Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:24, 30 September 2007

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

• ]

Recurring policy proposals are listed at Misplaced Pages:Perennial proposals. If you have a proposal for something that sounds overwhelmingly obvious and are amazed that Misplaced Pages doesn't have it, please check there first before posting it, as someone else might have found it obvious, too.

Before posting your proposal:

• Read this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.
• If the proposal is a change to the software, file a bug at 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, Misplaced Pages:Manual of style, and ask people to discuss it there.
• If the proposal is for a new wiki-style project outside of Misplaced Pages, please go to m:Proposals for new projects and follow the guidelines there. Please do not post it here. These are different from WikiProjects.

Redesign of placeholder images

So we have a few different placeholder images that appear in articles that don't yet have portraits. (Of course a few people think that we shouldn't have them in articles at all. Maybe they don't want the general public to contribute their images? Or they're ashamed of the fact that it's a wiki? But that's beside the point...)

I've thought that the current images were an eyesore for quite a while, looking as if it were thrown together without much thought, and there've been a bunch of complaints on related talk pages, so I tried to make a better version that others could continue improving on. But it's apparently not liked, either, and was instantly reverted.  :-)

I changed:

• The fonts - The mixed fonts look as if it was a mistake to me; meant to be in a font that the SVG renderer couldn't handle and it fell back on serif. The serif looks really out of place in an infobox of all sans. See discussion on the talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Fromowner#Very_ugly_and_distracting
• The wording - "Do you own one? If so please click here" just sounds bad. I used "Click here to upload one", but I'm sure you can think of something better. See the discussion on the talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Fromowner#Wording. Also got rid of the big space between the lines, which also looked like a rendering mistake to me.
• The colors - I first looked around Google Image Search for placeholder images to base the new versions on, and most have a visible box around them instead of being transparent or white on white. I liked the look of the light gray/blue box the best, on a white background with a dark silhouette. (Apparently the blue background - which I got from here - is the most-loathed aspect of my design. I'm completely fine with a light gray background instead.) Here are some other variations to compare to:
• The building image - Original was kind of crude-looking, so I made something completely different with a skyline.

Compare the originals:

• Male portrait
• Female portrait
• Neutral portrait
• Building photo Building photo

With mine:

• Male portrait
• Female portrait
• Neutral portrait
• Building photo

Please provide opinions and alternative ideas. Keep in mind that they are used a few different ways; infoboxes, thumbnail frames, bare images, etc. — Omegatron 08:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support generally as these are improved images that will look nicer on article pages, although to the extent that they're by necessity generic and full of text they remain somewhat ugly. (I see the point. I just feel it's the equivalent of having text in an article that says "...where he died in 1862. Have more information? Click here to edit the article.") Given that I would like at least two more improvements. The "neutral" head should be framed the same way, with the scalp near the top (or the NASA plaque people should have more headspace, but that leaves less room for text). The building image should be simpler and something that can similarly contain the text "No free image". Also, make sure there's enough torso space for the lower text; the woman and neutral silhouettes don't have enough. And not to add to your workload, but why isn't there an even more generic one for topics that aren't people or buildings? --Dhartung | Talk 08:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There isImage:Replace this image.svg I just don't like it because I would rather things were specialized and the responsibility for sorting out the resulting images given over to wikiprojects.Genisock2 14:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Jay Gray
Another attempt
Born	2007-08-27 Wikimedia Commons
Occupation	Placeholder
Known for	Gray background, lighter silhouette, bold top text, -"one", no gaps at shoulders, head centered a bit

• Comment: I do overall like the idea. The thing I hated most about the current ones was the wording, and the lack of a comma in the female and neutral ones. I also really don't like the use of "one" stylistically. You also touch on an unresolved issue: how far do we go in directly soliciting help from the general public? If we don't do it in text (as Dhartung points out), then why are we ok with doing it in images? Let's seriously work on the wording here.

I think you've improved a bit on the colours, but it was actually better with different fonts. The key message is "We don't have an image, that's why we're displaying this stupid graphic" - the appeal for help is secondary. So keeping "No free image" big and bold would be good (though without the serif/sans difference). The text smeared haphazardly across the skyline looks bad. Only other comment is I'm not sure I really see the need for male/female versions. Isn't neutral sufficient? Stevage 14:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look at how the images are used in articles there generaly are framed either by thumbs or by info boxes.Genisock2 14:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• A welcome improvement. I agree that the use of "one" is not stylistically ideal; does anyone have ideas? --Iamunknown 15:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Click here to upload" seems reasonable. -Chunky Rice 16:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• I am among those who would prefer they be removed completely, not because I'm "ashamed that it's a wiki" but because when I visit an article it's 99% of the time to learn something about the subject, and to have this irrelevant template draw my eyes away from the text is really distracting. I think your new images would actually be a step backward from the current images, because the blue/dark gray, while "prettier", is higher-contrast with the white background and therefore even more eye-catching. I like what you've done with the fonts and the skyline, though, and would approve a switch to a version of the images with the same color scheme as before but with those improvements. Redquark 23:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The original colour setup was chosen with the ability to tune out the images in mind.Geni 04:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The building image should be simpler and something that can similarly contain the text "No free image".

Agreed. Need to find a building to trace that's more generic and rectangular and close up.

The thing I hated most about the current ones was the wording, and the lack of a comma in the female and neutral ones.

Yes.

I also really don't like the use of "one" stylistically.

I agree that the use of "one" is not stylistically ideal

Agreed, too. I couldn't think of anything else clear and short enough.

how far do we go in directly soliciting help from the general public? If we don't do it in text

We don't?  :-)

So keeping "No free image" big and bold would be good (though without the serif/sans difference).

Oh. Yeah I'm perfectly fine with the bold on top if that's what people want. The sans/serif mix is what bothers me. I think it should all be sans, and maybe a better-looking sans font, but I don't know which to pick.

and would approve a switch to a version of the images with the same color scheme as before but with those improvements.

Hmm.. I like the darker silhouette on a colored background. Maybe a lighter gray for the background and a slightly lighter silhouette? (Also the shoulders need to extend outside of the image to get a crisp edge.) — Omegatron 00:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. These are a vast improvement - let's implement them immediately unless someone has a serious aesthetic problem with it. wikipediatrix 13:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  Apparently so, since they were reverted the instant I implemented them... — Omegatron 02:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  It was aparently reverted because he though it was just a random bold change, try linking to this discussion next time and it will probably be fine. I'd also like to plug Misplaced Pages:Graphic Lab/Images to improve if people want to discuss further enhancements to the images. --Sherool (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Zee problem is that the new ones are way way to bold. Much harder to mentaly screen out.Geni 07:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the colouring of the originals and the design of the new ones. As Geni says the new ones are too striking when it should be more of a background thing. violet/riga (t) 08:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The blue or the gray or both? — Omegatron 23:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• The new wording loses the mention of owenership which is meant to reduce the number of copyvios uploaded.Geni 18:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  I think that's an improvement, too. "Fromowner" needs to be moved to something more descriptive, and not be limited purely to images that the uploader actually took. The page should describe how to upload their own pictures, but also point them in the direction of finding images on Flickr, etc. — Omegatron 23:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  you would appear to be wanting Misplaced Pages:Upload. Overloading fromowner is a really really bad idea. By the time people are searching flickr for images for wikipedia I think they can cope with our normal upload system.Geni 23:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  So we should just link directly to the upload page? — Omegatron 03:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  If they are not complete newbies yes. Fromowner is built on the basis that the people useing it are. So far the evidence suggests that this assumption is correct.Geni 02:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Personally, they look great and read well, a big improvement, and I like the blue version. I don't know the issues well enough to firmly support though, so I'll obstain from any comment other than how they look. One slight objection that carries over from the old version. The male and female silhouettes are good quality but they seem to assume middle class, adult, western, etc., in terms of hair and clothing styles, body shape, etc. And the gender-neutral one looks like an extraterrestrial. I'm pretty sure it's possible to abstract them a little more without making them look bad, even a gender neutral one with some hair.Wikidemo 03:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

