Gilliam Knute, and served as her lab assistant until Dr. Knute's death. Because Athena is a first-generation Bioroid, she doesn't have the emotional limitations the second-generation has, so she has greater latitude to use "extraordinary" methods to try to find Deunan. Of course, she also runs the risk that either the Council of Elders or General Uranus would find out and take action against her, so she, along with her chief-of staff Nike, have to be very careful.

{{anime voices|Mami Koyama|Mary Elizabeth McGlynn}}

examples for, say, a tRNA article:

===Nike===

'''simple''': understandable without any background knowledge: for those who are simply interested in knowing what tRNA is and what it does, not neccesarily understanding exactly how it works nor wading through complicated bio-molecular/genetic jibberish

Nike is Athena Areios's chief-of-staff, as well as being commander-in-chief of ES.W.A.T. Although she is a second-generation Bioroid, and being such having her emotions controlled, she is fiercely loyal to Athena, not to mention the Bioroids' prime purpose: the salvation of humanity.

'''normal''' understandable by someone without any above-basic background knowledge in biology/genetics, but possibly a bit confusing (i.e., they could, with effort, understand what tRNA is, and, broadly speaking, how it works, from the article). probably useful to A-level students as a primer, but less useful to BSCs.

{{anime voices|Miho Yamada|Mimi Woods}}

'''advanced''' let the scientific jibberish fly! useful to people with biological training. with a background in molecular biology, someone could come away from the article understanding what tRNA is and how it works, tho not neccesarily with an exam-passing understanding

===Hitomi===

'''expert''' for people who allready know the subject really well, and who want more esoteric info on tRNA, such as bond-lengths, etc. incomprehensable to normal people, but makes wp useful on the subject of tRNA to people who would have to work with tRNA in a professional setting.

A second-generation Bioroid, Hitomi is charged with recruiting new members of ES.W.A.T.. She had led the rescue mission of Deunan Knute in the Badlands, as well as aiding her getting settled in Olympus. Although her emotions are regulated, she has interest in the emotion of love, and is disturbed by hate, as expressed by the human soldiers of the O.R.A, especially towards the Bioroids.

i knocked up an example. note that i did it really quickly, and, as articles, they're shit. they just aim to demonstrait what i'm talking about.

{{anime voices|Yuki Matsuoka|Karen Strassman}}

the [[tRNA]] article, slightly stripped down, then forked into simple, normal, advanced and expert versions. [[User:Dak/TRNA]] (edit the demo articles if you want, i'm not going to mind just because they're on my user space).

===Yoshitsune Miyamoto===

what'cher recon? theres some gaps (between, say, advanced and expert, imo), and the system could be extended: maybe article/concise (brief as possible), article/verbiose (long winded, covering every aspect, with the kind of stuff which is usually clipped from articles to keep them of a sane size), article/data (lists of different tRNA molecules, average bond-lengths, links to genetic sequences, melting point, average molecular weights, etc), etc. etc. etc... --[[User:Dak|Dak]] 19:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Also a second-generation Bioroid, Yoshitsuni Miyamoto... or "Yoshi" as he is referred to, is ES.W.A.T.'s chief mechanic and Land Strider designer. He also would like to further examine Briareos' cybernetic armor more closely, if Briareos would allow it. His knowledge of mechanical workings would become useful later in the film. Yoshi seems to care for Hitomi.

'''ELApro''': I would assume that the old "Keep it '''simple''', stupid" adage might apply. If there is a simplified version of the article in the ''Simplified English Wikipedia'' then there should be an auto-link function in the software to have the link created. This, by the way, might be similarly applied to WikiQuotes, or whatever other Wiki application exists for an article. Why not have an option to create a simplified lay person's page, if one does not exist and the current single option appears to be too complex for some lay reader. After a lay version is created, a lay version link from a normal Wiki page would be available for anyone considering the current main page too complex, and desiring a simplified introduction. Those satisfied with the original page can leave it as is, and those believing the original page is too complex, will either have an option to view a simplified presentation, or will have an option to create a simplified version. Let the users decide which original pages may or may not be suited to the typical lay person, by copying information from the lay page (if it exists) into the original page, and keeping the lay page simple. If an article is acceptably presented to all viewers, leave it as is. No changes necessary. Otherwise, an alternative option, only one, is available, linked from the original article. Any levels beyond two could be done by extracting information and customizing on one's own home computer, to suit one's individual taste.

{{anime voices|Toshiyuki Morikawa|Dave Wittenberg}}

:Simple English is different; it refers to language.

:However, I don't see much point. This all can be done, and is done, using multiple pages and navboxes. After all, diving deep requires more pages anyway. Well, it's just simpler as it is. [[User:CP\M|CP/M]]^{[[User talk:CP\M|comm]]} |[[WP:WNP|Wikipedia Neutrality Project]]| 15:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

===Edward Uranus III===

== Downloadable Wiki Word Processor ==

Supreme commander of the O.R.A., General Edward Uranus III has a great distrust of the Bioroids, and wishes to either control them or totally eliminate them. But unlike his subordinate Hades, he is not given to irrationality. A friend of the Knute family, Uranus deeply regrets the death of Dr. Gilliam Knute and wants to persuade Deunan to help him in his quest.

Could a download link or site for just the Wiki word processor be made available. This is for the purpose of working off-line on say, adding a new article or new section. This would guarantee that offline formatting would conform to Wiki formatting. I have also had problems at times with losing information during long edits. I have been copying my text, as a backup, to Microsoft Notepad, but it sometimes adds such things as double spacing and loses certain characters.

:See [[Help:External editors]] — [[User:Jonathan Kovaciny|Jonathan Kovaciny]] <small>([[User talk:Jonathan Kovaciny|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jonathan Kovaciny|contribs]])</small> 15:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

However, when General Uranus was made aware about about the Council of Elder's plans to replace humans with Bioroids, then sterilize the humans using the "D-tank", he voluntarily surrendered, rather than be used as a pawn in the Council's plans.

== Redirect on Contribution pages, "redirect=no"? ==

{{anime voices|Yuzuru Fujimoto|Michael McConnohie}}

::uhh....i think people just don't really have an opinion on it. I, for one, have almost never encountered the situation you've outlined. On the offchance i do click on a contribution that's a redirect, i just click the history or diff links instead to see what changes the person made. I suppose a better place to ask would be the technical section... --[[User talk:Yaksha|<font color="#330066"><b>`/aksha</b></font>]] 02:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Yeah, this is definitely a good idea. [[User talk:Yaksha|<font color="#330066"><b>`/aksha</b></font>]] is right - move this to a technical section and it'll get noticed and maybe even implemented. Good luck. [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 18:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

::I like the idea (found it annoying myself before), but yeah this may have been better on the technical pump. -- ''[[User:Nae'blis|nae]]'[[User_talk:Nae'blis|blis]]'' 19:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

===Hades===

== Replace "Editing help" with "Cheatsheet" link ==

Colonel Hades is Gen. Uranus's subordinate. Like Uranus, he has a great distrust of the Bioroids. However, his distrust has evolved into an irrational, all-consuming hatred, and wishes to see the Bioroids destroyed.

I propose we '''change''' the link to [[Help:Editing]] to point to [[Wikipedia:Cheatsheet]], in the editing-mode layout. eg:

Originally, Hades served under Carl Knute, Deunan's father, in Los Angeles' S.W.A.T., but was thrown out by Carl because of his extreme methods. He held a grudge with Carl, and is furious that Carl's D.N.A. is in all the Bioroids.

:[[#|Cancel]] | [[Wikipedia:Cheatsheet|Editing help]] (opens in new window)

In the end, he is killed by Deuan's pistol, which was her father's.

It's technically difficult to add an additional link (as [[Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Adding a link to the Cheatsheet in editing-mode helpnotes?|previously]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29/Archive&oldid=87343170#Adding_a_link_to_the_Cheatsheet_in_editing-mode_helpnotes.3F proposed] and supported), and a few editors suggested it would actually be preferable to simply ''replace'' the "Editing help" link (at [[MediaWiki:Edithelppage]]), for clarity and simplicity. I agree, but this is a major change and will require strong consensus. Please comment/show support. Thanks :) --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 21:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC) - Updated per 2nd comment at 02:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

{{anime voices|Takehito Koyasu|Jack Aubree}}

*'''Strong Support''' - The [[Wikipedia:Cheatsheet|Cheatsheet]] is significantly more helpful to most users, and the Edit Help link is already standard fare on most welcome mats. Vote [[Wikipedia:Cheatsheet|Cheatsheet]] for ArbCom! <small>oh wait, I got my forums confused...</small> [[User:Doc Tropics|Doc ]] <font color ="green">[[User talk:Doc Tropics|Tropics]]</font > 21:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

*'''Conditional Support''' - I ''strongly'' support this change, however I don't support the verbiage change. I think it still needs to remain "Editing help" linking to the Cheatsheet. Simply putting "Cheatsheet" isn't explicit enough and new users will ignore the link out of confusion for what "Cheatsheet" refers to. --[[User:Wolf530|Wolf530]] ([[User talk:Wolf530|talk]]) 00:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

::I hadn't considered the wording, only the utility of the change itself. I agree with Wolf that the term "Cheatsheet" lacks the clarity of "Editing Help", which should probably be retained. [[User:Doc Tropics|Doc ]] <font color ="green">[[User talk:Doc Tropics|Tropics]]</font > 01:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Agreed. Proposal above updated accordingly. -[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 02:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support''' but the cheatsheet would need to be given a prominant link to [[Help:Editing]] so that the more detailed information can be obtained easily. [[User:Tra|Tra]] [[User:Tra/MyComments|(Talk)]] 02:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

*:Thanks, that link looks great! [[User:Tra|Tra]] [[User:Tra/MyComments|(Talk)]] 02:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

*::np, you beat me to the reply! I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACheatsheet&diff=91914438&oldid=91912284 tweaked] the See also section too. -[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 02:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Looks good, nice job : ) [[User:Doc Tropics|Doc ]] <font color ="green">[[User talk:Doc Tropics|Tropics]]</font > 03:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

===Kudoh===

::::Sorry for asking a question rather than voting (unfortunately I don't have a strong opinion): is the term ''cheatsheet'' adequate in tone for an encyclopedia? My non-native speaker "feeling" would go for ''quick reference'' or ''quick reference card''. Just bad feeling? &mdash;[[User:Gennaro Prota|<span style="color: #000080; font-weight: bold">Gennaro Prota</span>]][[User talk:Gennaro Prota|<sup style="color: #006400">&#8226;Talk</sup>]] 05:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Kudoh is one of the top members of ES.W.A.T. He participates in some training sessions with Deunan and eventually earns her respect. When she and Briareos head to Dr. Gilliam Knute's old lab, Kudoh comes along. After they are betrayed by a fellow ES.W.A.T. member who is sympathetic towards the O.R.A., Kudoh stays behind, keeping his gun trained on Hades so that Deunan and Briareos can escape.

:::::If enough editors feel strongly about it, "Cheatsheet" could be renamed as you suggest; however, there is probably a general understanding that the term has no negative connotations in this context. [[User:Doc Tropics|Doc ]] <font color ="green">[[User talk:Doc Tropics|Tropics]]</font > 05:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::I (months ago) moved it from "Wikipedia:Quick guide" to "Wikipedia:Cheatsheet" in order to match with the existing meta page [[:m:Cheatsheet]]. [[Wikipedia:Reference card]] is already an incoming redirect, so it could be moved there; I'm happy with either.(Also it's not a "vote", people often just add bolded initial words to give an "at a glance" summary of the state of a thread. You could add '''comment''' before yours for example :) -[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 05:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Shortly after this, Kudoh is gunned down by numerous O.R.A. soldiers and collapses dead against the wall of a hallway. Deunan expresses great distress over his death, but Briareos drags her away reluctantly, the O.R.A. hot on their trail.

*'''Comment''' - I like the change though, as I said above, I don't feel strongly about it (the main reason is: while it may help getting started earlier, which is good, it may also induce skipping a thorough read of the complete manual, which is harmful in the long run). What I would suggest anyway is eliminating the link redundancy at [[Wikipedia:Cheatsheet]]: off-hand it isn't obvious to me what's the difference between [[Help:Editing]], at the top of the page, and [[Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia|More editing help]] (last table row), for instance. &mdash;[[User:Gennaro Prota|<span style="color: #000080; font-weight: bold">Gennaro Prota</span>]][[User talk:Gennaro Prota|<sup style="color: #006400">&#8226;Talk</sup>]] 06:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

*:Done, it was redundant to the arrow/link back to help:contents too. (Anyone can edit it, it's not locked ;) --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 06:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support'''. Much more readable and accessible to newbies. [[User:Lincher|Lincher]] 14:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

*'''Absolute Support''', the "Cheatsheet" is more newb friendly. It's much easier to glance at that the edit help, and I think it will help Wikipedia.++[[User:aviper2k7|<span style="color:green;font-weight:bold;">aviper2k7</span>]]++ 01:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

*'''Another Conditional Support''': The cheatsheet is much better for syntax, but I think the "Editing basics" bullet points at [[Help:Editing]] should be somewhere on whatever page "Editing help" links to. I wouldn't want new users to miss these points, as they are very important. Could we summarize them on the Cheatsheet? Also, I think "Sign comments on talk pages" should be added to the Editing Basics list and the cheatsheet. -- [[User:Renesis13|Renesis]] ([[User talk:Renesis13|talk]]) 17:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

*:Signing talkpage posts is already heavily reminded at the top's of those pages via [[MediaWiki:Talkpagetext]] and at the bottom via [[MediaWiki:Edittools]]. I won't revert your addition at Cheatsheet, but I don't think it's necessary.

*:Adding the "Editing basics" bullet points would greatly increase the size of the page, and I think its brevity is one of its strong points. I'd suggest that the mentions elsewhere (intro/tutorial/help:editing/How to edit a page/etc) are sufficient; We want to get people started editing, more than we need them to start off perfectly. (imho, and all that :) -[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 21:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

*::Wow, I had never noticed the [[MediaWiki:Talkpagetext]] template text. Anyway, I still do think it is useful on the cheatsheet. As for the bullet points... I don't mean we need to move the entire text to the cheatsheet but listing a few of those points would be helpful, I think. -- [[User:Renesis13|Renesis]] ([[User talk:Renesis13|talk]]) 22:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

*:::It's new, in the last few weeks - top of talkpages. As for the Cheatsheet - it's a normal wikipage, edit at will; discuss if drastic or reverted. :) --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 01:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

{{anime voices|Tadahisa Saizen|Jack Aubree}}

Is that enough support (with zero objections)? I can announce it at [[WP:CBB]] if not; otherwise, I'll put the editprotected tag/request at [[MediaWiki:Edithelppage]] tomorrow. -[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 03:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support'''; this would reduce confusion for new users (who are most in need of the link). --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 14:23, 14 December 2006 ([[User:ais523|U]][[User talk:ais523|T]][[Special:Contributions/Ais523|C]])

===Dr. Gilliam Knute===

I went ahead and made the change. [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<font color="green">"?!"</font>]] 21:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Gilliam Knute was the scientist that created the Bioroids, as well as the "D-tank" virus, which is capable to redering normal humans sterile. It was during the creation of the first generation that she realized that the Council of Elders wanted to use the Bioroids to replace normal humanity altogether. Therefore, she arranged that the Bioroids would not be able to reproduce but kept the formula to activate their reproductive systems - codenamed "Appleseed" - in a pendant, which after she had her assistant Athena evacuated, she had given to her young daughter Deunan, with the promise to give it to Athena if she asked. Dr. Knute was later captured by the military - and mistakenly killed by a soldier in front of Deunan.

== Suggestion: New Yearbook about PC and Video Games ==

{{anime voices|Emi Shinohara|Mia Bradly}}

Hi,

==Music==

I tried to find a place to submit this, but ended up here.

The original soundtrack and music to the series features an [[electronic music|electronic]], [[techno music|techno]] and [[trance music|trance]] theme, with the likes of [[Paul Oakenfold]], [[Basement Jaxx]], [[Boom Boom Satellites]], [[Akufen]], [[Carl Craig]], [[T. Raumschmiere]] and [[Ryuichi Sakamoto]] handling the music.

It's about a new post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-10-21#the_Book_of_Games_Volume_1_.28The_Ultimate_Guide_to_PC_.26_Video_Games.29

==Sequel==

How long does it take before a new article is verified?

Director [[Shinji Aramaki]] will also be directing the sequel to the 2004 movie, titled [[Appleseed EX Machina]], which is set to be released in fall 2007 in Japan. The movie will once again feature animated [[computer-generated imagery]] and [[John Woo]] is fully involved in the production.

I am the publisher of the book, and would like to contribute if I could. Is it possible to get in contact with someone that will work on the article? We could send a press copy of the book to the person.

==References==

-Bendik Stang

*[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0401233/ IMDB's Appleseed article]

==External links==

*[http://www.appleseedthemovie.com/ Official ''Appleseed'' (2004) movie website]

* ''[http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/appleseed Appleseed]'' at [[MetaCritic]]

*[http://imdb.com/title/tt0401233/ Details of the 2004 anime] at the [[Internet Movie Database]]

{{Appleseed}}

== Expire (delete) unread articles ==

[[Category:2004 films]]

: ''[Note: This was initially but imporperly placed in (perrenial proposals)]'' --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 21:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[[Category:Appleseed]]

[[Category:Films broadcast by Animax]]

[[Category:Anime of the 2000s]]

[[Category:Computer-animated films]]

[[Category:Anime films]]

[[Category:Science fiction action films]]

[[Category:Action thriller films]]

[[de:Appleseed]]

I suggest that articles which go unread for an extended period of time be automatically removed. After all, the goal of an encyclopedia is to transmit knowledge. So an article which is not being read is not a useful part of an encyclopedia.

[[fr:Appleseed]]

[[ja:アップルシード]]

It seems to me that the first thing to do is to obtain statistics on how often articles are being read, and get some idea of what consititutes an unread (or rarely read) atricle. Even without that, I would suggest the following standard for removing articles:

[[pl:Appleseed]]

[[pt:Appleseed]]

* An article which goes unread or unedited for 90 days should be automatically removed.

[[ru:Appleseed]]

* Accesses by [[WP:BOT|bots]] and the "random article" function should not be considered reads for the purpose of this standard.

[[zh:蘋果核戰記]]

* A user which selects pages at a rate of more than 100 reads per hours for 10 accesses or more should not have their accesses for that period counted as reads. The same should also apply to edits. (This is suggested as a way to thwart editors who would access pages to "refresh" their expiration timers.)

* A page which is deleted under this standard should

** be replaced by a template stating when and why the deletion occurred,

** have its article and discussion histories removed to prevent a trivial revival of the article, and

** be protected against being restarted for at least 90 days.

* Secondary issues:

** When the random article function is used, should the use of a link in the article cause it to be considered read?

** The editing of a article accessed through the random article function probably should reset the expiration timer.

I suspect that this may result in the removal of a substantial number of articles, but if no one comes to Wikipedia looking for information on a given topic, is it at all fair to consider that subject notable? --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 05:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::Here's a few questions: is the usage rate for all articles generally constant or are some articles read on a cyclical basis? Are articles related to Arbor Day and Halloween accessed more frequently as these dates approach? Could there also be articles related to these two topics, which are perhaps of a minor or marginal nature, and which might see no use at all except during some segment of the calendar year? A great many U.S. colleges and universities are operating on a reduced schedule during June, July, and August, and might not the fact that a majority of their students are away on vacation affect the usage of Wiki articles?

::Just generally I'm uneasy with the idea of deleting information (because the minute I trash something I'll have need of it) and I think this proposal has the potential to strike at the core of what Wikipedia is, or is not. If the Wiki is to set a standard as a knowledgebase I would think that ''completeness'' must be part of the perception, if not the reality, of what the Wiki is. And if the Wiki is not perceived as complete, in some sense, then I suspect it becomes less likely to be used as the first source referred to when a person first 'looks up' a particular subject. I also wonder just who the Wikipedia is intended to serve. Is it to be a useful reference for everyone, no matter how arcane or obscure ones interest may be, or is this to be an encyclopedia for the casual masses, who, for example, are intrigued by ''The DaVinci Codes'' and turn to the web just to read a little more and see what's out there?

::In other words, do we entertain the hope that Wikipedia might be perceived as a standard tool for serious research of some kind, at some point, if not now, or are we content for Wikipedia to serve as a kind of enormous fan infobase for devotees of a great diversity of topics? Both forms of Wiki would serve a valuable purpose, but they are not the same animal.

::Also, I feel it should be pointed out that anyone who wrote an article, only to find it deleted ninety-one days later, might well become disenchanted with Wikipedia, and thus disinclined to ever write to another article, or another, or another, because the fruits of their labor did not, in effect, ''sell'' to the reading public (or their search engines). You might also discourage other people from ever writing anything, out of the concern that their efforts would not be sufficiently popular to generate sustained interest, as the seasons turn. [[User:Cryptonymius|Cryptonymius]] 17:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::: With regards to cyclical reading: I find it hard to believe that [[Halloween]] would go completely unread for the rest of the year. The goal is to have a bar low enough so that an article that is of any legitimate interest will easily stay in Wikipedia. Perhaps the time on this should be 1 year instead of 90 days. (I actually suspect that much of Wikipedia is accessed daily, but a reasonably long expiration time is needed to protect marginal articles against the effects of randomness. For example, and article that gets accessed twice a week on average could easily have a month where it it not accessed at all. Hence the 90-day period.)

::: The concerns about Wikipedia as an enormous infobase and the concern over editors being disenchanted in their work vanishes are related. Once again I ask of what use an article is if it is never accessed or if anyone other than the creator cares that it is there. Such articles contribute to the article count, but do not contribute to the mission of the encyclopedia. It seems me that if an editor is not producing usable content that their becoming disenchanted is not a bad thing. In fact, we are constantly deleting undesirable/non-notable content. IMO, this is a wonderful test for non-notability.

::: As for "completeness": "[[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not]] an indiscrimiate collector of information". It is not intended to be "complete". This leads to another consideration: If an article is not being accessed, it is not being checked for accuracy either. Remember the incident of that fake biography which created such a scandal within Wikipedia a year or so ago. That article went unnoticed for months. Under this scheme, it would have vanished of its own accord in a reasonable period of time.

::: Finally, do note that I have called for there to be a usage study first, so that the viability of this proposal can be determined. The "random article" function currently returns mostly stubs on parks and people that provide little usable information. It would be nice to see that buttom return more in the way of solid content more of the time. --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 19:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:This just increases systemic bias against important but less popular subjects. The Superman article would never be deleted by this, but articles about certain species or chemical compounds might. I just think this is a terrible idea.--[[User:ChrisGriswold|Chris Griswold]] (<big>[[User talk:ChrisGriswold|<span style="color:red">☎</span>]][[Special:Contributions/ChrisGriswold|<span style="color:black">☓</span>]]</big>) 21:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:: Why in God's good name would you expect [[Superman]] to be deleted under this proposal? It is an actively edited article and a regular target of vandals! Look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Superman&action=history it's edit history]! This article would need to have the Earth demolished by a kyptonite meteorite to go unread for any significant period of time. --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 21:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:::He said it WOULDN'T be deleted. Read his comment again. --[[User:tjstrf|tjstrf]] <small>[[User talk:Tjstrf|talk]]</small> 22:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:Please no. The fact that no one on an electronic encyclopedia reads something for x period of time means very little. There's no cost to keeping it, and a detriment to someoen who eventually wants to use it. [[User:Trollderella|Trollderella]] 21:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:: If it's not being read, it's not being edited. If it's not being edited, the content is not being validated and/or improved. First versions on this medium are generally lousy, but if several editors are involved an article will improve quite fast. Also, given the current popularity of Wikipedia I would think that any useful article is highly unlikely to go unread for any significant period of time. --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 21:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:This proposal violates my general principle that bots must never be given more power than humans. The community would never allow such a blind massacre on AfD. An admin who repeatedly deleted articles without even glancing at their titles, content, histories, talk pages, logs, or linked pages would be reverted and desysopped. No amount of usage studies will change that.

:The software ''could'' help us out by generating lists of unread articles, which thoughtful humans would comb through in search of non-notability and vandalism. But the software cannot take any action that we wouldn't. [[User:Melchoir|Melchoir]] 22:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:: If an article is completely unread for an extended period of time, on what grounds would you consider it to be notable? --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 22:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Any of them. The existence of multiple, nontrivial, published reviews is a standard measure; there are others. Note that notability pertains to an article's subject, not the article itself. An article's readership can suffer from factors that have nothing to do with its subject, such as a poorly chosen title, insufficient incoming links, or improper categorization.

:::Moreover, notability is a criterion for deletion only because it tends to single out topics which are impossible to cover encyclopedically: they are so little-known that we cannot meet our content policies of verification and neutrality for an article. Your proposed process cannot identify these non-notable articles; it doesn't even care when the content standards have already been met! [[User:Melchoir|Melchoir]] 01:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This idea is patently absurd. There are many notable encyclopedic subjects which people only rarely would need to know about or research. For example, who's going to look up minor Senators of Alabama from the 30's? However, that is no excuse to go about deleting them when the information they contain is useful and necessary to our ''encyclopedic'' nature. [[Encyclopedia]]s, in case you haven't heard, are supposed to be all-encompassing. Why should we delete pages simply because they are not of popular interest? This would additionally give us an even stronger bias towards the temporal and current vs. the timeless and historical. '''Rejected.''' --[[User:tjstrf|tjstrf]] <small>[[User talk:Tjstrf|talk]]</small> 22:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this for real? This proposal is so absurd that it costs me a major effort to believe it was done in good faith. -- [[User:Ekjon Lok|Ekjon Lok]] 22:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:Hum. "I suggest that [books] which go unread for an extended period of time be automatically [burned]. After all, the goal of [a library] is to transmit knowledge. So [a book] which is not being read is not a useful part of [a library]." We were reshelving a bay at work today; I'm fairly sure some of those books hadn't been touched in four, five years. But they're still useful books, in potentia, they just need their reader to come along. I think the analogy is illuminating... [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::Perfect parallel. I remember checking out a copy of [[Kidnapped (novel)|Kidnapped]] from my library which hadn't been read since 1954. --[[User:tjstrf|tjstrf]] <small>[[User talk:Tjstrf|talk]]</small> 22:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:I hope you tore it up, it was clearly not-notable. [[User:Trollderella|Trollderella]] 22:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:This is a phenomenally terrible idea. -- [[User:BrianSmithson|BrianSmithson]] 01:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::The proposer of the topic should consider WELL ESTABLISHED policies: 1) [[WP:NOT|wikipedia is not paper]]. There is no compelling reason to remove a well-referenced article merely to "make space". Wikipedia has infinite space. There are reasons for deleting articles, but simply to remove them because they aren't being used is silly. Consider the average University Library. They have millions of volumes, and only a few thousand are ever on loan. Some LARGE majority of the books in a University Library may go YEARS between check-outs. Yet, the university maintains space for them, not for the fact that they ''HAVE'' been used, but that they ''MIGHT'' be used. Past performance is never an indication of future performance. 2) Notability is established OUTSIDE of wikipedia, and is NEVER revoked. Once external, independant, third-party sources exist to verify notability, THEY NEVER STOP EXISTING. Thus, once notable, always notable. The fact that an article goes unread doesn't eliminate the existance of the sources used to write the article. Thus, there is no compelling reason to delete merely for lack of utility. 3) Wikipedia is a place to collect knowledge. To delete VERIFIABLE knowledge for any reason runs counter to Wikipedia's purpose. I would agree that this MAY be one of the worst proposals I have seen here. What purpose would it serve to delete a verifable and notable article? --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User:Jayron32/Esperanza|<span style="color:#00FF00;">32</span>]] 02:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:Saying an article hasnt been edited/read for 90 days (excluding bots) so lets delete, I wonder how many FA would fall into that category. Even ignoring that Wikipedia is as much about the collection of knowledge as anything else, while we may write an article on something today because nobody reads or edits that page for 90 days doesnt invalidate the information. There enough stub, poorly formed or unsourced articles that survive AfD, how could it be contemplated to let a bot just delete an FA/GA because nobody as has read or edited it for 90 days. [[User:Gnangarra|Gnangarra]] 03:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What I am seeing are a lot of knee-jerk reactions, as if articles should be here because they are here. [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not]] an indiscriminate collector of information. I really think that this is an idea that needs to be researched. How often are articles accessed? Are there articles which go largely unread? If so, what kind of content do those articles typically have? From there other questions will follow: Are these relatively unaccessed articles worth keeping? What do these articles say about the Wikipedia notability standads? Noone seems to have an answer to those questions. The concern about FA articles is valid, but I strongly doubt that topics which noone cares about become FA's. At the least Wikipedia should come to know how it is being used.

(BTW - I agree that blindly implementing this suggestion is a truly bad idea. You just plain don't do something like this unless you have a very good idea of what it is going to do.) --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 03:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:Any article can become an FA provided someone put the effort into researching and writing. then you proposal should be to find out how and what is being accessed, without the suggestion of deleting stuff. [[User:Gnangarra|Gnangarra]] 03:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:: The two kind of go hand-in-hand. I am making a certain assumption that unviewed material is almost certainly non-FA material. That assumption needs to be validated. It could be that stubs can be removed on this basis, but more fleshed out articles are better manually reviewed if not just plain kept. --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 05:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, wrong implementation. Instead of deleting them, have a Special:Unviewed page (or probably some better name) that would allow these articles to be identified. Then it gives people one more avenue to find articles that need to be reviewed. But certainly no automatic deletion. —[[User:Doug Bell|Doug&nbsp;Bell]]&nbsp;^{[[User talk:Doug Bell|talk]]} 04:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

: That is an intriguing idea, and others have suggested above that a manual process would be more desirable. I can be flexible with this, as my concern is to remove the "clutter" from Wikipedia. Yet in the end I want something to come out of this that is a benefit to Wikipedia. I get a sense that there are a number of articles present that could be deleted but just are not worth the bother to find and flag. A system of this type may be able to cull things more efficiently. --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 05:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

*Doug - we have [[Special:Ancientpages]]. ([[User_talk:Radiant!|<font color="orange">Radiant</font>]]) 09:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::The problem is here is that 'clutter' is a thinly veiled term for 'things I'm not interested in'. Why would you think that unread articles are 'clutter' that need to be removed? They are gems waiting to be discovered! [[User:Trollderella|Trollderella]] 17:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::: "Ancientpages" is not at all the same thing. I spot checked them and saw a collection of disambiguation pages and a few short (but well done) articles on small towns. I suspect that most (if not all) of these are accessed regularly.

::: I accept the insinuation about the meaning of "cluter". However, the issue is one of identifying what noone is interested in as opposed to what I am not interested in. 99% of this encyclopedia I will never use. At the same time, the relativity pages (which I edit) will never be read by 99% of the users of Wikipedia. I realize that this proves nothing.

::: Can anyone answer this question: I there are tracking a article usage currently? IMO, it would be interesting to track the last 10 non-bot/random reads to each article (by when and not who), as well as to maintain counters for the current and previous of each of day, week, month, year. (I don't know how much tracking data can be efficiently attached to an article. I am certain that doing so will make the database bigger, and that could be an issue. Perhaps a tracking database is what is needed.) --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 17:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is mirrored all over the place. This means it is impossible to know whether an article has been read or not; you can only find out if it has been read on a particular service (eg Wikimedia). A statistical survey might yeild interesting information (it would be especially interesting to know how well the read frequency correlates with the edit frequency), but I don't think editorial decisions like this should be made on such a crude basis.

[[User:Chris Thornett|Chris Thornett]] 19:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

: At least I am getting support for studying the usage patterns. I would not let the existance of mirrors bother you. The first question is how the mirrors are refreshed: If they only go to Wikipedia for content when it is requested (for example a mirror may seek the current article if it has been more than a day since it last retrieved it), then for the less-used articles the statistics will remain accurate and valuable. Even if mirror-related effects are not visible, Google tensd to send searchers straight to Wikipedia, so once again Wikipedia statistics should be usable and indicative of generally unread articles. As for whether this means is "crude": Until it has been studies, noone can say for sure how good or bad it is. We really should have the data instead of each of us "shooting fromt he hip". --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 20:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::a) Almost all mirrors are running from static dumps of varying age; very few are directly spidering Wikipedia or regularly updating. We have little to no knowledge of most of them, much less ability to get data.

::b) We just don't have article-read statistics. We can't generate them, not with the setup as is. Logging pageviews, the fundamental requirement for good statistics, has been estimated at about 7 terabytes of storage space ''per month'' across Wikimedia sites - your ninety days threshold would mean having to store and regularly study 20TB of logs. Even stripping that down to nothing more than a timestamp and a page-visited note would still be unwieldily large. The best we can do is very very limited sampling, hopelessly muddied by caching and proxies and so on, looking at about one pageview in a thousand - and whilst that is decent for letting us know what the most useful pages are, it's hopeless for anything in the long tail, the articles that a proposal like this is interested in.

::In short, the impracticality of collecting the data makes any proposal based on interpreting that data a non-starter. [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 20:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::: This does not impress me in the least. The issue is how to get it done, not why it cannot be done. Logging all pageviews for 90 days worth is indeed a non-starter, but that is not how you would do the needed tracking! This kind of study relies on aggregate startistics. Suggestion: Create a daily tracking table/database. During the day, each read results in the invokation of a read against the tracking table entry for that article. If the entry exists, then increment it's counter. If it does not exist, then create it with a value of 1. At the end of the day do a file rename to switch the tracking to a new, empty database. The previous day's table is then saved under a name which includes the date. Batch processes can now be used to create aggregate tables for weeks, months, etc. Given a million articles and names which average 25 characters long, the result is a database which is 30-50 Mb big. Ninety days worth is then < 5 Gb worth. That isn't small but it fits easily on most modern hard drives and is far from the 20 Tb that you claim is needed each month. So a properly designed process is very much within the realm of technical feasability. --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Wikimedia simply does not have the resources to do a database write at a rate that is anywhere near 1 per read request. It takes a large number of caches and database mirrors just to keep up with the read requests. In addition, many of the dedicated caches are intentionally very dumb, and would not be able to update a read counter without a major architechural change. I am afraid any kind of tracking that needs to respond to every read request is a technical non-starter. (FYI, the read rate for Wikipedia is in the ballpark of 5000 pages per second distributed across >200 servers.) [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] 21:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

::::: I beg to differ. Let's first take the external mirrors off of the table, so that only direct request to Wikipedia iteself are considered (which is still a real boatload). It seems to me that you identify boxes that can handle this task, and those that handle reads. Any box that can do both maintains a local read counter along the lines noted. Otherwise, the requests get passed onto a box that can handle the counting task. Note that each box does its own counting in this case to spread the load around. At the end of the day, they all send their data to another box which collects and combines the individual databases from the various boxes to obtain the statistical "dailies" for Wikipedia. I believe that this will introduce a minor (not necessarily trivial) load on the system. It will also need some thoughtful design and implementation to create. So the issues are ones of whether Wikipedia is interested in putting enough of its volunteer resources together to prototype this, and if it does so what level of system impact would be acceptable if this is to go into production.

::::: I strongly suspect that you all will learn a lot of interesting things about Wikipedia if this is implemented. Whether my initial suggestion will be implemented because of it is problematical though. --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 04:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

:We should also remember that we are not just writing for the current crop of readers - we are writing about verifiable material for generations to come. We have litterally no idea what they will be interested in, just as past historians did not anticipate what we would be interested in. That is why verifiability, not whether it is interesting to current readers, must be the gold standard. [[User:Trollderella|Trollderella]] 23:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I just love the note at the top that says this was temporarily placed at perennial proposals. I'm a deletionist at heart but this is just a very very bad idea. And I won't even mention the useless technical complications that implementing this would entail. Quality articles are quality articles, regardless of whether or not they're read often. We already have plenty of resources allowing us to identify useless content: orphaned articles, linkless articles, short pages, neglected articles etc. Any attempt to make the deletion process automatic will undoubtedly lead to loss of valuable content. I have a hard time believeing this is a good faith proposal. [[User:Pascal.Tesson|Pascal.Tesson]] 06:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

: I was shown the random article function by my daughter (it's on the left hand side of the screen in the skin I'm using), and she was joking about the kinds of articles that it shows. Try it. It is mostly stubs on trivial places and people. If find it hard to believe that most of that stuff is viewed at all regularly. Often it does little more that documents the existance of the topic. You worry about losing "valuable content", but how is content valuable if it is never used!? I think the silliness of that knee-jerk reaction to this proposal is shown in people worrying that [[Halloween]] and [[Superman]] could vanish because of it. Most (if not all) of the articles removed under this proposal will be on topics that you cannot name!

: Once again, I call for article usage to be studied and unread articles to be identified in order to determine if this idea or some variation on the theme can work. Noone can name for me an unread, quality article because noone knows what articles are unread! [[Special:ancientpages]] shows the oldest (longest since last edited) articles, but most of those have good reason for being stable, and most likely are regularly read.

: It is silly that I keep hearing the theme of "this will remove valuable content". Once again: [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not]] an indiscriminate collector of information. I for one find it hard to believe that unaccessed articles will be found to be valuable. Remember the incident on the fake biography accusing someone of being involved in the [[John F. Kennedy assassination]]! That article went unnoticed for months! Why? Becuase noone read it, except accidentally! Unaccessed articles are not being checked for accuracy, nor do they have content being added to them as additional people with additional knowledge become involved with them. Those that may be worth keeping will be on highly esoteric subjects, and even then there may be an issue of whether they should be in this wiki!