See Template:Infobox Album/No cover for a similar setup. — Omegatron 15:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware that people have been looking at that. I'm not going to get involved with something that encourages people to upload unfree pics.Genisock2 10:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The new ones are better. I think we still need work on this though. Some members of WikiProject Cricket are less than pleased with me for putting those images on the cricket articles ... less hideous ones would be a REALLY GOOD IDEA - David Gerard 15:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, an improvement. Most importantly for me, the wording is a lot better. The idea that you can "own" photographs, or the entire paradigm of intellectual "property", is a point of view that not everyone agrees with. — Matt Crypto 19:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

However it is one the law agrees with which as far as the fromowner system is concerned is what matters.Geni 22:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to use the language of property and ownership -- you can ask whether someone "holds the copyright" to an image, for example. — Matt Crypto

Holds the copyright is too long and increases the number of people who won't understand what you are talking about. The systems uses original authorship combiened with phyisical ownership to try and get around that problem.Geni 12:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, when a person actually clicks through on the image, they are taken to a page with lots of stuff about copyright and licences. If they don't understand what it means to "hold the copyright", then they're really not going to get very far regardless. To talk about "owning" a photograph is not merely clumsy English, but it's also giving credence to a particular point of view: namely that you can own information just like you can own a physical object. Not everyone thinks that way. The suggested new images are an improvement for this reason. — Matt Crypto 21:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. — Omegatron 23:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In this case it is asking about physical or at least digial ownership. The followup page and upload page then concentrait on did you take it yourself.Geni 16:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: You either need a totally generic one, or a great many specialized images. ImageRemovalBot is using Image:Replace this image.svg for infoboxes about aircraft, cameras, caves, athletic fields, lakes, mountains, cell phones, and so on. --Carnildo 23:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Depends if you can get the relivant wikiprojects to agree to look after the resulting image stream.Geni 01:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I asked for help on Misplaced Pages:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve#Placeholder_images, but no one seems to have noticed. If no one comments in a few days, we should just go with the blue or gray ones, and they can continue to be improved from there (like using a different building as the background). — Omegatron 23:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support with modification. I'd like to see the request be small, italic, and bracketed. I came here from WP talk: Avoid self-references; my issue with the proposals is that they mix content and Misplaced Pages "meta-content" without enough clarity. Most of the meta-content in Misplaced Pages is italic, including disambiguations, citation needed, and stub notices. (The only meta-content not in italics are framed things like NPOV.) How about either (1) change "Click here to upload one" to smaller text in the top right that says or (2) get rid of the silhouette and go with a frame that looks more like the NPOV, perhaps with the text "No free image exists. You can help Misplaced Pages by providing one."? —Ben FrantzDale 01:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Consider these two versions, which make an effort to be clear about what is meta-content:

1. 
2. 

I think these are less like "...where he died in 1862. Have more information? Click here to edit the article." and more like "...where he died in 1862." —Ben FrantzDale 11:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Support the second one. Avala 23:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people misunderstand WP:SELF. It prohibits things like "this Misplaced Pages is about..." in the article itself. It doesn't prohibit "this article needs work" in a maintenance template. Recruiting help from outsiders is what the site is all about. This is just a maintenance template. — Omegatron 03:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I disagree. This image is completly over the top. As usual Misplaced Pages is thinking that all readers are stupid and thick, and need spoon-feeding. Well they are not, if they want to upload a photo, they will work out how to do so. I worked it out myself, reading the guidlines and so on, and I didn't some intrusive image that ruins the page to tell me how. There is a big difference between a small, subtle stub notice that categories the article as a stub, and a large intrusive image that encourages people to upload non-free images. Articles requiring an image can have a template added on the talk page and this categorises it. This is all that is needed. I believe this is a violation of WP:SELF but more importantly it is unnecessary spoon-feeding that encourages random images to be uploaded. Why ruin a page?--UpDown 07:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Most people can figure out how to upload an image, but using this sustem they will at least get instructions to only upload images they hold the copyright to and release it under a free license. In my experience there is just no way to spoon feed that enough, copyright and licensing is completely alien to a huge number of users... Granted there are a lot of people who still manage to ignore all the instructions and upload random promo photos regardles, but I feel this is the best system we have come up with so far to make it clear that we want images and we want them to be free licensed. --Sherool (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely there are instructions on the normal guideline page on how to upload photos? I know I read them. I do believe that encouraging images like this does encourage incorrect images to be uploaded. And also, it looks very bad on the page, an unnecessary intrusive 'image'. If people have a image they want to upload, they will do so. They will work it out. This encourages to upload random photos, and ruins the page in the meantime!!!--UpDown 09:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

yes but they are complicated and hard to find. Fromowner puts the uploader on rails and brinks the information they need to them.Geni 14:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree as well, that's why I think a typographical distinction is necessary. Also, this is only appropriate for pages for which an image really is reasonable to expect, otherwise we are doomed to have thousands of biographies that will never be finished rather than realizing that they just won't ever get a picture. I prefer the gray version because, as mentioned by others, it is easier to ignore. —Ben FrantzDale 11:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I just ask, a request was made at the Graphic Lab for improvement of these images, but it wasn't particularly specific on what should be done. We're more than happy to help, but it'd help if there was a summary of the general consensus on what should be done to these images. If I may, my own opinion is that a set of standardized and consistent placeholder images is a very good idea, and that the best model for such images would be those under "Addressing some concerns" on the request page. I'd also suggest that keep the discussion in one place as no-one as really talking to us at Misplaced Pages:Graphic Lab/Images to improve. --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 17:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I came late to this discussion and don't know where to comment to have an effect. I'll assume for the moment that this is the best place. I agree with those above who have said the current versions are the graphical equivalent of "...where he died in 1862. Have more information? Click here to edit the article." I would like to build concenscious around one of the images I posted above (or something similar) that tries to be the graphical equivalent of "...where he died in 1862.". I got one "support" but want more than that before being bold on such widely-referenced images. —Ben FrantzDale 15:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I see little point in following the citation needed style in a request for images. in addition I'm unhappy with loseing the intial wording focusing on ownership.Genisock2 04:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I was shying away from "ownership" since I think most people think in terms of copyright. For example, I own an Ansel Adams print, but I don't own the copyright to it. With the wording subject to change, my primary point is that I don't like the fact that the current version does not visually separate the request for help from the content. I just realized that there is an "article message box template", which is the style I think is most appropriate, although probably in image form.

There is no appropriate free image available. If you own copyright to an appropriate image, please consider contributing.

What about that (in an appropriate aspect ratio)? —Ben FrantzDale 11:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Once of the problems with any such setup is that you lose the simplified instructions for putting the final image in the article (Aditionaly if that box has to exist please point it at Misplaced Pages:Fromownergeneral). In addition is meant to flow with the article somewhat since it is likely to be there for some time.Genisock2 17:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm less particular about the instructions; feel free to reword the above suggestion. I'm primarily concerned with the fact that the present images read to me like "...where he died in 1862. Have more information? Click here to edit the article." —Ben FrantzDale 21:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

there is no way to reword it to get around that problem.Genisock2 13:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

CD placeholder image

I had a go at making an image like Image:Nocover-upload.png in the style of Image:No male portrait.svg for a 'there is no CD picture' thing. I'd like to know what people think, and if anybody still cares about these placeholder images.

Here's what it would look like in an article.

If you don't mind, can you direct all feedback to Misplaced Pages:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve#Placeholder_suggestion_for_CD. Changing the wording is probably the most important thing that needs doing. --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 16:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-existent namespaces

If a new user didn't know about namespaces were for, they might try to make a non-existent namespace (ex. Weather:The weather in London). Shouldn't there be something in the MediaWiki that above the edit box? Æetlr Creejl 02:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont know that might be a bit complicated. It is much easyier just to move the page to an appropriate namespace. -Icewedge 02:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

How would you tell an attempt at creating a new namespace (Weather: The weather in London) from a valid article title (Magic: The Gathering)? --Carnildo 03:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a problem at the moment; posting a warning seems to be a case of WP:BEANS. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

One can't create a namespace like that. Anything that does not begin with User:, Template:, Misplaced Pages:, Image:, MediaWiki:, Portal:, Category:, Help:, the "talk" versions of those, Special:, or Talk: is treated like an article. Mr.Z-man 05:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:AFC should be retired

I belive that the page Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation and affiliate pages should be retired, the only thing it is doing is wasting hard drive space and creating a nuscance for Wikipedians.