: At the least, it would be nice if the data was gathered so that I could be shown that this is a silly proposal, or alternatively that I could show you that it (or a manual version of it) will work a lot better than you may think. --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 15:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

::I do hope you are joking. [[User:Trollderella|Trollderella]] 21:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

::: It's not a joke. Even if the idea is bad, I believe that the suggestion itself is good because of the questions it raises. After all, if there are unread articles, then why should that be the case? Are these quality articles that will reward the very occasional reader who should be looking for them? Or are they hidden pieces of BS that are waiting to "bite" an unwary user of the "random article" function? It seems to me that it would be very interesting to find out what is unread and determine why that is, and I do suspect that a lot of those articles would end up being removed upon further consideration. --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 22:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

::::For the second time, no one said [[Superman]] would be deleted. The person who commented about the Superman article was saying that Superman ''wouldn't'' be deleted but that far more scientifically valuable articles like those on elemental isotopes or rare species might be. --[[User:tjstrf|tjstrf]] <small>[[User talk:Tjstrf|talk]]</small> 23:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the idea of deleting (manually or automatically) long-unread articles is absurd, being able to view a list of pages that have not been viewed in a long time would be very useful, as [[User:Doug_Bell]] suggested. [[Special:ancientpages]] orders pages based on creation date, so [[Special:unviewedpages]] (wantonpages?) would sort them based on their last access date. This tool could be used to make sure esoteric pages are of acceptable quality. It would also be a way of finding hidden gems! -[[User:Kslays|Kslays]] 21:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

: Thank you for being open-minded about the possibilities here. --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 22:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

:: Sorry if anyone already wrote it, but - if some page is listed in proposed Unviewedpages list and I someone will have to solve the quality of the page, he will have to visit the page - and if he does it, the page is immediatelly visited and removed from the list... So if the editor thinks for whatever reason it is a valueable page (or if the reader does not think about any reason, just browsing the Wikipedia not caring about editting or removing unread articles), it is safe for years again. So be careful about the list. [[User:Okino|Okino]] 23:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

:''[[The Long Tail]]'' is relevant to this discussion (I see that Shimgray mentioned this concept above). I oppose deleting unread articles in the same way I oppose burning dusty books (as was mentioned earlier). The statistics gleaned from the analysis would be interesting and valuable - they would help to focusing certain clean-up efforts and in surveillance for certain types of vandalism. --User:Ceyockey (<small>''[[User talk:Ceyockey|talk to me]]''</small>) 00:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear God, the deletionists are at it again! No, this is an appalling proposal. Just because information is obscure and rarely accessed does not make it useless. I was the first person to check a 1940s book out of the university library where I work. Does that make it useless? No, of course it doesn't. For a start, I was interested enough in it to take it out! Let's just bin this proposal now and move on. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] 17:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

*My initial reaction is to be against this proposal, it just seems negligent. The only way I could see it working is if '''1)''' The no-read deadline is extended to 6 months, if not a whole year. and '''2)''' If the pages weren't actually deleted, but instead, archived somewhere with the possibility of recreation. -- '''[[User:Chabuk|Chabuk]] ^{[&nbsp;[[User talk:Chabuk|T]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Chabuk|C]]&nbsp;]}''' 18:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

:I agree, bin the proposal of anything relating to deletion of old articles. Very bad idea for all the reasons listed above and it merits no further discussion. However, we should thank [[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] for the entirely distinct discussion about having a way to see a list of articles that nobody has looked at in a long time that grew out of this failed proposal. As [[User talk:Ceyockey| Ceyockey]] says, it would be a way of finding vandalism, encouraging clean-up, and additionally we could find useful neglected content that should be better linked and integrated into frequently viewed articles to make it more accessible. Who can create [[Special:unviewedpages]]? -[[User:Kslays|Kslays]] 16:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

*You might find [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Articles|this]] helpful. [[user:nineteenninetyfour|<font color=green>Ninety</font>]][[user talk:nineteenninetyfour|<font color=green>^wazup?</font>]] 20:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Its not always apparent to people but have you ever considered that an unread article maybe simply undiscovered instead of ignored, Its like that time when Atari made an illegal tetris cartridge for Nintendo's NES system, and most of the cartridges were kept in a warehouse. At that time you could see adds offering $300 for one cartridge! They simply didnt know it was there and therefore did not pay the warehouse any attention. Its basically like that, if you dont know it is there you wont visit, you could probably shave off a good amount of content from wikipedia, simply because people dont know its there! I personally think that there shouldnt be a deletion of unread content.

-Charlie34

:As far as I know, Wikipedia isn't a free web hosting. The purpose of WP is very different, and so I don't see how low access rate alone justifies deletion of content. Remember, HDD space cost is negligible compared to the work of creating content. Should libraries burn books not requested for a year? If not, why should we?

:Actually, deleting users who haven't edited for 90 days would make as much sense.

:However, I have always supported the idea of at least rough monitoring of usage, at least to precision of how many digits the number would have. This would help on AfD and before AfD to separate subjects with no interest and not worth salvaging from ones which are worth rewriting. Really help, there've been a lot of cases when an article on a seemingly obscure "crufty" subject was rewritten and turned into a good one, clearly proving notability of the subject. [[User:CP\M|CP/M]]^{[[User talk:CP\M|comm]]} |[[WP:WNP|Wikipedia Neutrality Project]]| 14:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

== [[WP:ADOPT]] ==

I cannot see this proposal anywhere; if I have missed it, please don't shout at me.

It seems quite clear to me that many serious new editors, who really want to help our project, do not come across the adopt-a-user setup, nor are they directed to it. I have adopted two users and, since doing so, I have been approached by three newbies with questions which, happily, I could answer. But they were unaware that they could have asked to be adopted. They had all received a {{tl|welcome}} template. I propose that the welcome templates be enlarged to include a link to [[WP:ADOPT]]. They then have the option of going there or not, but they will at least know about it.--[[User:Anthony.bradbury|Anthony.bradbury]] 19:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:It sounds like a good suggestion, and I would eventually support it, but [[WP:ADOPT]] is very new. It might be best to allow for a breaking-in-period for the program before linking to it from welcome templates. [[User:Doc Tropics|Doc ]] <font color ="green">[[User talk:Doc Tropics|Tropics]]</font > 19:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:Sounds good to me. Not sure about the breaking-in-period. Do we really need it? &mdash;[[User:Gennaro Prota|<span style="color: #000080; font-weight: bold">Gennaro Prota</span>]][[User talk:Gennaro Prota|<sup style="color: #006400">&#8226;Talk</sup>]] 19:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:Without naming names, ''some'' other well-intentioned programs have later encountered difficulties and met with a certain amount of criticism. I do think that a longer period for community evaluation and response to [[WP:ADOPT]] would be in order before creating an "offical" link. In part because the link would strongly imply an official endorsement, in part because it just seems prudent to make sure the program works the way it was intended. [[User:Doc Tropics|Doc ]] <font color ="green">[[User talk:Doc Tropics|Tropics]]</font > 20:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

:Are you talking about [[User:ChrisGriswold|Wiki-Bortion]]? I thought it started out well at first, but then things started to get complicated. --[[User:ChrisGriswold|Chris Griswold]] (<big>[[User talk:ChrisGriswold|<span style="color:red">☎</span>]][[Special:Contributions/ChrisGriswold|<span style="color:black">☓</span>]]</big>) 16:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC) <small>&mdash;''the preceding comment is a joke.''</small>

In support of Anthony.bradbury I would like the Adopt-a-user program to be linked from {{tl|welcome}}, but I do understand the concerns of Doc Tropics. I would like to ask what sort of time period / number we talking about, and where could we get such community evaluation done?

On the other hand the project has been running for a few months now - and we have currently over 65 adoptees - and so far (as far as I am aware) no complaints. Even if it was added to the welcome template, we could always removed it very quickly if there were problems encountered. Beyond a certain point I suppose it is an old circular argument - if we don't have any "official" support we can't advertise the service properly to increase our numbers, but we need to increase numbers before we are allowed "official" support. "Official" support is particularly important for this project because it would help us attract the newest of users (who are otherwise hard to reach).

On a similar and maybe less controversial note, it would be great if we could have a link inserted under Where to ask Questions at [[Help:Contents]] - please see [[Help talk:Contents]] to discuss. Thanks [[User:Lethaniol|Lethaniol]] 15:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

:For the sake of clarification, I strongly support the program myself and I'd like to get involved; it seems a very worthwhile project. My only concern was about moving too quickly in adding it to the "welcome mat". I would support the link being added once we are sure that the program works as intended, and so far, it seems to. [[User:Doc Tropics|Doc ]] <font color ="green">[[User talk:Doc Tropics|Tropics]]</font > 15:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, I like this as well. For now, let's try to spread this by text-of-mouth.--[[User:ChrisGriswold|Chris Griswold]] (<big>[[User talk:ChrisGriswold|<span style="color:red">☎</span>]][[Special:Contributions/ChrisGriswold|<span style="color:black">☓</span>]]</big>) 16:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As I mention [[Template_talk:Welcome#Proposal_to_have_link_to_Adopt-a-User|elsewhere]], I do not think that this program is so useful (while the idea is cute). The best way for a user to get involved would be contribute to articles, and the interaction which follows from there. Joining a wikiproject is also a good idea.

Besides, I believe that the {{tl|welcome}} template already has a bit too many links. If this project is found really useful, I'd suggest replacing one of the existing links than adding to it. [[User:Oleg Alexandrov|Oleg Alexandrov]] ([[User talk:Oleg Alexandrov|talk]]) 16:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

:Could people also comment on maybe adding it to the [[Help:Contents]] as well/instead please - many thanks [[User:Lethaniol|Lethaniol]] 16:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

:Per this thread [[Help talk:Contents#WP:Adopt]]. Comment here or there. --[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 19:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

:Another suggestion: Maybe we could make another template (e.g. {{tl|welcome-a}}) with the welcome message and the link for users who want to link to [[WP:ADOPT]] to use until the link gets added to {{tl|welcome}}. That said, I'm in favor of adding it. If any problems come up, it can be removed later. I think this would have been helpful for me when I was new; I, like a lot of people with knowledge in kind of obscure areas, edited quietly and didn't have too many interactions for a long time. [[user:delldot|delldot]] | <small>[[user talk:delldot|talk]]</small> 21:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

:I strongly support this addition to the routine welcome template. Requiring a break-in period for the adoption program is superfluous. It is a very simple program and its basic concept has been proven for millennium. -- [[User:CyberAnth|CyberAnth]] 08:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:Until, which will be hopefully soon, Adopt-a-User is added to either or both of Help:Contents of the Welcome template, people that support its insertion can use an alternative template - [[Template:Adopt-a-User Welcome]] - which has only a minor modification to include Adopt-a-User. Cheers [[User:Lethaniol|Lethaniol]] 19:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

*Support this idea. I was unaware of it until I followed your link just now!!! - <span style="color:#ccf;background:#ccf;border-style: single">[[User:PocklingtonDan|PocklingtonDan]]</span> 10:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

:Just so people known, we have increased are number of users involved (combined adoptees and adopters) from 100 to 150 in under 10 days. As the project in continuing to gain support I would like to know at what sort of level of use people think it should get linked from Welcome and Help pages, or whether it should never be? Cheers [[User:Lethaniol|Lethaniol]] 12:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. I know that numbers are not everything, but they are one of the measures that, I should think, will be needed to be used to assess the programs importance [[User:Lethaniol|Lethaniol]] 13:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

:'''Support''' per nominator. --[[User:Foundby|Foundby]] 10:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

== "in the news section" ==

how come the content of the "in the news section" is always the same articles ... ?, Thanks, Rod Brown[[User:159.251.88.50|159.251.88.50]] 16:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

*It's not. It updates at a pretty slow rate, but it does change.But for that to happen, someone needs to update the relevant article and suggest a news item and an administrator must agree to put it up. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|^(talk)]] 13:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

**The speed that it changes depends on the speed at which articles get updated. Some times an article can stay up there for three or four days, sometimes it is gone in 24 hours. Also try clearing your browser's cache to make sure it is getting the newest version of the page (most likely you hold the control key and press F5). [[User:Koweja|Koweja]] 04:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

== Topical ArbCom? ==

I just read the interesting essay by [[User:DV8 2XL]], who left the project in August 2006.<br>

Given that we seem to have a lot of eager ArbCom candidates, certainly more than the ones needed for the main ArbCom, and many with stellar records (none perfect but no human is), would it make sense to have lower level 'topical ArbComs' as [[User:DV8 2XL]] suggests?<br>

Imagine having, say, 6 such topical ArbComs, one for each of the current topics in [[WP:Refdesk]]. They would focus on main article space disputes, and on cases where behavior is mostly [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] (or maybe we could add a dedicated [[WP:CIVIL]] topical ArbCom) and the issues are more related to the core WP content policies, such as [[WP:V]], [[WP:NOR]], [[WP:NOT]], [[WP:N]], etc. They would have the same power to decide on remedies as the main ArbCom. All their decisions would be appealable to the main ArbCom, who would be able to summarily dismiss the appeal (hopefully in most cases) or accept it.<br>

Of course each topical ArbCom would also be able to select its cases, suggesting continued efforts in other mediation venues where applicable.<br>

The motivation is to clear backlog and deal with disputes much earlier than we do today, per [[User:DV8 2XL]]'s suggestions.

Any thoughts? Has this been suggested/rejected before? [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] 13:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

:In other words, a group of subsidiary courts? Well, that does sound like the next logical step in expanding the dispute resolution process. We may not actually be large enough to require them quite yet, though.

:Would these subsidiary courts be permitted to desysop? I'm assuming any such decision would probably be appealed, but making it explicitly allowed/forbidden from the start would be helpful. --[[User:tjstrf|tjstrf]] <small>[[User talk:Tjstrf|talk]]</small> 19:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

::I suggest the topical ArbCom should be able to issue admin remedies (including desysopping), but desysopping would always require approval by the top ArbCom. I would propose that for such approvals a quick process would be instituted, similar to today's 'case closing' vote. If the lower ArbCom recommendation is voted down, then it will enter a discussion phase by the top ArbCom, followed by a possibly modified remedy. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] 01:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Can't say I've given it much thought but I like the idea. We could have slightly smaller ArbCom committees which would probably also make them more efficient. Crum375 is right: a lot of very competent, respected election candidates will fail because there are so few spots on the ArbCom. Also, this could mean a somewhat smaller workload for individual ArbCom members, making it more likely that god candidates will apply. [[User:Pascal.Tesson|Pascal.Tesson]] 02:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure this would work well. It is one thing to say that with an expanded ArbCom (see comments on Jimbo's page and on the ArbCom voting talk page), not all cases need to be heard by the full committee; ''de facto'', that's the practice now. But the community has been extremely hesitant about giving the Arbitration Committee, or any small number of users, authority over content issues. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 02:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

::::I fully agree that content issues in general should be settled by consensus, and failing that with the help of voluntary non-binding dispute resolution mechanisms before reaching binding arbitration. The problem that [[User:DV8 2XL]] alludes to (as I understand it) is that very often issues spend too much time in various non-binding mediation processes and by the time they escalate to ArbCom, way too much time and energy have been spent, with a lot of acrimony and frustration along the way, leading to loss of productivity and burnout. The concept here is to introduce binding resolutions at a lower level, while still encouraging the non-binding methods, in the hope of achieving better efficiency and reducing debilitating prolonged conflicts. The issue really is: assuming that as we grow we'll have more need for arbitrators, do we want a single tier or a dual tier arbitration system? Intuitively the dual tier sounds like it could do a better job, assuming the division of labor rules between the tiers are properly defined. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] 02:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Can anyone here suggest a way to get more input on this from the community? [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] 02:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:I think a single pool that draws random panels for individual disputes would make the most sense for dealing with the growth of Wikipedia, plus some procedure to allow escalation to an [[en banc]] decision for close or contentious issues. Since ArbComm doesn't rule on content, I don't think topical specialization would be that productive. [[User:TheronJ|TheronJ]] 14:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

::I can see some scalability problems with the single tier ArbCom, in the long run:

::#It will be harder to keep track of situations with repeat offenders, as 'memory' will be diluted as we grow and spread out the load laterally

::#Some cases are simple and some are hard (hard typically involve admin-level conflicts and wheel-wars). The single tier will need to deal with all problems randomly, whereas the dual tier can automatically escalate the hard problems to the top tier while easily dealing with the simpler ones at the lower tier

::#Although content dispute per se should not be 'arbitrated', many conflicts arise in relation to content. Having the more specialized lower tier ArbCom would improve understanding of the underlying content issues and make the resolution quicker and more efficient

::#Having the dual tiers will allow a more natural division of labor, as opposed to near-random case selection by a large ArbCom pool

::[[User:Crum375|Crum375]] 14:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

:As long as the role of ArbCom is primarily related to user conduct rather than managing the content of the encyclopedia, a topical breakdown doesn't seem very natural. [[User:Christopher Parham|Christopher Parham]] [[User talk:Christopher Parham|(talk)]] 03:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

::Maybe so, but ArbCom does need to expand to handle a bigger caseload, and a dual tier structure makes sense, as opposed to random subgroups in a single flat structure. Using generic topics as in the RefDesk as a dividing scheme for the lower tier would be an easy and natural division, and would allow the lower tier group quicker understanding of content related issues, hence more efficient handling. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] 00:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

:::The one concern I have with topical arbcom divisions would be that it increases the likelihood that an arbitrator might have a conflict of interest (either through editing the pages in question or personal viewpoint). Also that certain subcoms (philosophy, religion, politics, and BLP) would get much higher numbers of cases than others. However, I can't think of a better division system. Perhaps if arbitrators were shifted between branches in rotation? --[[User:tjstrf|tjstrf]] <small>[[User talk:Tjstrf|talk]]</small> 00:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

::::I tend to agree with your point about [[WP:COI]], in principle. I can see requiring topical ArbCom candidates to disclose any special affiliation related to the topic. Your idea about rotation is good, except we would lose the advantage of greater efficiency due to topic specialization. Maybe some combination is needed? Maybe shorter term limits? (with possible resumption of role on a given topical ArbCom after say 1 yr hiatus.) [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] 01:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

::::: Personally, I think that topical ArbComs are a very good idea, especially if they are staffed with people who are experienced in the area. I see [[WP:COI]] as being something of a red herring here. We don't want to exclude scientists from the science ArbCom for instance. I see conflicts as being such things as ruling in a conflict where the arbitrator has already taken sides. I can't speak for other areas, but science is one where the subject matter is fractured as-is. We could easily do committees for physics, chemistry, biology, etc. Even there, there are subdisciplines where if one may have a conflict in one area, they would be available for others. It also will be very helpful to have recused arbitrators involved in cases on an advisory basis.

::::: I see this as a way of giving the interested editors more say in dealing with conflicts and perhaps easier access to arrbitration when needed. As-is, the current arbitration process is so complex and involved that I for one perfer to avoid it. --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 17:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

:This would be very different from what ArbCom is now. It specifically doesn't deal with content issues, and specifically excludes them even if the conflict started about content.

:I find just "lower arbcom" (whatever named) more fitting the purpose. As ArbCom can work on several cases with different members, so can the lower tier. It's true that people often bring petty disagreements to ArbCom, and that should be avoided. However, that could encourage escalation instead of mediation. [[User:CP\M|CP/M]]^{[[User talk:CP\M|comm]]} |[[WP:WNP|Wikipedia Neutrality Project]]| 15:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

== New Wikipedia Branch ==

I, LightbringerX, herby decree that a new branch of Wikipedia is adue. A Lyric pool in the form of other Wikimedia productions should be considered. I'm thinking 'Wikilyric' sounds pretty good.

:Shouldn't you also be thinking 'Wikiblatantcopyrightviolation'? [[User:Pascal.Tesson|Pascal.Tesson]] 07:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

:Wow this comes up a lot. Most copyrighted lyrics are forbidden by law to be distributed except by their owners, despite their wide dissemination by other sides. Wikisource is a good ___location for non-copyrighted lyrics. [[User:Deco|Deco]] 09:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

::Exactly: what's more the licensing for the lyrics has to be ''expressly'' public ___domain or GFDL. It cannot be "used by permission" or "everybody knows them." Now, if people want to ''write'' lyrics of their own, there is a WikiCities creative portal, I believe. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 15:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

== Long edit summaries ==

Ok. I realize that edit summaries are supposed to be just that, a '''summary''' of the changes you made. I realise that some editors get really annoyed by long edit summaries. I realise that long edit summaries make it harder to peruse the article's history. I know people think long edit summaries clutter up watchlists. I understand the importance of brevity in edit summaries. I know that if it's too long and detailed to fit in the summary box, it's probably best to take it to the talk page anyhow.

However, detailed edit summaries are useful, especially when a page or change is likely to be contentious. Sometimes, if there is a long discussion on the talk page about a change and I go ahead and make it, I feel the need to expound in great detail in my edit summary ''just in case'' someone hasn't been following the talk page discussion, or to avoid bringing material to the talk page that would distract from an ongoing discussion. People often ask me to proofread things they've written, and in those instances I feel the need to go into detail about every little spelling or punctuation fix, no matter how minor.

Most of the time if I run out of space in the edit summary window it's only by 2-10 characters. Sometimes I can trim it down or abreviate words, but when I abreviate I worry that people don't know what "ptl rv, dab, link & mv cntnt" means, so I try to avoid abbreviations if possible.

I did a test in the sandbox, and it seems to me that the edit summary allows you 190 characters or so (I may have miscounted). Therefore I would like to propose an increase to 200 characters. It's a nice, even number that's easy to remember. It's only 10 characters more then the current limit and shouldn't clutter up histories and watchlists too bad, but yet will eliminate (for me at least) most instances where I'm trying to trim my edit summary to the point where it is illegible, but have good reasons for not taking it to the talk page.

I'm sure that this is something that should be taken to the developers, but it's also something that needs community consensus. Hence I'm proposing it here rather than bugzilla (not to mention I have no idea how bugzilla works, only that anything involving changes to the software should be proposed there). What do others think of a 10 character increase in the maximum length of edit summaries? ~ '''''[[User:ONUnicorn|<span style="background:#0cc;color:#fff5ee">ONUnicorn</span>]]'''''^{([[User talk:ONUnicorn|Talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/ONUnicorn|Contribs]])} 15:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

:I agree. 190 or however many characters seems like a lot, and in many cases it is more than enough. However, if you are putting links into the summary, all of the link target counts towards that limit, though it isn't seen on the edit summary. Why not bump it up to 255 characters or so? [[User:Koweja|Koweja]] 16:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

::I originally thought 300, given that if you are only editing a section the software automatically includes the section header and counts it toward your character limit. But then I thought people'd object too much to 300 rambling characters. But considering the limit for sig characters is 250, shouldn't edit summaries be at least that long? ~ '''''[[User:ONUnicorn|<span style="background:#0cc;color:#fff5ee">ONUnicorn</span>]]'''''^{([[User talk:ONUnicorn|Talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/ONUnicorn|Contribs]])} 16:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

:From the HTML source of the edit page of this section:

&lt;input tabindex='2' type='text' value="/* Long edit summaries */ "

name='wpSummary' id='wpSummary' <B>maxlength='200'</B> size='60' /&gt;

:..the limit's 200 at the moment. --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 14:53, 14 December 2006 ([[User:ais523|U]][[User talk:ais523|T]][[Special:Contributions/Ais523|C]])

::Then how about 250? ~ '''''[[User:ONUnicorn|<span style="background:#0cc;color:#fff5ee">ONUnicorn</span>]]'''''^{([[User talk:ONUnicorn|Talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/ONUnicorn|Contribs]])} 16:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

== Require anonymous users to confirm edits ==

Here is an idea for reducing vandalism: Require anonymous users to provide a valid e-mail address, which will be used to verify that the anon is serious about the edit and to permit identification of vandals. Here is the process:

* Anon does an edit.

* Once they hit "save page", they get a screen asking them to provide a valid e-mail address to which a confirmation message will be sent. It is noted that they will have only 30 minutes to respond (which I assume is more than enough time in most cases to reveive the e-mail and respond).

* If an e-mail address is provided, a confirmation e-mail is sent out, with instructions to either reply to it or click on a coded, confirming URL link to confirm the edit.

** If no e-mail is provided, the edit is discarded.

* If there is an edit conflict after the confirmation is done, another e-emil will be sent out with a link to a conflict resolution screen. If this link is used, the final edit will be saved as it is associated with an existing confirmation.

Note that at the end of this process we will have a valid e-mail for the user, and some hope of identification if the edit is vandalism. I strongly doubt that any vandal will be eager to type in "[e-mail]", but if they do so and it is vandalism we can then contact "myschool" and advise them of the issue. We can also block e-mail addresses that are for vandals in that case.

Note that I am not calling for e-mail addresses to be placed in the edit history or in any place which is generally accessible. The e-mail addresses should be in a seperate place acessible only to sysops if not a much more restricted set of users. However, it should be a part of our policy that Wikipedia can use that information at its discression to track down and/or contact vandals, and that should be noted on the e-mail address query screen and in the confirmation e-mail itself. --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 17:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

:The whole point of a wiki is that it's quick and easy. Doesn't this proposal take away from that? ~ '''''[[User:ONUnicorn|<span style="background:#0cc;color:#fff5ee">ONUnicorn</span>]]'''''^{([[User talk:ONUnicorn|Talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/ONUnicorn|Contribs]])}

:All this does is serve to annoy the anons. It won't stop the vandals since they obviously either a)have too much time on their hands and can spare the 30 seconds to confirm their email, and/or b)have an agenda to push and won't mind the inconvenience. Legit users who don't want to join wikipedia but are just trying to be helpful once are less likely to make the effort. And no, it won't inspire people to create accounts. You can't annoy someone into joining - most would choose to simply not bother. [[User:Koweja|Koweja]] 19:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

:: As I see it, someone doing a quick and legit edit will have little issue with doing the confirmation. Type in your e-mail (which many current browsers will auto-complete for you), and after the e-mail arrives hit the Reply and Send buttons on your e-mail tool, and the edit is in. I don't see that as a huge bother. This will only get annoying once you start making mutliple edits a day, and if you are committed to doing regular editing here, then you should have an account (and most likely will get one).

:: The goal is to set up a "low bar" to anonymous edits, but one that will stop casual vandals cold. I admit that it won't stop POV pushing and won't stop vandal accounts or other people who care to be creative about hiding their identity. However, a school kid blanking a page as a joke will be looking at creating a trail that potentially can be followed. That is the target here. --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 18:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

::: Right, so it won't do much to solve the problems, but cause an inconvenience for many potential members. Thanks to the massive number of people who watch recent changes, have pages on their watchlists, and the AntiVandalBot, page blankings and other drive-by idiocy generally gets reverted in seconds. Your proposal runs counter to established policies of assume good faith and don't bite the newbies. Not to mention the core principle of being an open encyclopedia. You have to realize that even though a lot of vandals are anonymous editors, the vast majority of anonymous edits are helpful. Fact of the matter is that "casual vandals" are the least of our problems. [[User:Koweja|Koweja]] 18:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

:::: Not true. In my experience the vast majority of anonymous edits, particularly when done without an edit summary, are deliberate vandalism. Moreover, it does not get reverted in seconds; it can remain for hours, days or even weeks. I used to care, but I'm beginning not to. After all: if Jimmy Wales doesn't care that Wikipedia has become an idiot's playground, why should I? Personally I don't think anonymous editing should be allowed at all, so anything that causes it to be inconvenient sounds good to me. --[[User:Stephen Burnett|Stephen Burnett]] 19:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

::::: A lot of energy goes onto doing these reverts that could be devoted to improving the encyclopedia. In fact, I am one editor who has limited time and who has found the vandal reverts make it hard to track what is really going on it the page. Items that could be of interest often get buried by a vandalism-and-revert. Also, as one comes to be watching a larger number of articles, more and more of them are found to have an edit summary of "rvv" or "rv to prev ver ...". So this noise in the watchlists interferes with the ability to track real issues regard that portion of the encyclopedia that you have chosen to contribute to.

::::: I honestly think that Wikipedia has shown that while wikis can be effective tools for creating a community-wide compendium of information, they also can be too wide open and free wheeling. The issue now is to figure out how to achieve the right balance of openness and restraint. Mine is just one suggestion of improvig that balance. --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 04:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think editing by non-registered users should be allowed at all - the negatives far outweigh the positives. So giving anon IPs a hoop to jump through should be the least requirement. [[User:CyberAnth|CyberAnth]] 04:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

:Let me also add that while people watching at recent changes do a great and thankless job it's not true that vandalism gets simply "canceled" by reverts: the damage on the edit history is permanent and something we shouldn't underestimate. We already have an overwhelming number of ''Historia se repetit'' edits just because there's no good way to document rationales for previous choices; and way too many editors who don't use edit summaries. I don't think we should add reverts to that. (Personally, I'm one who thinks Wikipedia should switch to an SCM system, or it will never be able to get a release out, for instance. But that's perhaps a broader topic.) &mdash;[[User:Gennaro Prota|<span style="color: #000080; font-weight: bold">Gennaro Prota</span>]][[User talk:Gennaro Prota|<sup style="color: #006400">&#8226;Talk</sup>]] 21:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

*This should probably be on [[WP:PEREN]]. ([[User_talk:Radiant!|<font color="orange">Radiant</font>]]) 13:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

:This sort of raising the barrier to entry to weed out the malicious generally backfires. I wish I could find the article, but there was a study done showing that, after the Boy Scouts of America started requiring that all volunteers submit to criminal background checks, the rate of molestation went up: potential child molesters were more willing to go to the effort of becoming volunteers than ordinary people were. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] 22:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

:'''Object''' Seriously if you want to stop anon-vandals, give them the template welcome anon-vandal. Very good template if you ask me. It was marked for deletion, but I think the decision was to keep the template.--[[User:Foundby|Foundby]] 10:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! Oh wait... you were serious? Lets face it, if anonymous people have to go through this huge waste of time perhaps to only correct a spelling mistake, why edit wikipedia at all? Even if there is completely wrong information, most anonymous users dont want to spend their precious Sunday afternoon going through that process. And I honestly dont think this will stop vandals at all because those people that vandalize in the first place have way too uch time o their hands.

-Charlie34

== Automatic proposal and suggestion of words ==

I wish to propose Automatic proposal and suggestion of words. That is when you search for say Etymology but misspell it(perhaps you write Etimology), a proposal is made of one or several similar words that actually exists and also a suggestion at the bottom asking if the user wants to start a new article under the searched name. As it is now, you have to go to google to find out, because google often gives you good suggestions. /[[User:Minoya|Minoya]] 05:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)<!-- edited to my new account name -->

:Agree. I looked into Google's API and unfortuantly suggest is not available. An open source spell checked could be used in an extension. -[[User:Ravedave|Ravedave]] <small>^{([[User:Ravedave/babyname|help name my baby]])}</small> 05:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

*The subject is already covered. We attempt to create "common misspelling" redirects. If you misspell a word and you believe ''that the misspelling is common,'' then, when you get the option to "Create this article," do so. In the new article, do the following: <nowiki> #REDIRECT [[properpagename]]</nowiki>, where "properpagename" is the name of where the article really is. In your edit summary, put "spelling redirect." Many spelling redirects exist, but be thoughtful about this, as well as bold, and think about whether your misspelling is common or just a one time only goof. If it's the former, go ahead and make a redirect. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 11:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

:Ok, thanks for the enlightenment. Now, why not #REDIRECT the one time only goofs too, as a user id rather have an article pop up than nothing at all. Better to be abundant. /[[User:Minoya|Minoya]] 13:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

*Better to be concise, of course. Although we're not dying for server space now the way we once were, it's still good to conserve storage space however and whenever we can. The common saying is "redirects are cheap," but also "they're not free." Google uses a parser to try to figure out what word you could have meant. Since they already do it, we don't need to ("search using Google"); instead, we should cover the most used, most common mistakes. You can create a redirect for the one-time misspelling, and it may or may not get deleted. I doubt anyone will threaten or throttle you for doing it, and there are certainly easily misspelled terms we need redirects for still. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 13:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

:Ok, thanks, I can say no more.

:: Remember to use the often-forgotten template {{[[template:r from misspelling]]}} on your misspelled redirect. –[[User:Outriggr|<font color="#112299">Outriggr</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Outriggr|''§'']] 04:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

== Logo Variations ==

I would like to propose for Wikipedia to use logo variations created by members of the community to mark '''national and international [[awareness days]], [[Remembrance Days]], notable anniversaries, and observance days'''. Besides for the [[featured article]], it is important to commemorate special days to show Wikipedia's support for bringing out more awareness of these issues and events. The logos would be chosen from contestants in a consensus of graphic artist users on a project page of its own. This project would be similar to google's [[[http://www.google.co.uk/doodle4google]|sketch contest]]. I would like us perhaps to be ready for our first wikilogo by [[Hanuka]], [[Christmas]] and [[Eid ul-Adha]]! [[User:FrummerThanThou|FrummerThanThou]] 05:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

*'''comment''' the Wikipedia logo is copyrighted so you would probably have to get permission from the foundation to do this. [[User:Savidan|savidan]]^{[[User_talk:Savidan|(talk)]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">(e@)</span>]]} 06:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

*'''Question''' What would be the criteria for dates to be recognized in this way? -- [[User:Visviva|Visviva]] 06:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

:This is an issue that needs to be discussed, I think each religion's two or three main holiday's should be considered as well as important awareness days such as [[world cancer day]], [[world aids day]], breast cancer day and any others that we come to a consensus on. [[User:FrummerThanThou|FrummerThanThou]] 07:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

*I think a better idea would be to make it possible to change the logo via some CSS code, so people could install it in their own monobook.css/js file if they want it. I've tried it before, but unfortunately the URL for the logo is stored in the <a> linking to the main page, rather than monobook.css itself, which means it would require some tricky JS to make it work. |This would allow users to have their own criteria for dates. --[[User:172.205.196.44|172.205.196.44]] ([[User:MichaelBillington|Michael Billington]] logged out) 06:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

**That seems like an excellent idea, if it can be made to work... can it? -- [[User:Visviva|Visviva]] 07:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

*::<code>#p-logo a { background-image: url(http://mylogo.com/logo.png) !important; }</code> [[User:GeorgeMoney|GeorgeMoney]] ([[User talk:GeorgeMoney|talk]]) 07:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

*:::Exactly, I agree with 172.205.196.44 - for that matter, my .js has actually disabled showing the wikilogo, so I wouldn't see it anyways. But, not being selfish, I like the idea :) '''[[User:Daniel.Bryant|Daniel.Bryant]] ^{[&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Daniel.Bryant|T]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Daniel.Bryant|C]]&nbsp;]}''' 07:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

*I am for the idea in principle (I am envisaging something like the google logo changes). '''However''', I would not want to see anything national-specific (especially US-specific) or politically-motivated, religiously-motivated etc. What I would not want to see is for example a "4th of july" logo or a "jesus crusified today" logo, these are politically- and religiously- charged. Perhaps "Figure X born today" or "Chemical Y discovered today" etc. I think if we do this it should be a variation that represents the kind of things wikipedia does and stands for, rather than a slavish mimicry of eg the google logo. Cheers - <span style="color:#ccf;background:#ccf;border-style: single">[[User:PocklingtonDan|PocklingtonDan]]</span> 10:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

**Some great points from a great user. I think there can be "some" politicly and religiously charged versions though, like Christmas. [[User:FrummerThanThou|FrummerThanThou]] 10:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment''': To keep our headings clear, it's probably good if we switch to numbers from asterisk indents. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 10:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

#'''Comment''': That Google does it is kind of the "Diddy did it" thing: more or less irrelevant. I'm in favor of the proposal, although there would need to be a few clear understandings. The globe of letters is the copyright, just as the lettering of "Google" is, and so the graphic alterations would need to be backgrounds, colors, and things ''around'' the logo. Also, ''please'' make it two words, "Wiki logo," rather than one, as one sounds like "Wiki Λογος." As for the substance and the problems, please forgive the extra indents:

#::The project would be properly located at Commons, not .en. This would make the variations available to all projects, so that the .se pedia can put up a 4th of July logo, if they wish.

#::National holidays (ones where all government offices close) are non-controversial, but seccession day, failed rebellions, etc. can get tense. Nationally recognized religious holidays (Christmas, Easter, Good Friday), and especially those that are core, would be non-controversial, but regionally or sectarian or denominational ones would be tough.

#::If there were to be an include/exclude argument, the best one would be, "Is this nationally recognized in ''an Anglophone nation'' for .en, a ''Francophone nation'' for .fr, etc." A non-English speaker going to .en may be interested in the funny customs of the Anglophone world, just as native English speakers tend to be interested in the "strange" holidays celebrated by the Swedes, for example. The dominant nature of English shouldn't enter into it, really.

#::The proposal carries with it a rather non-wiki element, in that it requires an approval community. The best suggestion I could offer would be that this be done via a Project. There should be a Holiday Logo Project, and it should need to vote and gain consensus on these acceptable variations (and it should be plural).

#::Picking which, if any, to actually put on the main page requires a top level admin who enjoys wide, wide trust. The only candidate I can think of right now would be Raul, who is already the FA director, but I'm not sure he'd want to do it.

#:Anyway, that's what occurs to me. I really hope it helps. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 10:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

*I love logos ^^, BUT! First off; what kind of awareness days? And some Rememberance days might be offencive to others, off the top of my head say the Armenian holocaust, the Turks deny it happened and refuse to adit comitting it, but I betcya the Armenians have a day to REMEMBER it. Also, some people don't like The dream factory (to get this joke click the wiki link fore Rememberance days you wrote on me talk page =P). Note: I am very buisy these days for the next two months I've got covers, collections, some more covers magazine and newspaper comics blah blah blah... so I probably won't do it, but here is some advice if it helps. In my opinion, why not, as not a lot of wikiusers go to the front page and read it all if there's an awareness thing on it, but I don't think we should go too much in to it, maybe just slap a small awareness ribbon on the logo and make a more noticible article on the front, or maybe even send an automated awareness message to ALL USERS. The wikilogos are very estetic so we must be carefull in editing them if we are permitted tom we don't want them to loock cheep now do we ^_^? I'd keep it modest. Also problems: Some awareness symbols, ribbons, or collors may stand for more things, so the observer may not get it. And: What if it gets out of hand? Before you know it we'll be having a santa cap on the logos hah. In conclusion: Only if these days are important and regard everyone, not just say Christians or something. Like AIDS day, Memorial day, Give out free candy day, Global warming awareness day, ect. Exactly how, I do not know but don't make it too flashy or just too much. If you're gonna go for it, think simple and clever, it always works ;) --[[User:Mudel|Mudel]] 11:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

#I '''support''' this proposal. It is a qay to remind us "Never Again" [[User:Booksworm|Booksworm]] <small>[[User talk:Booksworm|Talk to me!]]</small> 14:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

*It sounds like a fun idea on the surface, but doesn't really gain Wikipedia anything other than administrative trouble. It might have some value if, like the cartoonish altered Google logo, it brought people to the front page to see what cute logo-mod Wikipedians had come up with for the day, or if Wikipedia had an unfriendly image problem that desperately needed to be rectified. (And "image problem" brings up other difficult issues regarding tone and style of any illustration, btw.)<br>

:I absolutely do not support a religious logo-mod of any sort, and that most definitely includes Christmas ornaments, Channukkah dreidels, Valentine's hearts, Easter eggs, etc. ''ad nauseum''. <br>

:I agree with PocklingtonDan that only "a variation that represents the kind of things Wikipedia does and stands for" might be more reasonable than religious or political '''[[List_of_commemorative_days|commemorative days]]'''. However, I think the "On this day..." section does that and more. <br>

:Perhaps, alternatively, we could choose one event from "On this day..." to call out with a stand-alone logoish graphic (i.e., not a Wikipedia logo-mod). This logo-like graphic might be used something like a dot-whack, and might be valuable for calling attention to the "On this day..." section, as well as adding some graphic variability to the front page... but I'm not sure it's really a problem in search of a solution.<br>

:[[User:Renice|Renice]] 17:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't like the idea. With Google, they can detect what country you are in and provide you with an appropriate version of Google [http://www.google.com/language_tools?hl=en#domains], where they can do cute and culturally appropriate things with the logo. I don't ever see there being a "U.S." version of Wikipedia, a British version, Canadian version, etc... There are very few holidays that are not specific to religions or certain countries. --[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] <small>([[User talk:AudeVivere|talk]])</small> 17:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

::'''Comment''' whilst it is true that that Sweden's Christmas is snowier then Britain's, certain observance days are the same. Obviously D day is no good since some German's wont like it, but that desicion would be reached in the consensus. What are you saying? [[User:FrummerThanThou|frummer]] 03:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

:'''Strong Oppose''' - Wikipedia has a strict NPOV policy. Local holidays and events would not be global. As such, we can't do something like this. I understand that this is a bland, boring decision, but Wikipedia's ideals shouldn't be violated for periodic variations of the logo. [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 19:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

:'''Support''' - This sounds like a great idea. :) [[User:ViperBite|ViperBite]] 20:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

:'''Strong Oppose''' - I agree with [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]], the whole idea violates NPOV policy. It's important to note that someone's holiday celebration is also a reminder to someone else's failure in history. Or recognizing someone religious event offends those opposed to that faith. It's sad to say this, and I wish any holiday could be recognized and respected but Wikipedia needs to keep the whole "political correct" neutrality. [[User:Cyberia23|Cyberia23]] 22:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

:'''Strong Support'''- It could just be on internationally accepted holidays, i.e. Christmas, maybe Rememberance Day. Sooner or later you're going to upset someone about something - its absurd to not do something because someone somewhere may be offended by it. [[User:RHB|RHB]] 23:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

::'''Comment''' - two things:

::#Christmas and Rememberance day are both biased. [[Christmas]] is Christian, and [[Rememberance Day]] favors the victors of the World Wars. The article on Rememberance Day reflects that.