The page is not helping to fueling article creation, is just providing a place for spam. I counted 51 articles in the most recent archive, out of all these one single sentance stub was selected for inclusion in Misplaced Pages.

I belive that having this page actualy is decreasing output as well. If you go to Category:Unreviewed articles for creation request pages and observe some of the pages there, you will see that less than half of all submissions have reviewd. This means that that half the articles we could be getting if we directed IP's to create an acount and do it themselves are getting lost. -Icewedge 02:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend changing the procedure for handline WP:AFC. Right now, you see a lot of pages containing requests being declined for one reason or another. If a user is certain that an article submission isn't a serious constructive edit, add an instruction to leave a warning message on the submitter's page if appropriate. (e.g. if the article request is an advertisement, leave {{uw-advert1}}. If it's nonsense, {{uw-vand2}}). Blatant spam or nonsense postings could be removed without objection.

There's also room for improvement in how WP:AFC is handled - although that's more of an implementation issue that would probably require a discussion in a wider scope. --Sigma 7 05:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

How many anonymous editors make a suggestion at WP:AFC and then go on to be registered members or continue to improve wikipedia as anonymous editors? Jeepday (talk) 05:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If you go to Category:Unreviewed articles for creation request pages and observe some of the pages there, you will see that less than half of all submissions have reviewd. This means that that half the articles we could be getting if we directed IP's to create an acount and do it themselves are getting lost. I don't follow that at all. Even conceding that the suggested articles that haven't been rejected may be in a gray area, why does it follow that (a) we want these; (b) no one else subsequently created these; and/or (c) the person making the suggestion didn't try again, but rather was so discouraged that he/she will have nothing further to do with Misplaced Pages.

I agree that the backlog of unreviewed articles is undesirable, but it seems to me that the solution is something other than (essentially) banning anonymous IP addresses from even suggesting new articles. I'd rather have them do that at AFC than have them spend time getting a registered account so they can post their crud directly to a new article, thus requiring CSD work.

For example, we could (a) try to recruit more editors for AFC reviews; (b) create tools that will make it easier for editors to respond to and close AFC submissions; (c) create an in-between response, where reviewing editors can say "Maybe - do you have more sources?", rather than just "Yes" (and then have to create the article) or "No" (and close the posting). I suspect that a lot of reviewers, when they find something that might be an article, are reluctant to do the research to confirm it is, and reluctant to be the one to say "No way". So they just go on to the next article, and another reviewer looks at the article and also can't decide, and so on, which is a lot of duplication. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"Even conceding that the suggested articles that haven't been rejected may be in a gray area, why does it follow that (a) we want these; (b) no one else subsequently created these; and/or (c) the person making the suggestion didn't try again, but rather was so discouraged that he/she will have nothing further to do with Misplaced Pages." I am just saying that out of the sizeable block of unreviewd submissions you can find articles that would be acceptable articles, very few of these acceptable will every be reviewd though because working WP:AFC is such an unrewarding task and no one really wants to do it. If we directed the IP's that submited these to instructions on how to create articles we might be able to get these worthy article into the mainspace instead of having them lost in the vast backlog forever. -Icewedge 16:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The first thing to do is stop calling IPusers anonymous users, as they are a lot less anonymous than the registered users. Call them what they are, unregistered users. Second, I have no interest in registering and will continue to contribute in any manner that I can without registering. If I was directed to create a username to create Foo article I could register Foo(followed by a big long random number), create the article and go back to being an unregistered user. That would be unproductive. I like being associated with the articles that I propose and am happy that there is a process that they can be created. Third, as stated above if someone is proposing an inappropriate article there is less overhead to not create it than to delete it and chase down Foo(biglongrandomnumberwhodoesn'tuseitanymoreanyway). Fourth, a lot of contributions to Misplaced Pages comes from unregistered users who see an article and say wait, they didn't include Foostuff, and click edit this page for the first and only time ever. While figuring out the process to create an article is a bit more involved, it comes up anytime a search is done and the page is not found as a link from "request it" and should be retained. 199.125.109.88 02:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason so few of AFC articles get created is that only ones that are almost guaranteed to stay on Misplaced Pages are created. The criteria for what will actually be created is quite strict. If the article would be deleted if it were to be created, it will just be denied. Look in CAT:CSD and CAT:PROD. They are full of articles that, if proposed at AFC would have been denied. AFC is simply like a pre-posting review like newpage patrol is post-posting review. I would agree that we need more people to review articles there, but due to the immense amounts of "low-quality" articles it is easy to grow to hate the task. Mr.Z-man 05:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What to do with people don't respecting Misplaced Pages licensing requirements?

It is getting increasing common that TV, internet and printed sources use images from Commons in their work without giving any attribution at all.

Should Misplaced Pages start with by-lines next to all images? People are not accustomed to clicking the images. They assume that if there is no by-line, the image has no copyright. I have had a couple of images used by a major Swedish newspaper. I didn't complain though because I am worried that in a court of law, they would get right because established practice is to have a by-line next to the image??

And today I saw the image from Olof Palme used on http://www.thelocal.se/ -- again with no attribution.

The problem is not mainly on my behalf because I am a proponent for free knowledge. But it will be difficult to convince others to upload their photos here if they can not be sure of getting their required attribution.

Fred-J 15:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, the fact is that nobody has the resources to sue. Contributors have to expect that, we can only ask that people follow the rules. Those who have asked for photo attribution can take action. Have you tried asking the offenders to add an attribution? ←Ben 22:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• The Free Software Foundation has extensive resources to deal with people who violate the various GNU-related and copyleft licenses. >Radiant< 11:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Ben: No, I haven't requested it (my own photos appeared in a printed magazine). Maybe Misplaced Pages could start an interest group to send out attribution demands? Anyway, won't image bylines solve the problem? / Fred-J 11:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

POV Mini-tag

• How about a template for identifying exact statements of being POV, sort of like the {{fact}} tag? It could look something like , or , or maybe , or one of other variations. What do you think? --Jedibob5 02:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If a single sentence is POV it would be really easy to just remove or fix it. I really don't think we need another backlog that will just waste drive space. 66.230.86.113 02:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC) ( -Icewedge 02:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC) )

(edit conflict)Seems to me like in most cases those sentances should just be removed, or attributed to a source. In the rare evnt that it's so crticial to the article that you can't take it to talk for a day or two, you can use use {{dubious}} --Ybbor 02:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There are a few options available: {{fixPOV}}, which adds and requires a hidden comment; {{POV-statement}} which only adds ; and {{POV-assertion}} which adds and a link to the talk page. I have found {{fixPOV}} helpful in tagging a list that was introduced by a statement that certain subset of list members were excluded. By tagging the statement, the POV assertion could be bulls-eyed. —Twigboy 18:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so there those tags are! They must be woefully underused, since I have never seen them on a page. This section of the VP can be ignored then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedibob5 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

For reference, there is a huge list of article tags. Cheers! Vassyana 14:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Singular they