::#It ''is'' absurd, on Wikipedia, to do anything that may offend someone in a political, religious, or social way, ''even if'' [[What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored|Wikipedia is not censored]], because of the necessity for a neutral point of view. See [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias]].

::I don't mean any offense whatsoever, but what you've said doesn't seem to hold up. [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 03:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I apprecaite you don't mean any offense, but where do you get it that people will be "offended" if some laurels where to apear on the logo for christmas and link to the article. Finding out about each other's religion's cultures and values would be a great thing for many of us, instead of being "offended" so badly? Please read the thread, I dont beleive for a minute you've read anything above. The focal points have been discussed, except for this "offended" [[thingmajig]]. [[User:FrummerThanThou|frummer]] 03:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

::::I've read the thread, and the main topic of discussion is whether such a project is feasible. On the "cool variation" level, I strongly support this idea. As with Google, it would attract some people to see the latest Wikipedia "doodle". On the other hand, I find holidays to be inherently POV, and on that level such a project is entirely unacceptable. Users can have user scripts to change the image for themselves, but the main page and layout need their blandness and NPOV - NPOV is one of the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|five pillars]]! [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 04:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC) (signed after, oops)

:::::can these problems be fixed technicly, an option to turn it off/show the normal logo?&nbsp;<span style="background-color: #000000">&nbsp;<font color="white">'''&rArr;'''</font> <font color="white">[[User:Bsnowball|bsnowball]]</font>&nbsp;</span> 18:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

*'''Strong Support'''- Even if it does include something only celebrated by only one religion, ethnic group, etc., that shouldn't matter so long as we include the "equivalent" (if possible) holiday for any other religions, ethnic groups, etc. As well, if someone feels that their religion, ethnic group, etc. does not have a holiday recognized that they think should be, they can always suggest it. [[user:nineteenninetyfour|<font color=green>Ninety</font>]][[user talk:nineteenninetyfour|<font color=green>^wazup?</font>]] 23:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

*'''oppose''' [[Religion#Demographics]] list 21for balance, if we consider three Christian dates of Christmas, Easter, Good Friday that means that 63 religious day logo's. Then we add these UN listed special days(note some are weeks) from here http://www.un.org/events/observances.htm , theres another 60, thats 1 in 3 days. Then what happens when day A and day B occurs on the same day how would it be decided which would get the recognition. I think we leave day recognitions to the "On this Day" section that way every event gets equal and fair recognition. [[User:Gnangarra|Gnangarra]] 06:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

*It's a good idea but there could be the problems with copyright and determining which events pass the notability test. We don't want to be following Google day for day though, though I do like the Google sketches. :) [[User:Wikiwoohoo|Wikiwoohoo]] 22:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

*'''Strong Oppose:'''Per Gnangarra, Nihiltres, and Cyberia23. <small>[[user:Esoltas|Evan]]^{([[User_talk:Esoltas|Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!]])}</small> 11:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. Incidentally, to Geogre's comment that ''National holidays (ones where all government offices close) are non-controversial'' I'd counter that I can immediately think of one populous, economically powerful nation with a national holiday to celebrate the birthday of somebody who arguably should have been tried as a war criminal (see Dower, ''Embracing Defeat,'' passim). In principle I am vaguely interested in non-national, non-religious UN days; but really, there are so many of these, their names are so prolix, and some are so optimistic/silly/insulting -- "International '''Day''' for the Eradication of Poverty" (my emphasis), pfffft, somebody please alert me when the day becomes a decade -- that I lose interest fast. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] 12:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' - violates NPOV. [[User:JoeSmack|JoeSmack]] ^{[[User Talk:JoeSmack|Talk]]} 16:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

*'''Strong Oppose''' This very obviously violates our NPOV policy and would end up being a never-ending headache for those who implemented it. We couldn't do any religious holidays because it would be a way of endorsing that religion, and trying to rectify this by doing it for holidays of all religions wouldn't work; there are hundreds of religions with hundreds of holidays and we couldn't possibly deal with all and would therefore have to pick and choose, which would mean accepting some POVs and rejecting others. The same problem would emerge in dealing with commemoration dates and the like, certainly those that are national rather than international would have to be excluded. Also, this seems to me to be, in my own opinion, a rather silly diversion from actually, you know... writing an encyclopedia. --[[User:The Way|The Way]] 22:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

*'''Leave that to Uncyc''' - even neutrality aside, we need a more serious attitude. Considering neutrality, it's horrible, as even Christmas isn't a holiday to everyone; and outside the West the world is so full of conflicts that most national holidays will be found hostile by some people. Let's list them all on the main page as we do already, but leave the logo serious. For coming to see what's new today, again, we've got the daily renewed main page which is ''way'' more interesting than on most if not all other websites. People coming to WP to see something new will be - and are - more attracted by the actual page, pictures and content, rather than jokes with the logo. Really, it won't add anything to WP. [[User:CP\M|CP/M]]^{[[User talk:CP\M|comm]]} |[[WP:WNP|Wikipedia Neutrality Project]]| 15:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

== Radical Linking Proposal, making wiki more efficient ==

Im not sure if it is possible but it would be nice if all words that have an article or page would automatically be links to those pages, but appearing like normal words unless you have the cursor upon them (or click them). So the Articles would appear as today but all archived words would be "hidden" links. This would maybe take more bandwidth but it would surely make the pedia more effective and integrated. /[[User:Minoya|Minoya]] 08:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

:too many links would mean a big trawl. imagine reading an article, you'de never finish it out of curosity of what every word means. at the moment you can link anything to anything, once. An interesting idea. [[User:FrummerThanThou|FrummerThanThou]] 09:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

*Mouse-over is normally done with Java Script. That would be a developer issue, but I'm rather unenthusiastic about the idea. First, the manual of style ([[WP:MOS]]) already discourages overlinking. Second, new readers may get lost in the link maze, but learning when to click and when to click later is part of the experience of Wikipedia. Anyway, I certainly understand the principle, and it's one reason the Manual of Style changed to discourage "overlinking." [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 11:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

*And I'm not even mentioning the problems words with more than one meaning would cause... - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|^(talk)]] 13:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

*WEll well, eventually it will happen, and when every word, every syllable is completely mapped and understood, we will move on, to new frontiers and new levels of understanding. /[[User:Minoya|Minoya]] 14:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

:*If you want to know what it would feel like to implement this (scary), see [[uncyclopedia:Page Full Of Links]]. Otherwise, it's almost OK. :) [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 03:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

::Cool, thats the way i like it! Just, I'd like one color for all text, hyperlinked or not. /[[User:Minoya|Minoya]] 23:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

*[[As]] [[you]] [[can]] [[imagine]], [[this]] [[does]] [[not]] [[really]] [[help]] [[the]] [[legibility]] [[of]] [[the]] [[page]]. ([[User_talk:Radiant!|<font color="orange">Radiant</font>]]) 13:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

*Why? Because the text turns blue? I think its a great idea /[[User:Minoya|Minoya]] 22:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to leave things looking the way they are, but have ''right'' clicks bring up the option of finding links to Wikitionary and other projects? -- [[User:SamuelWantman|Samuel Wantman]] 10:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

*I personally oppose the idea as well. Too many links is overkill, only those terms that actually relate to the topic at hand should be linked. All people and places mentioned should probably be linked to as well, but not everything. Also, how would you deal with phrases that have articles but also where each word of that phrase has a separate articles? --[[User:The Way|The Way]] 22:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

== IPA Quickhelp templates ==

I have an idea for making IPA symbols more comprehensible, using tooltips. I have made a template <nowiki>{{Ʒ}}</nowiki> that contains <nowiki>[[ʒ as in beige=beɪʒ|ʒ]]</nowiki>, and then a redirect at <nowiki>[[ʒ as in beige=beɪʒ]]</nowiki> to the appropriate phonetic page. (Here it is without nowiki: {{Ʒ}}, and here's a link to edit the template page: <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[template:Ʒ|Ʒ]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki>. The discussion of this concept is here: [[template talk:Ʒ]]. Without popups, this works wonderfully: someone who doesn't know IPA sees blue text, moves their mouse over the link, then sees the quickie pronunciation help in the tooltip, and if they want to know more, they click and get the appropriate article. The dev version of popups has now been fixed to work with this, but the production version of popups still is not compatible. Again, please do NOT comment here, instead comment at [[template talk:Ʒ]]. If and when this starts to get a clearer consensus on whether and how to move forward, I'll be posting this at (policy) and (technical). --[[User:Homunq|Homunq]] 16:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

== Merging fair use templates ==

Anyone interested in fair use templates should probably see the proposed merge at [[Template_talk:Game-cover#Merge]]. ~ '''''[[User:ONUnicorn|<span style="background:#0cc;color:#fff5ee">ONUnicorn</span>]]'''''^{([[User talk:ONUnicorn|Talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/ONUnicorn|Contribs]])} 19:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

== Limiting the number of edits for new users ==

Is there a way to limit the number of user edit by implemeting an edit quota, this would for example limit the usefulness of sockpuppets and revert/edit wars that go on. The edit limits can be placed on let's say:

* new users by limiting the number of edits they can perform overall - after the users have been around for some time, this edit quota can be lifted for example this is lifted after let's say a week or a month

* special edit limits on selected articles where edit/revert wars are constant

Regards,

[[User:Vodomar|Vodomar]] 20:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

:'''Rejected''', goes contrary to the purpose of encouraging new users to edit. We aren't [[GameFAQs]] where they arbitrarily define privilege levels. There is no purpose to doing this, and would serve only to discourage new editors from being active. Socks are cheap and easily creatable, so they wouldn't be stopped by this at all. Just make another 3 or 4 or 10 or 50 if you hit your revert limit. If a specific page requires it, we have [[WP:SEMI|semi-protection]]. --[[User:tjstrf|tjstrf]] <small>[[User talk:Tjstrf|talk]]</small> 20:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

:I can tell you right now that it is not going to happen. This site will not treat all new users and/or anons as potential vandals and sockpuppets just because a small percentage are. See [[WP:AGF]] for more. If a revert war is going on you can have it semi-protected, but this is not the way to do it. [[User:Koweja|Koweja]] 20:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

::Plus, those users who do commit wrongs can be blocked. [[user:nineteenninetyfour|<font color=green>Ninety</font>]][[user talk:nineteenninetyfour|<font color=green>^wazup?</font>]] 23:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

:Of course we have problem new users, but we have problem old users, too (no, not administrators). New users who insert massive numbers of links, who write in their company everywhere, and then do the scribbling stuff are problems, but they're not a new problem, and the scope of the problem isn't growing faster than our vandal hunting tools, so there is no need to curtail our general philosophy. For every two vandals and spammers affected by this, a legitimate and good contributor, and the bad guys will simply use two accounts to accomplish the edits they're now doing with one, so the effect will be strictly to increase suspicion and unfriendliness to good users. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 02:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

:: Thank you for your replies ! [[User:Vodomar|Vodomar]] 12:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Branching support|Branching support]] ==

Hi all. I would like to revive the old feature request for [[Wikipedia:Branching support]]. What do you all think of the idea? Cheers, --[[User:unforgettableid|unforg]][[User:unforgettableid/Esperanza|<span style="color:green; cursor:help;">e</span>]][[user:unforgettableid|ttableid]] | [[User_talk:unforgettableid|how's my driving?]] 00:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

:Why do we need a formalized system for creating [[WP:FORK|POV forks]]? Don't we want to ''avoid'' those as much as possible? --[[User:tjstrf|tjstrf]] <small>[[User talk:Tjstrf|talk]]</small> 02:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

== Wikiproject Talk-templates Proposal ==

Almost every Wikiproject has their own template to post in article talk pages. While this does allow users to find other articles in their favorite topics, some articles have several Wikiproject affiliations making some article talk pages very long and hard to convert to the new [[WP:TPT|small template format]]. My plan is to create a template that can list all of the Wikiprojects an article is involved with, allow users to edit the Wikiprojects it lists, and display ratings and importance classes. Since I have almost no knowledge of template coding, I will need major help. I originally wanted to use the wikitable format using three columns: Wikiproject Name, Rating, and Importance:

{| class=wikitable

!colspan=2|Wikiproject

!colspan=2|Rating

!colspan=2|Importance

|-

|colspan=2| [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums|Albums]]

|colspan=2| A

|colspan=2| Significant

|-

|colspan=2| [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_China|China]]

|colspan=2| B

|colspan=2| Core

|-

|colspan=2| [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Microsoft_Windows|Microsoft Windows]]

|colspan=2| A

|colspan=2| Core

|}

...but that would mean restructuring the small template setup. I have concluded that I will probably need to use the messagebox format. How should I do this? Any thoughts? Improvements? Know anyone who would be interested in this project? Again, here's my to-do list again:

*Create a multiple Wikiproject template

*Give the Wikiproject name, rating, and improtance

*Allow for the small template configuration

*Any other ideas...

Thanks. -[[User:Blackjack48|Blackjack48]] 04:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

:This is a good idea. It would certainly cut down on talk page header clutter. To do this, we will or would need two things: a list of all article-talk-header-inserting WikiProjects, and a format for listing the WikiProjects. I like your mockup, but I think an icon for each, not to mention the usual rating colors, would be a good idea. [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 04:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

::I would support the new format for project tags and history tags (good article, former good article, etc.) However, important notices such as reminders about signing comments, that the article might containt trolling, etc. should remain as wide bars on top. We also have {{[[:Template:skiptotoctalk|skiptotoctalk]]}} which can help aliviate the problem. [[User:Koweja|Koweja]] 14:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

:This has been discussed to death (in many different places); there are a number of problems with a unified template:

:* Different project have somewhat different rating systems. The template would need to code each project's options separately (with the whole mess of categories).

:* The template would be used on nearly 400,000 pages; editing it (which would need to be done fairly regularly) would be a not-insignificant technical concern. (Not to mention that any careless change would suddenly break every project's assessments.)

:* Most importantly, project banners typically contain a variety of options other than article assessment; even if the assessments all used a common template, the banners would still need to be present for all their other features to work.

:I'm of the opinion that, given the new small-format layout available, talk page clutter is basically a non-issue. It's quite trivial to enable the small format on any banners that lack it; certainly easier than trying to work with a template common to every WikiProject. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 17:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

==Article length templates==

Before I'm overcome with boldness, let's try this here first (ok, I'll be bold with colons). Bottomline''':''' {{tl|long}}, {{tl|Verylong}}, and {{tl|intro length}} should be deleted. Let me explain''':''' these temporary templates are placed in articles that someone believes are overly long and requests that someone (ie. not me) transfers to a sub-article or summarizes the content. The flaw is that this is metadata''':''' a comment and request (directed at ''editors'' who are familiar with the subject) concerning the structure of the article. This metadata belongs on the talk page''':''' their raison d'être. Theoretically (as some templates say and most people ignore) the template-slapper should also leave an explanation on the talk page. Templates in the article should be addressed to the ''readers'' (ie. warnings of NPOV, unverified, current event, etc.). So this clever observation that the article is long should go on the talk page: not somewhere in the actual article. On the talk page the templates would be redundant with a section explaining how it is too verbose''':''' so delete the templates. Right? :[[User:Maclean25|maclean]] 05:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

:Sort of :-) The sad thing is… many editors don't look at the talk page. I think we would need a software feature along the lines of: "don't even think of hitting the edit button and I'll show a gigantic warning in front of you" :-) OK, you got the idea. There are many other types of "annotations", BTW, which we would be able to use in that case. &mdash;[[User:Gennaro Prota|<span style="color: #000080; font-weight: bold">Gennaro Prota</span>]][[User talk:Gennaro Prota|<sup style="color: #006400">&#8226;Talk</sup>]] 09:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

:Agreed. The templates are important, as some articles are ridiculously long and can easily be broken into separate articles. However, as mentioned, they do belong on the talk page since they are a notice for editors, not readers. Perhaps someone running a bot or using some other kind of script can move them over. A notice should also be added to the template pages with instructions to add only to the talk page as many other templates already have. [[User:Koweja|Koweja]] 13:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

:Agree that this is talk page material, not article. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 18:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

:Me, I'd send the templates to hell without apology, as I do not want anyone templating "long." If an article is too long, then go to the talk page and argue the position. Templates are far too slap-and-run for my taste, and I don't want anyone telling me that a full article on ''[[The Cantos]]'' is "too long" because it gets to X kb or Y kb. If they pass TfD, then they're talk page matters and absolutely positively under no circumstances for the article page itself. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 22:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

*Sounds reasonable; I think you should drop the templates on [[WP:TFD]] and/or get a [[WP:BOT]] to move them to the talk page. ([[User_talk:Radiant!|<font color="orange">Radiant</font>]]) 13:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

**Ok, I stuck my neck out at [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 19]]. ·[[User:Maclean25|maclean]] 04:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

==Announcements about Wikibooks==

Is it possible to make major announcements about Wikibooks on the main Wikipedia page? [[User:Robinhw|Robinhw]] 11:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What about one of your nice boxes with:

[http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikibooks!] From books for university such as [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikibooks/en/3/3b/Special_relativity.pdf Special Relativity] to books for infants such as [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikibooks/en/c/cc/Big_Cats.pdf Big Cats] Wikibooks has a book for everyone.

[[User:Robinhw|Robinhw]] 12:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

:I wouldn't have a problem with major announcements for sister projects since it isn't really advertising. You're example, however, is just an ad for Wikibooks. What kind of announcements did you have in mind? [[User:Koweja|Koweja]] 13:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

::Initially an advert but later on announcements of completed books. Wikibooks is at the stage that Wikipedia achieved about 3 years ago, it ranks about 3000th on the internet (Alexa rank) and is just about to take off. It now has some good content and an exponential growth phase may be just round the corner. I was hoping for a bit of a push from Wikipedia. [[User:Robinhw|Robinhw]] 16:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Announcing completed books seems like a pretty good idea. However, do Wikibooks have to go through a review process before they are declared completed, similar to how wikipedia articles are review before being declared a featured article? See [[WP:FAC]] for what I mean. [[User:Koweja|Koweja]] 16:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Now that the project has quite a number of completed books I would expect a scheme of this type to occur. Until now most of the effort has been devoted to actually getting some books completed. My guess is that Wikibooks will go through the same development cycle as Wikipedia but over a period of 3-5 times as long because books are time consuming. This is why some publicity to draw in Wikipedia contributors would be useful. [[User:Robinhw|Robinhw]] 10:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

== Cell / Mobile phone Project Gutenberg ebooks links ==

The last 12 months I have been working on project [http://www.mobilebooks.org www.mobilebooks.org] to have [[Project Gutenberg]] ebooks available on cheap cell / mobile phones. And that is not using WAP where the big fat telephone operators make big money to download. These ebooks are in [[java]] and work on most java enabled phones. Users can download them straight for the website without needing to pay big bucks for WAP. All this is of course for free, users can download the 5000+ ebooks for FREE.

Now the big question!!! I want to invest time to put the proper links so wiki users can download the cell phone ebooks straight from Wiki.

What do you guys say????

Thanks

[[User:Johnmizzi|John Mizzi]]

:Sounds like an excellent idea. Good on you. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]^{''[[User talk:Durova|Charg]][[WP:EA|<span style="color:#0c0">e!</span>]]''}</font> 22:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

::John and I have been discussing this via email. He is talking about adding ''thousands'' of links to his website (which has Google Ads) to articles. I have suggested that he follow [[WP:EL]] and add the link to the article talk page to avoid a conflict of interest. He has already been blocked once under the belief he was spamming and I think that is likely to happen again if he restarts in the same manner. '''[[User talk:Sarah_Ewart|Sarah Ewart]]''' 05:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There are an ever increasing number of fact books at Wikibooks, a Wikipedia sister-project, if you are interested in this aspect [http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Staff_lounge Wikibooks staff lounge] is the contact point. [[User:Robinhw|Robinhw]] 10:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In Wikibooks I could not see any ebooks. What I am proposing is for wiki users once in an author's page or books they can click on the link from wiki, hook their cheap cell/mobile phone to the PC and download the ebook to the phone so they can read it in the bus, plane or at night in pitch black darkness so their partner can sleep. A typical example will be [http://www.mobilebooks.org/?author=CD Charles Dickens Cell/Mobile Phone e-books] or to the ebook itself [http://www.mobilebooks.org/?book=CDOLIVER ''Oliver Twist''] - Cell/Mobile Phone Version. The objective of this project was to brink ebooks to the masses not just the elite with expensive PDAs. Cannot get simpler than that? [[User:johnmizzi|John Mizzi]] 10:35, 17 December 2006 (GMT+1)

I agree with Sarah that, with the prominent Google ads and apparent conflict of interest, linking to the service from even a few articles would be seen as spam. Thousands boggles the mind. I could see ''one'' link, from the external links section of [[Project Gutenberg]], but thousands of links, even on article talk pages, would be too much of a slippery slope for my liking. I can just see thwarted spammers adding their links to the talk pages, and pointing to this as a precedent. [[User:SWAdair|SWAdair]] 08:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

== Link to top of page ==

As was brought up a bit earlier at "Slidey Uppey Downey Idea" what about having a 'Top' link at the bottom of every page that links back to an anchor at the top. May not be useful for some small pages but for some long articles could benefit. It could go just above the "This page was last modified ..." text or even in the sidebar. [[User:Chris_huh|<font face="Old English Text MT" color="darkblue" size="4" >C</font>]][[User:Chris_huh|<font color="darkblue" size="2" >hris_huh</font>]]^{[[User_talk:Chris_huh|<font color="orange" size="1" >talk</font>]]} 12:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

*Press the "home" key on your keyboard :) seriously though, feature requests should be made to the developers, at [[WP:BUG]]. ([[User_talk:Radiant!|<font color="orange">Radiant</font>]]) 13:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

==Wikidea==

What about a Wikidea. It could be like an open source think tank or blog that people could submit their ideas and people could work on them.

:Proposals for new projects should be made at [[m:Proposals for new projects]]. For your particular proposal, I think there might be a project at [[Wikia]] covering this sort of thing. [[User:Tra|Tra]] [[User:Tra/MyComments|(Talk)]] 20:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

::There is [[Wikiasite:ideas]] already. [[User:Angela|Angela]][[user talk:Angela|.]] 17:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

== Fair use rationale guideline proposal ==

I would like to propose [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline]] as a guideline to detail the necessary components of a fair use rationale. At present, it's kindof a moving target. Some pages have a detailed, bulleted rationale, while others have a one sentence "this picture identifies the subject". Patroling [[:Category:All images with no fair use rationale]], I've seen image pages that explicitly have something of a rationale that have been nominated for a speedy. So I would like for us to formalize what is required. I have also created [[Template:Fair use rationale]] that I am proposing we use as a template to assist users in creating an acceptable rationale. Please see [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline]] and the associated talk page to give your thoughts and ideas. [[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 22:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

:I would find a page like that very useful. Currently, I often find myself jumping between [[Wikipedia:Fair use]] and [[Help:Image page]] to try to find the details explaining how to do a rationale. [[User:Tra|Tra]] [[User:Tra/MyComments|(Talk)]] 22:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

== Automatically identify edits by new posters ==

In [[WP:AfD]] discussions, new accounts are frequently flagged as possible [[WP:SPA|Single Purpose Account]] by a human editor, possibly a biased one.

A much fairer approach is to automatically flag all edits by "new" accounts with a link to a "Please be nice to our new Wikipedian" page. This page would have links to the don't-bite-the-newbie page as well as to the SPA page.

As a straw-man figure for "new" I would suggest any account with less than 30 days OR an older account with less than 20 edits is "new." Yes, I know it's not trivial to count the total # of edits, perhaps that can be done in the next software or database revision.

[[User:Dfpc|Dfpc]] 04:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

:It's easy enough to get a count of how many edits someone has made. Just go to <nowiki>http://en.wikipedia/wiki/Special:Contributions/User:</nowiki>''username''. I fail to see whats wrong with what happens now. It isn't insignificant if a user's only contributions have been to the XfD. All the note says is that they haven't made a lot of contributions. It doesn't insult them or accuse them of being a sockpuppet/SPA [[User:Koweja|Koweja]] 04:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

*Indeed. A statement of fact is not an insult. If a new user comes to an AFD and someone says, "this is the user's 10th edit" then that's not an insult. People may think it an irrelevant remark, but it's usually not that either. ([[User_talk:Radiant!|<font color="orange">Radiant</font>]]) 13:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

== Just an idea for dealing with problematic users ==

Here's a simple way I thought of for dealing with users proving to be a problem on Wikipedia. This process would apply to those whose "problems" prevent them from doing constructive edits, even though they have good intentions (i.e. are not vandal accounts or blatant trolls).

* First Offense: User gets a short block (12 hours at the longest) and a warning, which attempts to educate them on how what they're doing is not good. The reason for the block is to show them what can happen. If they apologize, that can be grounds for lifting the block early; use common sense.

* Second Offense: User must go through mentoring. If they refuse mentoring, then they will be blocked indefinitely until they agree. It is then up to the mentoring user to talk to them or block them when appropriate.

** Always make an effort to educate

** Block [[iff]] it is appropriate to do so.

** If it's clear they're just gaming the system so that through mentoring they are allowed to not be blocked, the mentor can block them indefinitely at their discretion.

* If a user is really showing improvement, they will no longer need to be under mentorship, although the mentoring admin may still want to keep an informal watch on them.

* If a user fails to make improvement in a long times (around six months), they are banned for a long time (either indefinitely or something like a year).

Comments? Suggested improvements? [[User:Messedrocker|<font color="red">★<small>MESSED</small></font>]][[User talk:Messedrocker|<font color="red"><small>ROCKER</small>★</font>]] 12:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

:Can you give an example of the kinds of problematic users this is meant to help? --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 12:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

:: I don't know (and would not wish to give) specific names, but really this is for the kind of person that want to be involved in the goodness but don't exactly have the rules and common practices down yet. [[User:Messedrocker|<font color="red">★<small>MESSED</small></font>]][[User talk:Messedrocker|<font color="red"><small>ROCKER</small>★</font>]] 15:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I meant kinds of user, not specific users. Can you give a hypothetical example of the kind of mistakes the users you're think of make? --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 16:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Based on my history of controversy, do you think I should be mentored? --[[User:Hildanknight|J.L.W.S. The Special One]] 12:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

:Do you have the mentors available for those (many) users who make a second offence? ([[User_talk:Radiant!|<font color="orange">Radiant</font>]]) 13:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

:: It would be volunteer work, really. I would get invovled as well. Luckily, it doesn't have to be one-on-one (though I'd imagine it'd be a headache to do much more). [[User:Messedrocker|<font color="red">★<small>MESSED</small></font>]][[User talk:Messedrocker|<font color="red"><small>ROCKER</small>★</font>]] 15:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Ban them all, God will know his own!

:::Ok, seriously, the idea of mentoring is very nice and warm and fuzzy, but I don't think it would work. How does one tell the difference between a user who is a problem on purpose and those who are a problem because they don't know any better? [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] 20:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

::If wikipedia had that much moderator [[manpower]] vandals would not have been a problem. There is no need in fanciful rules to ban an especially annoying one; the big huge problem is that you CANNOT ban a person from editing Wikipedia. IPs and even those hard adresses as [[Mac address|MAC]], not to mention the account itself, are all easily interchangeable. A funny solvation was met by some [[mmorpg|online rpg]] which issued a 'whole country ban' on [[Turkey]] because there were some problematic users from there. Nevertheless, people from Turkey and even the people in question could still play it via a [[proxy server]]. South Korea, on the other hand, gave each citizen an unique Internet ID, eradicating both the anonymity and anarchy in internet. Wait untill it is so far in [[the rest of the world]] and come again with that suggestion.[[User:Turkmenbashy|Turkmenbashy]] 21:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I doubt that there'll be enough users to act as mentors. The backlogs at AIV, etc. suggest we need more manpower to deal with anonymous vandals. --[[User:Hildanknight|J.L.W.S. The Special One]] 12:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, but there are such things as abuse of the mentoring system, the mentor might be 1. friends with the violator 2.enemies with the violator or 3.just plain abusing their newfound power to block a person there isnt much wikipedia can do to know about this but otherwise sounds good

-Charlie34

: Sounds like something that could be remedied with a conflict-of-interest disclosure requirement. Nothing fancy. If someone violates it, they get banned. I am merciless towards people who game the system. [[User:Messedrocker|<font color="red">★<small>MESSED</small></font>]][[User talk:Messedrocker|<font color="red"><small>ROCKER</small>★</font>]] 22:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

== Vandalism ==

I'll keep this short since most everything is explained elsewhere. Simply put, sometimes vandals are not fit to be reported to [[WP:AIV]], but there should be a place where they can be kept track of. You may read the problem in detail at [[Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism#Removal of valid vandals]], and I would appreciate any and all feedback on my possible [[User:Dar-Ape/Persistent vandalism|solution]], which is still in its early stages of being and is completely open to suggestions and constructive criticism. [[User:Dar-Ape|Dar]]-[[User talk:Dar-Ape|Ape]] 23:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

:This isn't that hard to do on your own. Watch their talk page; then check their contribs list from time to time. If they vandalise repeatedly within a few days, warn them each time with the progressive warning tags, then report them to AIV. If they become good editors, or disappear for ever, leave them alone. I don't see where we need more than that. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User:Jayron32/Esperanza|<span style="color:#00FF00;">32</span>]] 04:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

::Jayron32, by identifying chronic anonymous vandals, Dar-Ape's propose list aims to have many users doing what you suggested: watching their talk page, checking their contribs, and, if neccesary, warning them and reporting them to AIV. There are many anonymous vandals who stop after receiving a last warning, only to come back the next day (e.g. school IPs). If the IP address is static, they should be handed long blocks (of several months). --[[User:Hildanknight|J.L.W.S. The Special One]] 11:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Exactly. Furthermore, even if IPs have a history of vandalism, they should generally not be listed at WP:AIV if they have only vandalized once within the past few hours, or have not vandalized after their last (which could also be their first) warning. Yet they could be reported on this page. Also, if someone has to sign off, contribs of the vandal he or she is watching can be combed and reverted the next day, but in the mean time, many people may have read the vandalized articles and gotten false or misleading information. This should be preventable, and will be with a "watchlist" like this. [[User:Dar-Ape|Dar]]-[[User talk:Dar-Ape|Ape]] 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

== WikiBar ==

Apologies if this has already been suggested, but it occurred to me that a Wiki search/toolbar would be really handy for those who reference Wikipedia often.

[[User:203.28.13.57|203.28.13.57]] 02:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, just discovered it, please disregard/remove the above.

[[User:203.28.13.57|203.28.13.57]] 02:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

== Some ideas for the good articles shown in other languages ==

:''Moved from [[Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 8#Some ideas for the good articles shown in other languages]]''

I've just created a template [[Template:Link GA]], it's works similar as the [[Template:Link FA]]. However it needs the [[MediaWiki:Monobook.css]] and [[MediaWiki:Common.js]] to be updated to reflect this change. Is that a good idea to introduce this template? --[[User:Shinjiman|Shinjiman]] &#8660; [[User talk:Shinjiman|&#9832;]] 05:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

:There's seems not much feedback about this proposal, so I copied to here also. --[[User:Shinjiman|Shinjiman]] &#8660; [[User talk:Shinjiman|&#9832;]] 16:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

::I'm curious. What do these two templates do? What are they for? Maybe they need some words inside <nowiki><noinclude></nowiki> tags, as the [[Template:Babel]] has, to explain what they are and when to use them. --[[User:Coppertwig|Coppertwig]] 04:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I think they're to add a little plus icon to one of the "in other languages" links if the corresponding other-language article is marked as good. [[User:NeonMerlin|<span style="background-color:#000000;color:#00ff00;text-decoration:underline overline"><span style="color:#ff0000">Neon</span></span>]][[User talk:NeonMerlin|<span style="background-color:#00ff00;color:#ff0000;text-decoration:underline overline"><span style="color:#000000">Merlin</span></span>]] 05:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

::::yup, that's what this template would do. (See also [[:zh-yue:iPod]], this template would add a plus icon at a inter-language link that its status is good.) --[[User:Shinjiman|Shinjiman]] &#8660; [[User talk:Shinjiman|&#9832;]] 17:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

== Hide/Show box for footnotes ==

Might a box be made as to make the footnotes on a page less, well obnoxious if there are many. I have seen boxes where there is a link in the top right corner where it says "show" while the box is closed and "hide" while the box is open. This could be done in much the same way the table of contents are done. Now I don't know how to do it, so I bring it here. (Note: This idea was originally derrived by myself at [[Talk:RuneScape]], having nearly 50 citations. However, I have seen a page with 137 citations, and this would make any and all Wikipedia pages look far more pleasing to the non-editing reader.) How plausible, if plausible at all, is this plan, and does anyone know how to make such a box in a non-intrusive way? Other Feedback? Thanks in advance, [[User:Poorleno|<font color="Red"> → p00rleno (lvl 7'''8''') ←</font>]][[User Talk:Poorleno|<font color="Green">ROCKS</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Poorleno|<font color = "blue">^C]][[RuneScape|_RS]]</font><Font Color= "light blue"> </Font> 01:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

: Read with Firefox, and use {{[[template:reflist|reflist]]|2}} or <nowiki>{{reflist|colwidth=40em}}</nowiki> or something like that in the article. (for instance, [[cell nucleus]]'s references are pretty big (both in quantity and column width), but on wider displays, it'll automatically display two columns side-by-side) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 02:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

::Since I use [[Opera (internet suite)|Opera]], am I left out in the cold? --[[User:Hildanknight|J.L.W.S. The Special One]] 05:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

:The purpose of footnotes is not just for the editor. If we consider how information is presented to the reader then we have various levels of granularity. In principle the opening summary contains the whole story and may be adequate for some readers, although we must accept that most summary intros in Wikipedia do not achieve this objective. The next level of granularity is the article itself, and the next again is the footnotes. A further level of granularity is going to the references themselves to establish what they say. I appreciate that a lot of Wikipedia articles leave a lot to be desired in this structural format, by using clumsy formations to attribute references and sources in text as well as footnoting, but that doesn't mean that the footnotes and references are only aimed at editors.

:The challenge is to get well written articles, appreciating that some will require extensive referencing to demonstrate adequate coverage.

:[[User:ALR|ALR]] 20:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

::But still, a box which could be hidden would make it look nicer, all I wanted to know is if anyone can make such a template. [[User:Poorleno|<font color="Red"> → p00rleno (lvl 7'''8''') ←</font>]][[User Talk:Poorleno|<font color="Green">ROCKS</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Poorleno|<font color = "blue">^C]][[RuneScape|_RS]]</font><Font Color= "light blue"> </Font> 21:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

== Templates for proposing category splits ==

Just now I needed to propose the splitting of [[:Category:Life simulation games]] into [[:Category:Biological simulation games|Biological simulation games]] and [[:Category:Social simulation games|Social simulation games]], and found the required cf* and cf*2 templates didn't exist. I ended up using a modified version of {{tl|cfr}} on [[WP:CFD]] and the generic {{tl|split}} (with the rarely-used discuss parameter to point to CSD instead of category talk) on the category page itself. But I bet this isn't the only time a category's been put up for splitting. Shouldn't there be templates to do it with? [[User:NeonMerlin|<span style="background-color:#000000;color:#00ff00;text-decoration:underline overline"><span style="color:#ff0000">Neon</span></span>]][[User talk:NeonMerlin|<span style="background-color:#00ff00;color:#ff0000;text-decoration:underline overline"><span style="color:#000000">Merlin</span></span>]] 04:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

==Rating system/decision system==

In some cases, building consensus on Wikipedia does not work very well. It is slow. It often results in a bad answer/solution. It is prone to manipulation. And often, a number of average editors can make life miserable for some real expert in a field like physics or neuroscience, reverting their changes, getting into petty arguments with them, etc. When you read the academic literature about Wikipedia, this is one of the complaints. The library scientists also complain about problems with unqualified people cranking out nonsense in a strident contemptuous fashion and drowning out the more learned and qualified editors on Wikipedia. In interviews, Jimmy Wales often has mentioned the desire to attract more experts to write articles. I am wondering about possibly tilting the playing field a bit in favor of people who have demonstrated some recognized level of expertise in some area.