The newly written proposal/essay/how-to/whatever Misplaced Pages:Gender-neutral language and its talk page essentially state that singular they is common practice on Misplaced Pages, apparently with the intent of promoting this as a good idea, and likewise state that this practice is frequently disputed. Outside opinion is requested on (1) how "common" this practice is, (2) how "frequently" the dispute is, and (3) whether people consider it a good idea. >Radiant< 14:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article you link to in the subject summarises it pretty well. WP:GNL suggests it as an alternative to gender-specific language but notes that it's objected to, largely because people objected to it during drafting. It could turn into a whole stack of turtles, as some people objected to the objection. This whole discussion was had a week ago, wasn't it? SamBC(talk) 14:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of "they" and "their" as singular generic pronouns is almost universal writing and informal speech. It's on the level of using "you" instead of "one" or using contractions. It does not stand out as wrong, but rather informal. We try to be a serious reference source, so I think most people try to avoid it where they can. Using "he" or "his" as a gender-neutral pronoun is even more awkward so people try to avoid that too. You can almost always word things without the need for a singular generic pronoun, so that's what people do for the most part in formal writing, including here in Misplaced Pages. Incidentally, in the history of English, using "he" and "his" to stand for a person of indeterminate sex is relatively new and never caught on. Before 1850 or so "they" and "their" were considered correct, but some succeeded in promoting "he" and "his." That got written into the rules of formal writing but never completely followed or accepted. I don't think the original intent was to make talking about men the norm, and women only by implication, but that's what happened with the new pronouns, and it's the reason why people are moving away from them today. The best advice for main space, I think, is to do whatever you have to do as long as you don't use "he" to stand for "he and she." You'll find that borne out in the articles. It's rare to come across one that uses male pronouns in the generic sense. Wikidemo 16:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As a further thought, I'm not sure anyone wants to promote singular they in any general sense, just to give it as a way of avoiding non-gender-neutral language. SamBC(talk) 16:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There are ways to use non-sexist language without violating plurality, such as using the word "s/he".ACEOREVIVED 19:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to use awkward constructions like that, how about using my favorite: s/h/it? --Carnildo 02:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, you have a point; "s/he" is pretty awkward. I'd say just go with the singular "they" where it's necessary and avoid it whenever possible. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 14:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's very clunky when a sentence has s/he. To me, it implies laziness to type he or she and is an admission that the three-word pronoun is awkward as well. The singular they is well established, and according to The Columbia Guide to Standard American English, they is more established than he as the gender-nonspecific singular pronoun.—Twigboy 15:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

In theory "they" is grammatically accepted now, although I have to admit that I cringe a little whenever I read it in a student paper because it *sounds* so unproper. In philosophy classes I was taught to use "one" but I think people read that as British or pretentious. As a feminist I prefer "he or she" or "she or he" because it establishes that both genders are being taken into account, that their is no bias being implied and it doesn't inadvertantly multiply the number of people being referred to and sound as if the numbers are not in agreement. Using "he or she" / "she or he" tells us that we've at least *tried* to take human/sex/gender rights into account. P.S. I *did* sign my comment! Wiki is being weird! Saudade7 18:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Lexicon

I was surprised not to already find this somewhere on the Wik, especially in perennial proposals or in the Project of Fun or similar locations. The proposal is this: set aside some corner of WP, either all the subpages of the format Misplaced Pages:Lexicon/whatever or some other subdivision (if it got hugely popular, perhaps its own namespace) and play Lexicon on it. I'm aware that isn't really what Misplaced Pages is designed for, games do not belong here, we are trying to be serious and spread information, take your games elsewhere, etc. But clearly, pretty much by definition, Misplaced Pages has the largest editing community of any wiki around, and a Lexicon hosted by WP or at least by Wikimedia would be sure to never die through inactivity--there would always be new people to step in for dropouts--and the lexicons would, I believe, be of superior quality to games cobbled together out of whoever you can find online. Thoughts?--Mobius Soul 19:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

From the Lexicon article: Players assume the role of scholars that write the history and background of a particular time, era or world (completely fictitious in nature). So precisely what would be the value to Misplaced Pages - as an encyclopedia - to have superior lexicons of this nature? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That they would be fun. Enjoyable, in a creative, literary, smart way--presumably exactly the way Misplaced Pages editors like to have fun. I don't claim they would be useful for any practical purpose. But a lexicon written by smart people who love words and stories is immensely fun to play, or read.--Mobius Soul 01:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say be bold and make it. But one of the 1300 administrators would probably delete the page. A.Z. 03:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds amusing enough. It might become a problem though, I think the best idea would be to host it off site or perhaps just direct users to http://www.uncyclopedia.org. -Icewedge 06:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, Lexicons are immensely hard to keep alive. I've started or helped start three, only one of which was played to completion, and that's the only completed one I've ever seen. It's hard to get people to come and play in the first place--a Lexicon only appeals to a certain kind of person--and they tend to get bored and stop writing after one or two rounds. It only worked on Urbandead because the game the wiki was attached too had a big community, many of whom were on the wiki and could see the announcements calling for players. Trying to start one on an independent website would result in its withering on the vine very quickly. But hosting one on Misplaced Pages would result in a functionally infinite pool of just the right type of person being in a position to see the announcements. Nowhere else would work--Uncyclopedia wasn't interested. It's too intellectual for them and frankly, I think it's too intellectual for the average prolific Uncyclopedia editor to be very interested in it or good at it. Anyplace with a smaller editing community than Uncyclopedia wouldn't be enough to support the Lexicon. Can anyone tell me how exactly it "might become a problem?"--Mobius Soul 14:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a place to play lexicon. Your playing it would not help improve the encyclopedia. Atropos 19:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Button on main wiki pages for clean-up ease.

It'd be advantageous to have a button on every wiki page, clearly labelled, that leads to a helpful page showing the code language for the most common alerts: bias, vandalism, doesn't cite references, etc.

Such is needed.

--boozerker 17:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

see Misplaced Pages:Template messages and if your an editor rather than a reader you should treat the Misplaced Pages:Community Portal as your main page--Phoenix 15 19:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I meant have a clearly visible button atop every wiki page, so that cleanup becomes more effective.

Edited my first post to add that one clarification. --boozerker 03:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Watchlists and control of article quality

I've felt that we need a more organized system of managing articles for some time, but I'm getting tired of seeing an important article get trashed by a vandal, have the vandalism go by improperly fixed by a novice, and the article as a result deteriorate over time, with nobody being aware that anything has happened. We need a more organized system of article watching and regular review, though we just don't have the manpower to do it. Beginning with watchlists would be a start though. We need to be able to look at an article and know if it is being watched. If one watches an article for a while or spends some time going through the history section, one can probably figure out who seems to keep an eye on it. But this isn't good enough - an experienced editor should be able to obtain this information immediately and with certainty. If I find an article is being messed around with and nobody is repairing the damage, I want to know if there is somebody watching it or not. If not, somebody needs to; an appropriate Wikiproject could be contacted for example. If there is, they need to get their act together and do a better job of keeping it in good condition. If they can't do it alone, more watchers need to be recruited. We have the 'maintained' tag, but that has always tended to suggest the 'maintainer' is a scholar in that field. Ideally, we would have an expert on each subject watching that article, but anybody would be better than nothing.

Let me give an example from my experiences today. I visit the article animal, one of the most important in biology. I see it is somehow smaller than before. Something has happened. I go to the page history, replete with thousands of edits, and try to find what happened. Eventually I reach something almost two weeks ago that seems to be the problem: a vandal deleted sections, and a relatively new editor tried to fix it but missed some of the deletions . If somebody was watching this article they would never not notice something that major. Yet it still happened, and nobody seems to be any wiser. The reality is that someone probably is watching this article and has let it slip by. But I have no way to be sure someone is watching it. And if there is, I can't exactly complain to them can I?

We need to put in place a system where people can see who is watching an article. If people don't wish others to know that information, perhaps they could opt out via preferences (though it is no more of a privacy issue than being able to look through their contributions really). Alternatively, people could add their name to the talk page or somewhere else as a 'watcher', or via some indirect means, e.g. adding a template that links to articles they watch on their user page and being able to find these (e.g. via 'what links here') from the page itself. Another option is letting people select articles from their watchlist that they publicly proclaim to be watching and thereby take responsibility for their maintenance and care. They could appear in bold on the list, for example.

One problem is that vandals can find unwatched articles, but most vandals are unlikely to even know about the watchlist system, let alone how to access that information, and I believe the benefits would outweigh the costs anyway. If it was a concern, don't let anons or even newly registered users see the information. Another is that users may no longer be active but still have things on their watchlist, or they may not go through their watchlist carefully. A way of excluding those who are currently inactive would help with the first issue. On the other hand, if they had to explicitly opt in as a watcher, there would be few people doing so at first, and they may feel reluctant to take on that responsibility. There will also be those that whine about 'ownership', even if the job of the so called 'owner' is nothing more than cleaning up graffiti. But we need to be more responsible for our encyclopedia. Someone coming here should have someone they can complain to if an article is not being looked after. There should be someone there who will get the vandalism that slips through recent changes. It's a very big task to embark on but we need to start working towards it. We need to work out how to put this in place and then get people involved. Hopefully in future we will be able to say that every article on Misplaced Pages has someone out there looking after it, and those that receive a lot of traffic will have a dozen such people - perhaps even someone watching 24/7, or near to it. We could even start a WikiProject - perhaps "Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Quality control", to implement and coordinate such an effort. Is anybody with me on this, or do we just want to hope that a disorganized system will catch all the problems by itself? Richard001 02:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the above is a mixed bag of proposals. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Quality control is not a bad idea (too bad the shortcut WP:QC is already taken); it would overlap to some extent with Misplaced Pages:RC patrol, Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol, Misplaced Pages:Counter-Vandalism Unit, and such. A "these users watch this article for vandalism" template like {{maintained}} might not hurt, although it could as easily be a part of the banner for the above mentioned WikiProject as a generic banner. I think public watchlists are not such a good idea, although if anyone really wants one they can always just create Special:Mypage/Watchlist and use Special:Recentchangeslinked to watch the pages on it. I think the chances of vandals looking for unwatched articles is greatly underestimated. Anomie 03:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's why the unwatched articles special page is restricted to admins. Not a good idea. The template thing maybe. Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:25, 09/23/2007

You are already aware of the problems with keeping a list or count of the users watching each article. A substantial proportion of the really active users are admins and have access to the list of unwatched articles, but that list only includes the first 1000 such articles and currently doesn't get as far as articles beginning with the letter 'a'. Providing a complete list of unwatched articles, or a mechanism which allows an admin to see a count of watchers for any page, would be more helpful, but I think this latter cannot be done efficiently with the current database structure.

I think a public watchlist is a better idea. I maintain one for vandalism-prone New Zealand-related articles. If Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biology doesn't do so, perhaps you could start one.-gadfium 04:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Placing a template "This uses watches this page for vandalism" would be too trivial a thing for most purposes to place on a talk page, and it would require a lot of work for a person to manage them. If unwatched pages were a problem for vandals, we could solve the problem easily by only letting trusted users see the information, however we have no way of knowing telling apart trustworthy users from those who are not in an automated fashion. Even so, blocking users who have not been around X days and/or made X edits would almost certainly filter out any mischief. The administrators tool sounds useless, though it points out there are far too many articles not being watched, based on your description. People shouldn't have to become admins just to see such information though.

Having a public watchlist that is systematically gone through by people may be a functionally similar alternative or compliment. I'll think more on that possibility. Richard001 05:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't want the world to easily know what articles I am watching. I know it is paranoid, but as someone who is a citizen of the United States, I feel over-surveilled already. I don't actually do anything wrong, mind you, but in my country it no longer matters if you do something wrong or not. Interest in a subject is enough to get you on certain watchlists. I don't mind if the information is all encrypted and just shows numbers/statistics, but I don't want it to be like when the government records who you travel with, what books you check out of the library, who you call on the phone. Globally, there are also academics being arrested now in Germany because they were "intelligent enough" to have written certain things. I just have my reservations about "lists". Thanks, Saudade7 18:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes since my last review

What the watchlist really needs is a "Changes since my last review" option, so instead of seeing the changes that have happened in the last 3 days, I can see what's changed since the last time I actually read or edited the article. Let's say I start an article on something and add it to my watchlist. Then later I go on vacation for a few weeks, and it is subtly vandalized by someone and none of the WP:RCP people or bots catch it. I come back from my vacation and it's already off the bottom of my watchlist so I don't notice it either. Unless I'm paying careful attention next time I edit the article or happen to check its history, the vandalism goes unnoticed for a long, long time. I'd like to see a button on the History page to mark the current revision as satisfactory. From that point on, my watchlist displays the diff from the satisfactory version to the current version. When I get a chance to check that diff, I can mark it as satisfactory. — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 13:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I just note down the time and date of the most recent item on my watchlist before I leave, and when I come back I look at any changes listed more recent than that. You can easily change the days parameter in the watchlist URI if you need to look further back (e.g. this will show changes in the last 30 days), or just use the "all" link on the watchlist page. Commons seems to have a feature that will highlight revisions in the page history and your watchlist since you last checked the page, but I've never been that fond of it. Anomie 14:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Contribs tab for user pages

I can see a person's user page and talk page simply by clicking their signature, but to see most users' contribs, I have to first go to a history where they contributed. Wouldn't it make sense to have a contribs tab for user pages, so you can see a user's contribs without having to display a page history?

When viewing their user or user talk page, a link to their contribs is added to the toolbox down the left-hand side. At least, I don't think that's from any of the scripts I have installed. SamBC(talk) 02:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey you're right. I never noticed that. I don't think any of my scripts is doing that either. Although I think a tab makes more sense, but its no big deal as long as theres a link somewhere. Thanks. Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:15, 09/23/2007

An interesting tool is Misplaced Pages Page History Statistics. JoJan 05:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If you do want a tab, though, I've made a user script at your suggestion:

//adds "contibs" tab to user and user talk pages
if (wgNamespaceNumber == 2 || wgNamespaceNumber == 3) {
    var uname = wgPageName.match(/*:(*)/);
    if (uname.length > 1)
        addOnloadHook(function() {
            addPortletLink("p-cactions", "http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/" + uname, "contribs", "ca-contribs", "Contributions");
        });
}

It also appears on user subpages, whereas the toolbar link does not. If you don't like the order of the tabs, I could change that as well. Gracenotes § 15:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow ok, thanks. I just installed this, it works great. As for order, right now the tab appears just after the watch/unwatch tab. I would say it should be further to the left than that, perhaps just after the history tab. You should definitely list this at Misplaced Pages:Tools, by the way. I think a lot of people may find this very useful. I sure do. Thanks again! Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:51, 09/23/2007

PS. Is there any documentation on scripting with javascript for Misplaced Pages, some page that lists and describes existing variables and functions etc? Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:57, 09/23/2007

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject User scripts/Tutorial and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject User scripts/Guide exist, but they seem unclear and/or outdated. To find existing variables, classes and IDs, the easiest way is to see the HTML source ('view source') of any page; for functions, see wikibits.js and MediaWiki:Common.js. Hope that helps! --ais523 14:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a version that adds the contribs tab after history tab (function parameters indented as so not to be ridiculously long):

//adds "contibs" tab to user and user talk pages
if (wgNamespaceNumber == 2 || wgNamespaceNumber == 3) {
    var uname = wgPageName.match(/*:(*)/);
    if (uname.length > 1)
        addOnloadHook(function() {
            addPortletLink("p-cactions",
                           "http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/" + uname,                        
                           "contribs",
                           "ca-contribs",
                           "Contributions",
                           undefined,
                           document.getElementById("ca-move") || document.getElementById("ca-watch"));
        });
}

Enjoy! :) Gracenotes § 19:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again Gracenotes, this is a very handy script that I'm already finding myself using a lot. I still think you should post it at the tools page if you haven't already. And thanks ais523 for the info on javascript, I appreciate it. :) Equazcion • argue/improves • 12:10, 09/25/2007

Have you seen this: http://wikidashboard.parc.com/ ? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not at all what I was suggesting, but it is interesting. Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:04, 09/26/2007

Rollback function

I believe that the administrator rollback function should be made available to every user with auto confirmed status. The benefits of providing this tool to all users older than a couple of days are many and the drawbacks few and inconsequential.

The most obvious benefit is that it saves time. The manual undo function and script assisted rollback functions like WP:TW are far slower. On my computer which is a relatively new machine with DSL, WP:TW takes 10-15 seconds to revert a page, the administrator rollback takes 1-3 seconds to execute. There are thousands of vandal reverts per day on the English wikipedia ( 24 hrs * 60 min * 5 rv = 7200 ) most of which are done with scripts, if all these were done with the rollback button as much as 16 hours of wikipedian time could be saved each day ( 7200 rv * 8 sec / 3600 sec = 16 hr ).

The rollback function is also far more efficient then scripts in terms of bandwidth. When an admin presses the rollback button a small package of data is sent to the wikimedia server which then creates a dummy revision that points to the revision that was rolled back to. When a script reverts a page it first has to request the data it is reverting to from the wikimedia servers, then the script has to send the data right back to the server which saves the revision under a completely new ID. For a 10,000 byte page the script would use 20,000 bytes of bandwidth and 10,000 bytes of storage space, a rollback would use probably less then 150 bytes of both bandwidth and server space.