I propose that a system somewhat like that used by Yahoo! Answers be used. In Yahoo! Answers, a person can put a question forward and get quite a few answers to that question in a short period. They can either choose one of these as the "best", or put it up to a vote to the community which will then choose a "best" answer. The community can then vote after the fact in agreement that the best choice has been made, or can vote in disagreement. Points are accumulated along the way that then identify fairly rapidly those with recognized qualifications and reliability in a given field. Many times I wish I could have a question that arises on Wikipedia put to a vote. On a talk page, this rarely works. Some people have jury rigged votes on special pages, and that can work sometimes. If points were accumulated in a yahoo! answers fashion, and people could find a list of things to vote on easily, then the community could be surveyed easily on many issues that become sources of contention. This could even be used for noncontent-related dispute resolution. For example, I have had editors claiming to me that having citations was unencyclopedic. Of course, I could have tried to organize some sort of RfC or something to address this, but it is too cumbersome. If I could quickly put the matter to a vote, and get 35 votes to 2 to show he is wrong, and build up points in the meantime, then slowly people who are knowledgable and reasonable fonts of knowledge in certain areas will be identified, and people who are less reliable and less knowledgable will become known as well. This would also be an incentive to people to improve, to get a better score. Better scores need not come with extra priveleges; prestige is enough to drive people on Yahoo! Answers. I recently had a situation where an editor claimed he had taken the wording for his contribution (which was very lacking in several aspects) directly from the work of a famous person in the field (but did not attribute the writing to the famous person). I then expressed incredulity at this claim, given that the contribution was of such doubtful quality. I pointed out that this editor appeared to be:

#admitting to plagiarism

#appealing to the presumed authority of this famous person to justify what they had written

I was met with a storm of indignation and accusations and attacks. The current dispute resolution system is too cumbersome to deal with this sort of thing. Therefore, there is lots of bullying instead. However, if something easy was available, the problem probably would have been resolved quickly without even resorting to dispute resolution, because even the existence of a way to easily publicly shame someone would encourage them to stay in line. Points might be accrued in different areas to produce a multidimensional score. Anyway, it is at least something to consider.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 07:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:Voting is not how Wikipedia works nor should it be. Democratic voting is not a good way to decide these sort of issues. What makes you think that votes would not be rigged? Wikis are run by consensus. If you post something and it remains, that means that everyone who reads it has in a sense "voted" to let it remain or abstained. So everything at wikipedia has unanimous approval. When people disagree, they have to discuss. If they can't discuss they can try mediation. If they can't mediate then there is arbitration. Discussions take time, and people who are not suited to collaborative efforts do not stay very long or eventually end up blocked. A million and a half pages have been created this way.

:There is no excuse for plagarism, and you should remove anything that is found to be plagarism. If someone claims information to be from an authority, they should cite them. If they do not, remove it for being uncited material. If you get reverted, ask for other editors to join you in reverting uncited material and plagarism. -- [[User:SamuelWantman|Samuel Wantman]] 09:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

::I understand what you are saying. However, I am reluctant to get into a pitched battle with someone who has been here more than 4 years. They clearly know all the rules and all the tricks for circumventing the rules. They obviously have a wide range of alliances and friends they can draw on. And it is true that 1.5 million pages in English have been created that way, and many more pages have been created in other languages. However, there are problems in a system where everyone is the some weight. Sometimes the herd instinct is wrong. And some lousy pages result. In fact, I have seen my share of examples of bad design, and clumsy wording, and meaningless phrases. And editors who are prepared to defend these to the death, using sockpuppets and friends. Unless someone is prepared to go to a lot of trouble, you cannot dislodge them and the text they are defending. I am not the only one who has noted this. Wikipedia has some very strong points, but it has weaknesses as well. I suppose a rating system could be "gamed" and end up favoring some group that wanted to cheat.--[[User:Filll|Filll]] 12:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I hope you don't have your heart set on changing Wikipedia in as fundamentatl a manner as you propose, because it isn't going to happen. With 1.5 million articles out there, surely all the articles you might want to edit can't already be defended by editors with sockpuppets (violation of rules) and friends ready to defend them? Perhaps you could look at [[Wikipedia:Maintenance]] or [[Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce]] if you're not sure where such undefended articles might be found. [[User:John Broughton|John Broughton]] | [[User talk:John Broughton |Talk]] 17:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No of course not. I just thought I would make the suggestion. I do not claim this is the solution the problems of Wikipedia. When one is brainstorming, one just throws ideas out for comment. Most of them are nonsense, but they might stimulate other ideas and who knows, sometimes something good comes out of it. I also suspect there are many "orphaned" articles out there. --[[User:Filll|Filll]] 21:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:Could be - there's a project to look at such articles just starting up: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Articles]], and a special page ([[Special:ancientpages]]) to display the 1000 articles with the least recent edits. [[User:John Broughton|John Broughton]] | [[User talk:John Broughton |Talk]] 02:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If I understood your proposal correctly, it aims to give expert views more weight in discussions/votes, and to introduce a simpler method of determining consensus. I remember [[Larry Sanger]], and others, criticising Wikipedia for being anti-elitist, and this proposal would help address such criticism, and make it harder for trolls to game the system. A hypothetical situation where this would be useful would be a discussion where a troll tries to get a common misconception reported as a fact in the article, and an expert tries to stop him. --[[User:Hildanknight|J.L.W.S. The Special One]] 05:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

'''Object''' This makes absolutely no sense at all. How can you know for sure that that person is an expert on the subject? Say an example: a neurologist decides to become a Wikiholic, and start posting stuff on Neuroscience. There is no way to confirm. Besides new editors i.e. in this case the neurologist, don't have friends in Wikipedia. Therefore their votes will be lower. And then they may leave.--[[User:Foundby|Foundby]] 10:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I'd agree that the current, consensus based, (effectively weighted democratic) system in Wikipedia is fundamentally flawed, I'm not convinced that this approach to dealing with that is adequate. You're essentially advocating a beauty contest based on a meta level rather than as it is now, on the content level. Until Wikipedia has some form of demonstrating expertise and utilising that in the validation of article content, we'll never get away from the rigging or pimping of votes whether on article page or in WP space. Notwithstanding that the tyrrany of ill-informed democracy does need dealing with.[[User:ALR|ALR]] 20:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

:I agree, this is a major problem. Most adult people with a degree have good professional knowledge in some field. I'm quite thick-skinned and used to debating on forums and so on, but a person not used to Internet can dislike this. And it's much more frustrating to defend what you really know about, and what is the common knowledge for anyone who ever had interest in the field.

:However, the way to deal with it, in my opinion, is changing attitude. Really, if an expert decides to help the site by adding some good information or fixing mistakes, he doesn't expect the ingratitutious attitude typical here. WP is becoming somewhat of thing in itself, people judged by number of edits, and anyone with few edits considered a newbie, at best met with condescending attitude.

:We just need to change the attitude, as professional knowledge is essential to filter information, and can't be replaced by trusted newspapers. By changing the attitude I do mean some measures, not just "we should". However, I'm not sure which measures. [[User:CP\M|CP/M]]^{[[User talk:CP\M|comm]]} |[[WP:WNP|Wikipedia Neutrality Project]]| 14:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

== search bar change ==

Hi I'd like to request a change on the placement of the search bar. I often forget where it is because of the awkward and almost unnoticible ___location. I think that if you moved the bar to a more visible area on the page, it would induce more browsing on the site. Thank you, and I think Wikipedia is awesome. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/76.171.242.137|76.171.242.137]] ([[User talk:76.171.242.137|talk]]) 09:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

:Where would a better place be? [[User:Tra|Tra]] [[User:Tra/MyComments|(Talk)]] 15:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

::Maybe the top of the sidebar, under the Wikipedia logo? Or maybe up where the Foundation fundraiser thingie is?~ '''''[[User:ONUnicorn|<span style="background:#0cc;color:#fff5ee">ONUnicorn</span>]]'''''^{([[User talk:ONUnicorn|Talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/ONUnicorn|Contribs]])} 16:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:::You could switch skins: Cologne Blue has the search box below the logo and Classic has it at the top of the page. [[User:Tra|Tra]] [[User:Tra/MyComments|(Talk)]] 16:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

::::The anon can't switch skins. ~ '''''[[User:ONUnicorn|<span style="background:#0cc;color:#fff5ee">ONUnicorn</span>]]'''''^{([[User talk:ONUnicorn|Talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/ONUnicorn|Contribs]])} 16:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::Yup, customization is mentioned as a benefit of registering, at [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?]]. [[User:John Broughton|John Broughton]] | [[User talk:John Broughton |Talk]] 17:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::I'm guesing that our friend at IP 76.171.242.137 is a reader of Wikipedia; not so much an editor. Perhaps only a casual reader. Their contribution here is the only contribution from that IP address. Perhaps someday they will see that one typo they can't resist and fix it and become hooked; but for now they really aren't interested in editing and probably see no reason to register. Moreover, people are ''always'' talking about deleting unused accounts; it's somewhat of a perennial proposal. If 76.171.242.137 did register an account for the purpose of customizing his/her reading experience it would be yet another unused account for people to pick on and complain about. Moreover, ''76.171.242.137 has a valid point''. If 76.171.242.137 has trouble finding the search bar, then I guarantee that there are 10 other ''readers'' of Wikipedia; people who have wandered in here from a Google search or a link on some other webpage who perhaps have no idea what Wikipedia is who can't find the search bar. Paper encyclopedias are easy to find things in; everything is in alphabetical order, period. Wikipedia is one heck of a lot harder, ''especially'' if it's your first encounter with it and you don't see the search bar, don't understand that blue words are links, and can't figure out how the categories work. ~ '''''[[User:ONUnicorn|<span style="background:#0cc;color:#fff5ee">ONUnicorn</span>]]'''''^{([[User talk:ONUnicorn|Talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/ONUnicorn|Contribs]])} 17:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::what you're saying makes sense, and I'm in full agreement that concerns for readers, not editors, should be the top priority. However, the search bar seems like it's in an obvious posisition, and I'm not sure where to relocate it. [[User:Ikanreed|i kan reed]] 19:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

A more obvious place would be in the upper left corner, ''above'' the globe. I realize that the more graphically inclined may strongly object to that, but if the goal is to make the reader experience as trouble-free as possible, the page shouldn't be treated as an art project. [[User:John Broughton|John Broughton]] | [[User talk:John Broughton |Talk]] 02:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

'''Object''' I am used to it, and so will you.--[[User:Foundby|Foundby]] 10:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you noticed that when you type in wikipedia.org, there is a seachbrowser just underneath the logo? You have to try to miss that

-Charlie34

== Wikipedia Toolbar ==

Hi,

Beyond any doubt wikipedia is a lovely thing to have in our cyber world. I am a big fan of her. Though I dont have a very specific area of experties where i can be helpful to your project but i do have one suggestion.

Like some other services like google, answers, yahoo and msn etc. I would suggest that wikipedia may like to launch a comprehensive and free toolbar for desktop use.

I hope i may not have disappointed you with my suggestion.

Thanx <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Ccuuppiidd|Ccuuppiidd]] ([[User talk:Ccuuppiidd|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ccuuppiidd|contribs]]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:See [[Wikipedia:Tools/Browser tools]] :) —[[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 20:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

== Spoilers on http://www.wikicities.com/wiki/c:Lost ==

I went to http://www.wikicities.com/wiki/c:Lost, thinking it was some sort of new wikipedia-related technological thing. It turned to be a page about the television show "Lost". That wasn't my only discovery. I also discovered something about the show that I would have preferred to have seen on the show itself. In short, the page lacks any warning of spoilers.

I propose to make a page created solely to alert people of possible spoilers before actually veiwing the page http://www.wikicities.com/wiki/c:Lost.

Thank You <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Jack Rabitt|Jack Rabitt]] ([[User talk:Jack Rabitt|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jack Rabitt|contribs]]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:Hello there. Unfortunately, that Wiki is not part of Wikipedia itself (as far as I know), thus we can't "force" them to add spoiler warnings. If you clicked an external link from a Wikipedia article that took you there, and if you really consider this step necessary, leave a message in the talk page of the article from where you clicked the link, and explain why you think a spoiler warning should be added. Wikipedia is not censored, and that apparently includes spoilers. -- [[User:ReyBrujo|ReyBrujo]] 03:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

:Wikicities is a service of Wikia, a for-profit company founded by Jimbo Wales, who also founded (or co-founded, depending on whom you listen to) Wikipedia. There is no formal association between the two entities other than sharing a founder and using the same (free, open-source) software. [[User:Dtobias|*Dan T.*]] 04:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

== How about compensation for contributors...? ==

Direct compensation of writers by readers might be a good way to compensate Wikipedia contributors but another method that comes to mind is the idea of establishing a system of voting for the best contribution of the week, month or year wherein the contributor with the work with the highest number of votes would be named contributor of the week, month or year and granted an appropriate sum. I say this because most of the articles I have read seem to be of such exceptional quality that they are equally, if not more, deserving of reward and compensation as are revisions and improvements to Wikipedia Foundation facilities (hardware and software). And I would not stop there. I can think of just as equally deserving contributors who work or participate in the reference desks as well. [[User:Adaptron|Adaptron]] 09:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

:Can't they just use [[Paypal]]?--[[User:Foundby|Foundby]] 10:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

::Do we have to introduce [[capitalism]] to Wikipedia? Egads! It is is prolific enough elsewhere in life. [[User:CyberAnth|CyberAnth]] 11:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

:::No, thanks. We just like working as [[slaves]]. &mdash; [[User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|<font color="black";>'''Nearly Headless Nick'''</font>]] 11:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

::Wikipedians are free to go at any time. Slaves are not.

::I am all for a system of non-monetary rewards.

::[[User:CyberAnth|CyberAnth]] 01:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Most Wikipedians, being volunteers working on a free encyclopedia, would reject monetary rewards for their contributions. According to [[WP:MISS|the list of missing Wikipedians]], [[User:Colin Kimbrell|Colin Kimbrell]] left when [[Wikipedia:Reward board|Reward board]], a similar proposal, was implemented. If implemented, this proposal would drive away even more editors.

::::As a writer, I work on articles because I enjoy doing so. Recognition of my work - such as an article I've significantly contributed to achieving GA status - motivates me. Therefore, I '''support''' the idea of "contributor of the month" awards, but '''no money''' should be involved, please.

::::--[[User:Hildanknight|J.L.W.S. The Special One]] 11:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

::::The issue is that we could attract people who are only looking for money. That's said as I'm sure many good editors, who would like to contribute more, have to limit themselves in order to leave room for they paid job. It's exactly the same in many open source software projects: they advance in the developers spare time only, because they are unpaid. *If* a way existed to economically support people's work *without* all the bad effects that this could have I'd like the idea. Of course recognition is another matter, as others have pointed out. For other POVs, it would perhaps help to hear opinions from someone involved in Yahoo! Answers. &mdash;[[User:Gennaro Prota|<span style="color: #000080; font-weight: bold">Gennaro Prota</span>]][[User talk:Gennaro Prota|<sup style="color: #006400">&#8226;Talk</sup>]] 11:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

::::I see a different problem. It lies in quantity. The quantity of monetary support Wikipedia could offer is pretty low; make it a prize or share it, it is way below the real cost of the work done. However, with money being introduced into this, everything would be viewed from a different angle, the angle of money.

::::Or, phrasing it simply: Now I contribute for my own sake, good of WP, etc, with monetary system I would contribute for $200/year. Negative effects are dual - first, contributors will feel underpaid, second, people will think "oh, it's their job".

::::And concentrating money into a single or a few rewards created the spirit of competition rather than collaboration at least, and coups, factions, conflicts... well, all these problems are far beyond possible benefits. Extra $200/year won't make me, as well as most editors, contribute more, but will make others edit less, relying on the paid ones. We have some problems of undervalued contributors, factionalism, competitions, but they are relatively harmless; adding money would make them all surface, solidify and expand. [[User:CP\M|CP/M]]^{[[User talk:CP\M|comm]]} |[[WP:WNP|Wikipedia Neutrality Project]]| 15:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

*There used to be a system for this but it fell flat almost immediately. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#DD0000">&gt;<font color="#FF6600">R<font color="#FF9900">a<font color="#FFCC00">d<font color="#FFEE00">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font>&lt;</font></b>]] 16:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

:For "best contribution of the week", see [[WP:FA]]. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 16:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay to summarize: From what I am hearing then it is the absence of monetary gain that is not only responsible for the quality but for the doing. Compensation is not in monetary gain but in the accomplishment. The idea of nominating and voting on the best contribution (and hence contributor) of the week, month or year is good but not the 3 to 14 day cruise through the Caribbean they would derive from the honor. No-strings-attached Direct PayPal donations by any user to any other user as thanks or to show appreciation or gratitude for a well written article or reference desk solution to a problem would be okay.

Thanks very much to everyone for expressing your head and heart felt opinion. [[User:Adaptron|Adaptron]] 23:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

:Just thought I'd throw in some food/links for thought: [[Wikipedia:Bounty board]] and [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Featured users]], which was intended to be somewhat analagous to [[WP:FA]], I believe. [[User:Dar-Ape|Dar]]-[[User talk:Dar-Ape|Ape]] 23:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

::Having linked to the [[Wikipedia:Rewards board]] and read [[Wikipedia:Reward_board#Iran]] the thought occurred to me that if a newspaper editor for instance needed research on a particular topic this might be one way to get it without paying boo coo dollars to a hired gun for it. So there may already be means of compensation present which simply find no need to be well advertized. Call it the Wikipedia writer pool - sort of like the bar down the road where all the local writer types hang out? [[User:Adaptron|Adaptron]] 00:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

:::The honor of contributing to this great encyclopedia is the only compenation that I need. I'm proud of it. --<font face="Kristen ITC">[[User:Tohru Honda13|<span style="color:#90f">'''Tohru'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tohru Honda13|<span style="color:#36c">'''Honda'''</span>]]</font>^{[[User:Tohru Honda13/Autograph Book|Sign here!]]} 01:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

:Check [[WP:REWARD]]. -- [[User:ReyBrujo|ReyBrujo]] 04:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

:2Adaptron: My opinion is that direct donations by someone to someone are fine. Having a WMF budget for prizes isn't, because it will make it look "''Mostly'' non-profit". Maybe something independent would work well. I mean, when people donate to Wikipedia, they donate for servers and their maintenance, all the things which keep the system running. Having a separate initiative with a fund for rewarding contributors would work fine. However, to add to, not to replace what we have now. [[User:CP\M|CP/M]]^{[[User talk:CP\M|comm]]} |[[WP:WNP|Wikipedia Neutrality Project]]| 06:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

::Whatever meets consensus is fine with me since that's how the Wikipedia got to where it is today and can get to where it's going in the future. Besides keeping hardware and software state-of-the-art, eliminating bottlenecks, adding servers, increasing speed, etc. is an ever increasing expense that demands every penny donors can provide. [[User:Adaptron|Adaptron]] 08:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is similar as in free software: Wikimedia cannot itself pay contributors, but third parties are free to hire people to work on a specific article, similar to SUSE hiring programmers to work on the Linux kernel. Nobody can keep me, for example, from hiring three people to clean up vandalism and do categorization tasks. Or from promising $100 to my mate if he should get [[Chronology of the Ancient Near East]] to FA status. Funding 'wikijobs' could be a new form of donation to the project, without direct involvement of Wikimedia. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 09:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

:And there's nothing to stop individuals from donating to Wikipedia indirectly by hiring someone to work on it for them. For example, lets say I'm a CEO and I earn 99 bazillian dollars a year, and I love the idea of improving articles on Wikipedia. I can't "afford" to work on articles myself because my time is so valuable to my company, but I can easily afford to hire 100 college kids during the summer to do nothing but sit around and improve articles on Wikipedia. They get $15 an hour, Wikipedia gets improved a lot more than it would if I did it myself. — [[User:Jonathan Kovaciny|Jonathan Kovaciny]] <small>([[User talk:Jonathan Kovaciny|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jonathan Kovaciny|contribs]])</small> 15:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

:'''Some stuff to think about'''

::*Where would the money come from?