As for the drawbacks to this proposal there are very few. The reason that this function was not given to normal users in the first place was because it could potently be used by vandals, or so I assume. This is not a good enough reason to keep the rollback function from the mob in my opinion because if the rollback ability was given to auto confirmed users very few vandals would ever be able to use the function; 97 percent of all vandalism is carried out by IP's and of the accounts used for vandalism very few, perhaps 5% of those ever wait 3 days. That is only 0.15% of all vandals having access to the function.

So, does anyone agree with me, should we give normal users the rollback function? Or is this a stupid proposal that no one will ever care about? -Icewedge 18:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not stupid, but there are foreseeable problems. Rollback is a powerful function, and might be a bad idea to give to all users including those who are inexperienced. The good thing about TW is that most people don't become aware that they have the option to install it until they reach a certain level of knowledge with the wiki. I think that's a good natural check against new users (even autoconfirmed users) performing accidental multiple reverts. Autocnfirmed is just based on number of edits and amount of time, so it's not that great an indicator of technical understanding. Editing of monobook.js to install scripts is a better indicator. Plus I myself haven't found TW's rollbacks to be all that slow. They just take a few seconds for me. It probably depends on your connection and computer speed (both of which happen to be pretty darn fast for me). Equazcion • argue/improves • 19:31, 09/23/2007

There was a proposal a year or two ago to make rollback a feature which could be given to trusted users. It failed to get consensus. There is less need for it now that there was then, because the undo function provides a convenient tool for ordinary users to revert vandalsim, and there are many add-on tools which give rollback-like functionality. I would not oppose a level of trusted user who gets rollback, but the right would have to be able to be removed as some might use it to edit war.-gadfium 19:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would having the rollback function in an edit war be a problem? Sure it is faster but in edit warring, unlike the reversion of vandalism, it does not particularly matter if it takes 3 seconds of 15 to revert a page. -Icewedge 20:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If the admin version is better than Twinkle I see no reason not to make it available. Having it available in the same way as Twinkle would provide the same 'natural check' anyway. Richard001 07:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:RFR for the last time this was proposed (it failed to reach consensus then). --ais523 13:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Not saying I agree or disagree with the proposal, but just to note that failing to acheive consensus previously is of purely historical interest - consensus can change. SamBC(talk) 14:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't think that consensus will change on this one. You can try if you wish. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Cursor in search box upon loading page

Can it be set up so that the cursor is already in the search box when Misplaced Pages is first opened? This way a user can simply start typing their query once the page loads (like in Google). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.221.3.7 (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone is going to wan to search... but most people probably will, so that's not a bad idea. Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:15, 09/24/2007 15:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That prevents users using the arrow keys to scroll the Main Page, which is something else users expect to be able to do. --ais523 15:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Could we make a javascript keyboard shortcut instead, to put the cursor in the search box? Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:25, 09/24/2007

Exists already, and not even using JavaScript. It's (some combination of modifier keys depending on your browser)-F; see Misplaced Pages:Keyboard shortcuts for more information. --ais523 15:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That takes you to the dedicated search page; it doesn't use the search tool on the left. But I guess it's just as good. Thanks Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:30, 09/24/2007

It does take me to the search tool on the left in Firefox 2, at least. Maybe it varies by browser? --ais523 15:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox 2 also. What exactly are you pressing? Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:41, 09/24/2007

Nevermind, I got it. alt-shift-F does it. Thanks Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:42, 09/24/2007

Adding to other editions the "Wiki Wiki Schedule" image found on German Language Edition OVERVIEW "Misplaced Pages: About" page.

I think this image is helpful and should be added to the other "Misplaced Pages: About" pages: OOPS, I didn't properly copy this picture & credits. Please go to the German Language Edition to see the picture taken at Honolulu Airport that I am proposing be added.

Mahalo, Jerry Mershon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.128.41 (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

E-mail this article (to a friend)

Sorry if this has been brought up before, but I didn't notice it in the list of perennial proposals. What do people think of adding this simple functionality to Misplaced Pages? Yes, it's very easy to copy the URL of an article from the address bar, but it would seem to be a rather convenient way to let others know about certain articles, and even to flag certain articles for one's own later reading. --Lukobe 21:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea Lukobe. Zantaggerung 01:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That's been rejected before, on the basis that a user might vandalise a page and then immediately email the result to someone, making it look like Misplaced Pages endorsed the vandalised version. --ais523 09:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Zantaggerung and ais523. I can understand the concern, but surely a note could be included at the top of the mail indicating that this was not the case? At any rate, my proposal would basically be to e-mail the first couple lines plus the URL, not the entire article. (If the entire article were to be e-mailed, perhaps it could be set that not the most recent revision would go out, but rather one from the previous day.) --Lukobe 17:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

New Tab

I have an idea, probably not an original one, but here goes. What if there was, for every article page, another page, similar to the discussion page, but for discussion and debate about the article topic, instead of the article itself. Maybe not linked by a tab like the "discussion" page, maybe just a "bluelink" at the bottom. Definetly a flawed idea, but I think that it would substantialy reduce the violent and inconstructive arguments, which I have, to my great remorse, taken part in myself in the past. Zantaggerung 01:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is definitely not the place to debate topics or advocate a particular view of a topic. This is directly against the grain of the wiki. Vassyana 14:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This one crops up regularly. The internet is overflowing with fora for every conceivable subject; WP is not going to risk joining them, thankfully. Adrian M. H. 21:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, these are obvious problems, but my idea wouldn't really be a part of the encycloppedia, it would merely re-direct those people who wish to debate. I think you misunderstand me, probably due to my non-clarification. Zantaggerung 01:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course wikipedia should not actually sponsor violent arguments, merely say "Hey, why don't you do that over here instead?"

Zantaggerung 01:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT#FORUM ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

New Disambiguation system

I'd like to make a suggestion not a minor one: redoing Misplaced Pages's article storage/retrieval method/system, or at least creating an add-on retrieval method to deal with one of Misplaced Pages's most problematic aspects: disambiguation - I'll outline only the latter suggestion here.

Today, typing "Cork" in the search field and and hitting "go" will take you to a contributor-created disambiguation page - yet once there the list contains far from all articles containing that term. Typing "Cork football" will send you to a "search results" page (as the article does not exist). My question is: would it be possible to automatically create disambiguation pages that resemble the second circumstance - a search results page? This should of course be applied to searches containing only single terms contained in many article titles, or multiple terms contained in many article titles.

The only problem posed by this method would be the organisation of the results returned - what order would results for a search for "Cork" be returned in? My only suggestion for now would be to sort them (upon retrieval) by their category, the latter transformed into a sub-heading under which would appear all articles in that category.

I also think it would be useful Misplaced Pages (and the above method) to assign (visibly or invisibly) Misplaced Pages articles to three 'base' categories: "people", "places" or "things". In my experience, search patterns seem to revolve around these, and presenting a contributor with this choice would cut search time drastically (if they choose to use it).

Misplaced Pages is trying hard to define itself as an encyclopaedia, but I find it has yet to adopt a method best for both the web media (technology) and the habits of web-users. I hope you don't mind my two cents - cheers. THEPROMENADER 06:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to search for articles which mention "Cork" rather than going directly to the disambiguation page, press the "Search" button rather than the "Go" button. Go invokes search only if there is no article directly matching your query. See Misplaced Pages:Searching and Help:Go button for a more detailed explanation of how these two buttons work.-gadfium 09:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood: entering "cork" and hitting "go" turns up a manually-created disambiguation page; I propose to make an automatically-generated one. BTW, I'm not a newbie. THEPROMENADER 18:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand. To get an automatically-generated page, enter "cork" and hit "search". Most of the time, the dab page is more useful.-gadfium 21:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the "most of the time" in the present method I don't like - as I mentioned above, a dab page requires contributor creation and (I'm sure often neglected) maintenance, and, as per the examples above, often do not list many of Misplaced Pages's articles containing the search term. An automated system would assure an up-to-date resumé of all Misplaced Pages articles whose titles (stress on "titles") contain the search term, should "search term" article not exist, and this without any need to update a dab page every time a new article is created. THEPROMENADER 06:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to add that I usually just use Google for this. In another tab I just type a string of keywords that narrow my search eg. Cork Jesuit sock puppet *and* Misplaced Pages. Usually the particular cork article I am looking for is the first one that comes up. It's a workaround that works because Google is a search engine and the Wiki is an encyclopedia. I like to use things to their strengths rather than trying to make something that does one thing super well into something that has to do everything kinda well. But I can understand why you feel the way you do and in a perfect world with unlimited funding I would agree. Saudade7 16:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion, but don't sell yourself short. In a perfect world, "funding" would be irrelevant and we would not need computers to simulate access to the storehouse of unlimited understanding. Nevertheless, nice workaround. dr.ef.tymac 13:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good point dr.ef.tymac! Reminds me of an article (I think by Martha Rosler?) about the WPA photographers taking pictures to use as appeals for charity, but how charity itself is a concession which always leave the ontological/economic structures that make charity itself necessary intact. That was shocking the first time I thought about it as an undergrad. Don't we want something more? Ciao! Saudade7 14:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiki has all the technology it needs to install a "google-like" search engine (and I already find it hard to imagine that, because of its media and structure, it doesn't have one already) or an automated disambiguation system, but perhaps the manpower (programming) is what needs to be "funded"; but really, these are not questions for we contributors. If an idea is good and good for Wiki, I'm sure that Misplaced Pages would be willing to invest if it is for its own better function/use. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 15:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposing templates indicating use of reliable and reputable sources and procedure for instituting such a template

Just wondering, with all the criticisms about the use of unreliable sources in a number of articles and promotion of pseudoscience etc, how hard is it to create a template or some sort of indication (Like we use the FA star) to indicate that an article may have used publications or peer reviewed journals etc for a substantial part of its contents, and that this should be compared against inline citations.

My Idea is the template will be in the lines of

• For publications {{Sourced from published|name1|name2|...}}

or {{Sourced from published|This article cites extensively from publication(s). Please see the talk page for a list of reputable publications it has used.}}

• For Peer reviewed journals (Science or other subjects)

{{Sourced from Journal|name1|name2|...}} or {{Sourced from Journal|This article cites extensively from peer reviewed publication(s) or Journal. Please see the talk page for a list of Journals used.}}

• Note, by published, I am emphasising on Secondary resources.

• A further additional template can be made for reputable websites, (eg, BBC, CNN, Universities etc)

• These can be added to any article that cites and sources substantially from such references, and does not neccessarily have to be for a featured article only.
• Another point is, may be a review of sources should be incorporated into the FAC process.
• The proposed template itself should be added after peer review of the article itself to establish that it indeed meets the criteria.

I think where such publications or journals have been used (I always try and go for published accounts and journals), any reliabillity (or doubts) can be judged for itself.Rueben lys 14:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We should just focus on removing unreliable sources and providing reliable sources in the articles themselves, and better define reliable sourcing at WP:RS. The templates would just sprawl, adding additional places for people to argue over the reliability of sources. This seems like an additional layer of complication that would add little, but provide more places for dispute. Vassyana 14:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I am saying where obviously peer reviewed journals or published accounts have been used. ie, If it is a journal (like Nature, Science, Journal of Rheumatology, Social Scientist, Pacific Historical review etc), you know that it has been peer reviewed. The point of the template is to outline that such a peer reviewed source has been used.

Again for books, a published book is a more concrete source than a blog or a random website like tripod resource etc, especially when it is a well known book on the subject (eg, Tiger Force, or The last Mughal, etc).

The point is not to say that the article is perfect, but to say that the information comes from thoroughly verifiable and moreover respected accounts. This would allow the reader to make up his own mind on how reliable the article is.Rueben lys 14:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The reader can make up their own mind anyway, and those proposed templates would be prone to an incredible amount of abuse. Who's to say that the article accurately represents the source given? If the article is that close to a single source, then isn't it pushing the boundaries of copyvio? Can't people see, when they look at the reference list, that it's a book or a journal rather than a random website? SamBC(talk) 15:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Requiring usernames for editing

I think we need to require usernames for people to edit. 99% of the vandalism I see come from anon users.

Because its so easy to edit wikipedia (just click an article and click "edit") these vandalizers don't need to put much effort messing up pages.

The idea of a "everyone can edit" is ideal, but it doesn't work when we have vandals.

A required username will force vandals to make a username and takes a longer time for them to damage wikipedia. Requiring usernames will also curb vandals since they don't want to go in the trouble of making one. Good friend100 02:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This is suggested quite regularly, and will never happen because it's a Foundation principle that anyone can edit. Quite apart from all the reasons people can trot out as to why anon editing is a good thing. SamBC(talk) 02:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think Misplaced Pages's hurting itself, and if its suggested regularly, then Misplaced Pages has some problems addressing their own issues. Its reasonable to say that 99% of vandalism comes from anon users. Good friend100 02:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:PEREN#Prohibit_anonymous_users_from_editing, the section most convinving to you would likely be:

While about 97% of vandalism comes from anonymous users, about 76% or 82% of anonymous edits are intended to improve the encyclopedia. (Prohibiting IP edits would not eliminate 97% of all vandalism, because if they have to, those inclined to vandalism are likely to take the 10 seconds to register.)

--Ybbor 02:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that the concept of "You can edit this page right now" is one the most innovative things about Misplaced Pages, and what makes it so unique and interesting. It's what got me interested in the first place, and I suspect that's the case with many people. An online community is nothing new -- but when people see that Misplaced Pages is trusting anyone at all to edit without even requiring registration, that's an especially intriguing concept that gets people interested in learning more. I'd go out on a limb and say that most editors here made their first edits as anonymous users. Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:43, 09/26/2007

And by the way, you're hurting my feelings. 68.101.123.219 01:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Foundation said so, and we're run by the foundation, and, well, you know what happens next. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 21:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Mobile

Has the idea of creating Misplaced Pages pages for smart phones, PDAs, and other mobile devices been proposed? Many users want to access information and Misplaced Pages is a great reference tool or at least a great starting point to gain general information. They want to access it using their mobile devices for quick reference. However, the format that Misplaced Pages is in right now is not mobile-friendly. Will this be feasible some time in the near future?

Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shigawire1012 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What about http://en.wap.wikipedia.org? Also see Misplaced Pages:WAP access. --ais523 13:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not Exactly Censorship, But an Idea

I know that wikipedia is not censored, but I also know that some images out there may be disturbing to some viewers; I have previously had trouble with this myself. I can instruct my broswer to disable images, but not everyone can do that. I have worked out a compromise: perhaps we should institute a system in which potentially disturbing images (most likley human anatomy, usually injuries etc) should be hidden and replaced with a link saying "this image may be disturbing to some viewers" or something similar, with the option to display the image placed underneath this warning. I think this would be very useful for more squeamish viewers; admittedly it probably be annoying to put this in for all existing distrubing images, but I think worth considering.211.30.132.2 11:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this one a perennial proposal? If someone's looking at an article about a disease or injury, it shouldn't be surprising to see a relevant image. SamBC(talk) 11:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The other problem is how we would flag an image as being disturbing. Disturbing does not mean the same thing for all people (Think of pictures portraying Muhammad for some Muslims, or a spoiler). -- lucasbfr (using User:Lucasbfr2) 13:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That would require we totally abandon no disclaimers in articles as it would be considered a disclaimer, which are generally not allowed in articles. And SamBC has a good point, if you go to the article penis or gangrene, why should you expect the pictures to be totally non-objectionable? Mr.Z-man 23:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think that would qualify as a disclaimer if it were implemented the right way. It would be a feature meant to help people, not a legal disqualifier to protect Misplaced Pages. It could also be an opt-in feature, via an option in Preferences. There is still the problem of the subjectivity of objectionable material though. Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:55, 09/26/2007