::*How would we know where to send the money (users aren't required to say anything about their real identities or place of residence)

:::[[user:nineteenninetyfour|<font color=green>Ninety</font>]][[user talk:nineteenninetyfour|<font color=green>^wazup?</font>]] 20:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

== Spam blacklist type of warning feature ==

Wikipedia already has in place a spam blacklist which prevents page saves when certain URLs are detected on the page. I'd like to propose a similar type of system. It would not be a blanket refusal to save, but rather would pop up a warning (as we used to have with blank edit summaries before the autofill feature came along) when certain words are detected. The editor would still be able to save, but at least he would hav been alerted to this. It would be of great help to newbies especially. Words I'm targeting off the top of my head are things like "recent", "recently", "lately" etc. that should not be in a "permanent" encyclopedia article. I'm sure others could even think of different ways to take this, e.g. identifying certain adjectives as [[WP:WEASEL|weasel words]] and [[WP:PEACOCK|peacock terms]]. Thoughts? '''<font color="red">[[User:Zunaid|Zun]]</font><font color="green">[[User Talk:Zunaid|aid]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/Zunaid|©]]</font><font color="orange">[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Zunaid|^{Please rate me at Editor Review!}]]</font>''' 13:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

*Hm, interesting. A similar system could be used to block out vandalistic swearwords (except, of course, that we have articles on most of those words). But if it's just a pop-up, don't you think people will just ignore it? If it's not a pop-up but a refusal-to-save, don't you think this may annoy people and they will abandon their edit? [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#DD0000">&gt;<font color="#FF6600">R<font color="#FF9900">a<font color="#FFCC00">d<font color="#FFEE00">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font>&lt;</font></b>]] 16:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

*I question that this would work. What about quotes? There are also some subjects that use swear words encyclopedically like [[Fuck the Millennium]]. Also it can be quite discouraging to new users, similar to when your doing a long online registration and constant problems show up about the entered fields like "too short of a password / taken username", the point: its frustrating. [[User:Tutmosis|<small> - Tutmosis</small>]] 16:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

**Not a pop-up window exactly...it would just bring up the edit page again like does with blank edit summaries (just in case anyone reading this isn't aware, you can set it in your Preferences/Editing menu to "prompt me on blank edit summary"). The word list should obviously be cautiously applied, I'm thinking more in terms of encyclopedicness (encyclopedicity?) than profanity. Things like "recently" should NEVER be in a good encyclopedia article. For a profanity filter, perhaps an admin-settable flag can enable a whitelist allowing swear words on a per-article basis, without popping up the warning. '''<font color="red">[[User:Zunaid|Zun]]</font><font color="green">[[User Talk:Zunaid|aid]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/Zunaid|©]]</font><font color="orange">[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Zunaid|^{Please rate me at Editor Review!}]]</font>''' 07:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

***Again I'm questing if that would work. What if the user is not familiar with our guidelines on [[Wikipedia:Weasel words]] and [[Wikipedia:Words to avoid]]. If the user is unable to save then I don't think he/she will understand why. Providing an optional (preferences) pop up in my opinion would be the best scenario. Pop up like "You used [word], which is considered unencyclopedic. Continue?". That ofcourse again being optional for registered users. But completely restricting saving of pages based on words is bound to create problems and wiki-break frustrations. [[User:Tutmosis|<small> - Tutmosis</small>]] 15:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Kind of a related idea: What about doing something like this for users that have been blocked in the last 90 days? Any time a recent vandal tried to add any word in a large list of common vandalism words, they'd have to go through an extra step before being able to save the page. On the "warning page" there would be an admonishment not to revandalize: "Based on keywords in your edit, it appears that you are attempting to [[WP:VAND|vandalize]] this page. You may still proceed with your changes by clicking the Save Page button below, but be aware that your edit will be speedily reverted if any vandalism is confirmed." Then, a special note would be automatically appended to the edit summary highlighting the edit as possible vandalism. — [[User:Jonathan Kovaciny|Jonathan Kovaciny]] <small>([[User talk:Jonathan Kovaciny|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jonathan Kovaciny|contribs]])</small> 15:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

== Downloadable open source Wikipedia software for your computer ==

I have an idea of developing an open source application that you can download and install on your computer, much like Encarta from Microsoft. The catch is that this downloaded encyclopedia is faster to access then on the web and also this program can have built in update capabilities so that every user can stay up to date. This will not only get some of the traffic off Wikipedia's servers but also publicize Wikipedia and make it into a household name, much like Google. Imagine that parents download and install this for their kids so they will still be able to do their homework and stay off the web that is filled with pedophiles and bad things for children. Not only will this help Wikipedia but also many parents who do not want to waste money on Encarta. Therefore, seize this opportunity and begin working on this project because it is the future of Wikipedia. 20:36, 21 December 2006 {{unsigned|Mcstcisco}}

::Not only of the future but of the past... Although not mentioned in the [[Internet Explorer]] article IE has a syncronization option which most other browsers probably have which offers download scheduling capability much the same as scheduling for any other task. Click on the "Favorites" dropdown, select "Add to favirites..." and click on the "Make available offline" checkbox. [[User:Adaptron|Adaptron]] 10:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

== Allowing edit summaries on "rollbacks" ==

The rollback button is great to undo bad edits, but it can piss off people having their work undone without an explanation. Rollback should only be used on obvious vandals that deserve no explanation, of course, but sometimes convenience trumps caution. - [[User:DavidWBrooks|DavidWBrooks]] 21:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

:What I do is I install [[wp:popups|popups]] and set <code>popupRevertSummaryPrompt=true;</code> so it prompts me for an edit summary every time I do a revert, and I have a choice of either entering an edit summary or leaving the default summary for vandalism reverts. [[User:Tra|Tra]] [[User:Tra/MyComments|(Talk)]] 22:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

::For several weeks, I've been thinking up a similar proposal.

::Under my proposal, there will be a small text box next to the rollback button. The rollbacking admin may enter a code into the text box (entering a code is optional). Based on the code entered, an appropriate edit summary will be generated, and an appropriate warning issued to the offender.

::For example, when rollbacking spam, if an admin enters "spam2" as a code, the edit summary will indicate that they are rollbacking spam, and a <nowiki>{{spam2}}</nowiki> warning would be issued to the spammer.

::I discussed my proposal with [[User:Brion VIBBER|Brion VIBBER]], a developer, on IRC, and he suggested that a user script would be more appropriate for this purpose.

::--[[User:Hildanknight|J.L.W.S. The Special One]] 02:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

== "Edit Summary" capacity ==

I think the area for "Edit Summary" should have a larger capacity. I think it is unrealistic to expect people to say all they want to say about why they are making the changes they are making, especially as concerns the reverts of someone else's writing. The Talk page is a good thing, but it is too far away to allow for the immediate explanation that is called for. I think the "Edit Summary" should be further divided into a "brief" section and a slightly "extended" section. The "extended" section should still be very limited. But it should allow several times the length of writing that the present "Edit Summary" allows for. I think this would allow people to appear to be acting in a more humane way towards one another. Presently, it is very common for reverts to engender bad feelings. It is almost impossible to try to smooth over the almost inevitable bad feelings that tend to result from reverts. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] 02:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''' - I see this as adding an odd level of omplexity, and being unlikely to be used much. As for the reasoning: It is the fact of the revert that hurts and upsets poeple, not what is written in the edit summary. It is on the talk pages that the differences need to be ironed out. --[[User:ems57fcva|EMS]] | [[User_talk:ems57fcva|Talk]] 05:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

* '''Comment''' I do not think we need this complexity. However, I would like having the limit raised to 250 or 300. I usually write long edits when reverting, and could use an extra 50 characters :-) -- [[User:ReyBrujo|ReyBrujo]] 05:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

*You're asking to change an arbitrary limit into another arbitrary limit. Since this requires a database change, it is probably Not Going To Happen. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#DD0000">&gt;<font color="#FF6600">R<font color="#FF9900">a<font color="#FFCC00">d<font color="#FFEE00">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font>&lt;</font></b>]] 12:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

*Yes, of course it is arbitrary. How could it not be arbitrary? My argument is there's a big gap from the edit summary to the talk page. The edit summary is a necessary part of making changes, but the talk page is seen as an option. I think there should be an "option" built right into the edit summary. Like, ''"click here for extended space for edit summary."'' That way, those who are so inclined, can try to smooth over hurt feelings that are so common. I think the extended area should be about 2 or 3 times the present edit summary area. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] 13:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

* '''Strong support''', together with making the summary '''mandatory'''. I can't say in words how much time I spent (''i.e.'' waste) looking at diffs of people who don't write edit summaries; that's just an irresponsible behavior. (Bogus edit summaries, in case someone begins adopting them as a "workaround", should be treated as vandalism.) &mdash;[[User:Gennaro Prota|<span style="color: #000080; font-weight: bold">Gennaro Prota</span>]][[User talk:Gennaro Prota|<sup style="color: #006400">&#8226;Talk</sup>]] 12:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

*Yes, it should be mandatory. It should not be possible to proceed without inserting ''something'' in the edit summary box. I hadn't thought of that, but I wholeheartedly agree with that. I think these are the sort of things that are more likely to result in compatibility between participants. (And Wikipedia should more clearly post the importance of explaining ''what you have done and why you did it''.) [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] 13:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

**I disagree. It should not be mandatory. Besides from simply editing own userspace, there are different kinds of articles. There are high-profile articles where conflicts are frequent, true. But there also is a lot - and a bigger lot - of noncontroversial articles worked upon by one or a few editors who trust each other, or at least know to use the talk page. They don't need edit summaries. Also, making them mandatory will not only take time, but deter newcomers, and most people will use primitive summaries like "edit", "sp", "style", "expand". I actually find myself at times unable to write anything more about editing an article where I'm the main contributor; not to mention wikiprojects, talk pages, et cetera. [[User:CP\M|CP/M]]^{[[User talk:CP\M|comm]]} |[[WP:WNP|Wikipedia Neutrality Project]]| 16:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

***Pretty much anything needs edit summaries. The "articles worked upon by one or a few editors who trust each other" issue is not even worth commenting; if you want a private wiki set up one. Summaries consisting only of the words you mention, and others, would not be accepted, similarly to [[stop words]] in search engines. Users trying to "workaround" this measures would be just vandals and treated as such. Note that this is not ''being harsh'' but being ''responsible'', which is totally different. &mdash;[[User:Gennaro Prota|<span style="color: #000080; font-weight: bold">Gennaro Prota</span>]][[User talk:Gennaro Prota|<sup style="color: #006400">&#8226;Talk</sup>]] 16:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

****I often run into the edit summary limit, but I think the current length is relatively ok. I would also ask the edit summaries be made mandatory, but for non-minor edits ... I think that the summary should be optional for minor edits. I wonder is there is a way to have a 'say more' button available that would create an link automatically to a new section on the talk page, the link appearing in the edit summary - I think that would be a helpful addition. --User:Ceyockey (<small>''[[User talk:Ceyockey|talk to me]]''</small>) 17:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

*****Lot of things could be done. One can sort of imagine ClearCase-like comments, for instance. But when it comes to modifying MediaWiki we have to cope with the most recalcitrant open source team that I've ever come upon. &mdash;[[User:Gennaro Prota|<span style="color: #000080; font-weight: bold">Gennaro Prota</span>]][[User talk:Gennaro Prota|<sup style="color: #006400">&#8226;Talk</sup>]] 17:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

****"''Users trying to "workaround" this measures would be just vandals and treated as such.''" - Do you just realize what you are saying? And what we are here for? Wikipedia is not an experiment in enforcing discipline and ordnung on volunteers. It is not army. Not even volunteer corps. And not a police state. While some people try to make it more accessible to newcomers and attract them, others find nothing better than to invent regulations they want their lined up units to follow and punisments for failure to comply. Is "vandal" a new term for "regulations violator"? Do you consider the fact that this term has [[Vandalism|off-wiki meaning]], and a pretty specific one? Am I a vandal now, because I used edit summary "reply"? [[User:CP\M|CP/M]]^{[[User talk:CP\M|comm]]} |[[WP:WNP|Wikipedia Neutrality Project]]| 14:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

*An automatic link to the Talk page, accessible from the Edit Summary area, would be an excellent idea. That creates a smooth continuum from Edit Summary area to Talk page. As I see it, there is too stark a break between the two areas. People ''either'' use the Talk page ''or'' they use the Edit Summary area, but far less frequently use ''both'' areas. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] 18:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

**Or perhaps a subpage of the talk page? In that case, it should also be decided if the page would be manually editable or not (the former being useful e.g. to fix typos, but dangerous). What I'd like most in this solution is that [[Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups|Popups]] would fit like a glove to it :-) &mdash;[[User:Gennaro Prota|<span style="color: #000080; font-weight: bold">Gennaro Prota</span>]][[User talk:Gennaro Prota|<sup style="color: #006400">&#8226;Talk</sup>]] 19:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

== Stalin Birthday ==

It is mentioned under your research that he was born on December 18th when all other research states he was born December 21st. What is the correct dob? yiannimelas(at)gmail(dot)com thanks, yianni

:Stalin — Date of Birth: 21 December 1879. According to http://encyclopedia.worldvillage.com/s/b/Stalin [[User:Adaptron|Adaptron]] 10:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

::I believe [[Stalin#_note-0]] explains it all. His official documents in the Imperial Russia were on 18 December 1878 but he himself installed 21 December 1879 as the official date. The reasons why he did it are unclear: desire to have a 50-year old celebration as a national holiday, questions of paternity, who knows? [[User:Alex Bakharev|Alex Bakharev]] 10:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

== Dead-Link Cleanup Day ==

Is it possible to set aside a day or week where members of the community go through every article and check for deador spam links? A comment could be posted on the talk page after each page is done. Something has to be done to deal with all these dead links and i was wondering if anyone else thinks this is a good idea. [[User:The Placebo Effect|The Placebo Effect]] 13:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

:It might be possible to set up a permenant [[Wikipedia:WikiProject|WikiProject]] to work on this, similar to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam|WikiProject Spam]]. [[User:Koweja|Koweja]] 14:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

== Fair use of promotional photographs ==

Hi all,

There is a vote [[Wikipedia:Elimination_of_Fair_Use_Rationale_in_Promotional_Photos/Vote|to allow the fair use of promotional photographs of living people]]. Some people believe the fair use policy currently disallows fair use of promotional photographs of living people if they occasionally make public appearances, others disagree with this. This proposal would clarify the issue.

[[User:Cedars|Cedars]] 22:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

== Move and edit ==

I frequently come across small stub articles at incorrectly-najmed pages and move them to more appropriate titles. Almost inevitably, the pages also need further work such as wikifying, categorising, or re-stubbing. Currently, the "successful move" page reads:

:<small>The page '''''oldname''''' ('''links''') has been moved to '''''newname'''''. </small>

:<small>Please '''check''' whether this move has created any '''double redirects''', and fix them as necessary. </small>

It would be a huuge help if that could be tweaked slightly to become:

:<small>The page '''''oldname''''' ('''links''') has been moved to '''''newname''''' ('''edit'''). </small>

:<small>Please '''check''' whether this move has created any '''double redirects''', and fix them as necessary. </small>

Any chance of adding that edit link? Pretty please? [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''<small><font color="#008822">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>'' 23:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

:To add this link, an admin will need to change [[MediaWiki:Pagemovedtext]] to <small>(see in edit form for code)</small>:

The page "<span id="specialDeleteTarget">{{MediaWiki direct link}}</span>" ([[Special:Whatlinkshere/$1|links]]) <span id="specialDeleteLink"></span> has been moved to "[[$2]]" (<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:$2|action=edit}} edit]</span>).

'''Please [[{{ns:Special}}:Whatlinkshere/$2|check]]''' whether this move has created any [[{{ns:Project}}:Double redirects|double redirects]], and fix them as necessary.

:[[User:Tra|Tra]] [[User:Tra/MyComments|(Talk)]] 23:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

== Not so random ''Random article'' / "Fuzzy search" ==

I think the ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random Random article]'' link is interesting but unwieldly. I think it would be more interesting if the ''random article'' link had an option so one could make it a bit less random-- i.e. make it so one can semi-randomly select:

* an article that was created in the last 30 days

* articles in a specific area (i.e. [[European history]], [[electronics]], [[philosophy]], [[biographies]])

* by article length (i.e. so one can look for random stub-like articles... or long unreferenced ones)

* ... so one can select articles with a combination of the above.

* <add a criterion>

* <add a criterion>

The above is related to "fuzzy searching"... by "[[Fuzzy string searching|fuzzy]]" I mean one that isn't so well defined in the search sense, i.e. inexact matching of search terms. It would be interesting if one could search articles by content, i.e. search articles for specific words (and get a list as output). Sometimes, I find it is not possible to remember the name of the article... but I remember the content. Google seems to be better at finding things then... than the Wikipedia's 'search' function. It would be interesting if Wikipedia had a search function (not unlike [[Google]])... that has the option of generating a ranking of articles instead of taking one to one specific article. [[User:Nephron|Nephron]] <small>[[User_talk:Nephron|&nbsp;T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Nephron|C]]</small> 23:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

:Yeah, I've always wanted a feature like this. Sometimes I'm lost for things to do on Wikipedia (too much choice). It would be great if I could get a random article within, eg., Category:Science and fix what needs to be fixed. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak]] [[User_talk:OldakQuill|Quill]] 02:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

::I'd also like to have similar filters for "some tasks you can do": I sometimes have a look at it but almost never find topics I have enough knowledge about. '''Support'''. &mdash;[[User:Gennaro Prota|<span style="color: #000080; font-weight: bold">Gennaro Prota</span>]][[User talk:Gennaro Prota|<sup style="color: #006400">&#8226;Talk</sup>]] 04:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

== Wiktionary integration? ==

Since the wiktionary project has really taken off, how about including a little blurb "wiktionary has a definition of this word" (with a link, of course!) or something like that for wikipedia articles that are also featured in the wiktionary? I'm not sure if this would be best done with a bot walking through the wiktionary and adding tags to wikipedia or if the databases could be synced...

Just an idea... [[User:83.255.10.11|83.255.10.11]] 23:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

{{wiktionary|example}}

:You can use the template {{tl|wiktionary}} to do this where <nowiki>{{wiktionary|example}}</nowiki> gives the box shown on the right. [[User:Tra|Tra]] [[User:Tra/MyComments|(Talk)]] 00:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

== Actual edit summary inclusion in "edit summary" ==

At the moment the only way the nature of an edit can be discovered is by clicking the 'diff' link, and using the edit summaries provided by the editors. However edit summaries provided are often of little or no use - anonymous vandalism with no edit summary being one example. What about the possibility of categorizing edits based on their nature, e.g. text removal, text change, text insertion, link insertion... the options could be as complicated or as simple as necessary. Display this information in brief form next to the edit summary, and it could be useful when browsing an article's history, recent changes or a watchlist. [[User:Mushin|Mushin]][[User talk:Mushin|^talk]] 06:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

== A logical improvement drive ==

I was wondering if it was possible to list all the articles sorted by decreasing "what links here" number of links. That way, we'd have a pretty accurate measure of the importance of an article to the whole encyclopedia, both in content and community. We could work to make the most important articles GAs and FAs, without the constant debate about article importance that generally cripples COWs and improvement drives.--[[User:$yD!|SidiLemine]] 12:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)