This is a proposal that only ends as a true slippery slope. In the United States there are people who are offended by almost anything except Hummels and the music of The Carpenters. I think that the above responses are correct, if you don't want to see an image of eyeball surgery, don't click on that link. Visual information *is* information and sometimes it is not pretty. But it is more important to have information available than to censor it because some people have lived sheltored lives, (if a person grew up in a bloody war zone I doubt a picture of breast enhancement surgery would be shocking or offensive to them) or because they believe in some kind of god that says they shouldn't look at certain things. And I guess I am a person who is, frankly, tired of having to always click here and there to get access to certain material just because the default settings on everything cater to the most squeamish and easily offended sectors of society. I'm not even talking about pornography, but just basic art historical images and such. And as far as kids go, they are the parent's responsibility in this matter, not mine. If people actually had intelligent engaging discussions with their children about why people do and say and believe the things they do, the children could handle seeing, hearing and knowing pretty much anything. "Childhood" in the West was only *invented* in the early 19th century. There are children fighting guerilla wars right now as I type this. It isn't right, but neither is the world, and I am sick of having my access to things curtailed or restricted or even just slowed down because someone, somewhere might be offended by seeing a picture or hearing a noise (word). Sorry if that was a rant. I'm a historian of visual culture and I actually do consider this kind of thing a form of censorship in the guise of etiquette and politesse. Take care, Saudade7 12:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I expect you can find people offended by Hummels and the Carpenters too, if you look hard enough. *Dan T.* 12:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

True, but I bet they aren't censoring types. Saudade7 13:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Short Articles

I'm concerned especially about the short (one to five sentence) articles which describe chemicals, minerals, and the like. An exapmle is MDP2P. Articles like this are marked as stubs and often appear on the list of articles to be reviewed for deletion. I think that these articles should either

1) be protected from stub status;

2) be compiled into one article that describes each item.

The reason for this is that while the articles are short like a stub, and do not give extensive information, they usually give all the information that is available. So, articles such as these should have some kind of special 'acceptable short article' status. Either that, or there should be a Chemicals page (sort of like the list of chemical articles that exists now), a Minerals page, and so on.

This wasn't in the FAQ, so I'm bringing it up. Thanks. OES23 17:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that anyone's ever nominated that article for deletion. But surely there is more info about MDP2P. Who invented / first synthesized it? What's it used for? Does it have any use, or potential use? What does it do? Does it appear in nature? On and on. I don't think people are all that anxious about notability of chemical compounds but it's the same theoretical issue. If it's not something that anyone would want to know about, it's not notable and it should be deleted or merged. If it's notable it deserves its own article, however short. Better to have one subject per article than to make extensive lists, because lists are unruly, hard to maintain, and messy for hyperlinking. ::Wikidemo 13:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clear things up, I didn't mean this article in particular was nominated for deletion, but I was providing an example of the type of articles that are frequently nominated. OES23 13:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemo. I clicked on that link and, as a layperson, I don't begin to know what the heck MDP2P is. Therefore the article can be expanded quite a bit. What is MDP2P used for? Is it deadly to me? Will it damage my eggs? Did it come from outer space? Will it reverse baldness? Is it used to make Meth? Has it always been known about since the days of Lucretius? Or did some raver synthesize it while living in Miami Beach or Ibiza. If you had enough of it would it appear blue? Glow in the dark? I think the information that is already there is great for people re-taking O-Chem for a better grade, but it doesn't help art historians at all. Saudade7 12:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

New template proposal

Erm, I think I'm at the right place to make a proposal. I was thinking that although wikipedia may not be censored, I believe we should have a template that warns users that "this article may contain content that some users may find inappropriate for younger readers." Or something along those lines —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadseys (talk • contribs) 19:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

A better place to ask might be Misplaced Pages:Requested templates. Andrwsc 19:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Which states "Please do not request or create disclaimer templates, such as "this page contains offensive content". Misplaced Pages is not censored." so it probably won't be accepted. Adrian M. H. 20:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, as we're not censored, that's not going to happen. Disclaimers like that have generally been seen as a form of censorship. Do entries in Brittanica have disclaimers like that? SamBC(talk) 21:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not that Britannica is our standard... OES23 21:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's an example. Encyclopedias don't generally carry warnings about the content of articles. SamBC(talk) 22:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

O RLY?.--Ybbor 22:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a disclaimer for the whole of wikipedia. No disclaimers per article, or rather no disclaimers of the ilk of censorship. SamBC(talk) 22:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well then, what about this?68.101.123.219 16:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Those are, again, disclaimers that apply to entire resources and not to single articles.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to a small change to WP:RM

Currently, in a WP:RM nomination, one only need to put a move template on its talk page. However, for nominations of no less complexity, controversy and importance, the nominator of a WP:PROD nomination needs to put a prod template on main article. In my personal experience, a problem would occur when another editor went to the main article, did not realize there is a RM nom going on, and moved the article anyway. Hence, I propose that the move template should be put on the top of the main article during a RM nomination.

But this is just a prelimary thought; I need so opinions to actually raise it.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 01:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Linking to off-wiki harassment

Misplaced Pages:Linking to off-wiki harassment is proposed at the suggestion of the arbitration committee. Please have a look. ←Ben 06:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to be cynucal, but it apears to have been written by a sock puppet, Privatemusings (talk · contribs), and the discussion thus far appears to be dominated by people who oppose having an off-wiki harassment policy. I hope that everyone who's participated will be open to other viewpoints. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding how the discussion can be dominated by people who oppose having an off-wiki harassment policy, when they all seem to be supporting the proposal. It does not appear that Privatemusings is an abusive sockpuppet, and it seems he faithfully distilled Newyorkbrad's suggestions. ←Ben 12:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't BADSITE already been rejected? Atropos 07:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Link to search results on disambig pages

When a disambiguation page exists, it may prevent some users (novice ones especially) from finding other relevant pages that show up in the search results for that term. For example, the disambig page Beds lists two items and a link to Bed (disambiguation). If you search for Beds, however, you get 23,000 results, at least some of which are probably of interest to someone who types Beds into the search box and hits Enter or clicks Go.

The current {{Disambig}} template is worded like this:

This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.

Between those two sentences, I propose that we add:

You may also search for Beds in the full text of all articles.

I'm not sure on the most succinct way to word this. Any other thoughts? — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 18:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My only suggestion would be to make it

You may also search for Beds in the full text of all articles.

So as to look better. Other than that, I agree.-Ljlego 19:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense to me too. --OES23 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Inter links, M:TG and ST:DS9

I suggest that interwiki and interlanguage links, at least those with codes less than four letters long, function only if the code is in lowercase. This would accommodate abbreviations such as M:TG and ST:DS9, and I've yet to see an intentional interwiki or interlanguage link that didn't already comply. NeonMerlin 03:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That problem can be bypassed without anything fancy just use this syntax ; ]. -Icewedge 16:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

In links, that's fine, but what about http://en.wikipedia.org/ST:DS9 (which may, for instance, have worked before the Sesotho-language Misplaced Pages was established and still have some links left over from then)? What about the link at the top of the search result page (which occurs even with the colon)? I don't think it improves our image if someone ends up at an external site with no idea how they got there and no idea what the page they're seeing says (because it's in an unfamiliar language). Right now, there's a soft redirect back to en.wikipedia or fr.wikipedia (which I made), but what if the Sesotho-speakers decide to delete it, or what if a German-speaker tries http://de.wikipedia.org/ST:DS9 (in which case I can't make a soft redirect to help them since I don't speak German)? NeonMerlin 00:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A way to organize items in my "watchlist"

I looked to see if this had been proposed and couldn't find it anywhere. I am unsure if this is a "software" issue that I should post on the Bugzilla site or if the software is already there and just needs to be activated. Here's the thing...I just have tons of pages on my watchlist and I would like to be able to create my own categories to organize them on that page, even if it is just under headings I self-create like "Politics" "Mathematics" "Marine biology" etc. The watchlist is a "special page" that doesn't allow for manual editing, or I could just do it. I guess that its interactiveness with the system as a whole prevents it from being *also* editable? Anyway, any ideas? Because there are items on my watchlist that I put there because I had never before heard of them--I just stumbled across them link-jumping--and I wanted to save them, but now I don't know what they are at a glance. A series of cubbyholes could at least help me sort them, so that I would know their main subject matter.

As a side note I would also request that the "Clear Watchlist" button be moved farther away from the "View and Edit Watchlist" and the "View Raw Watchlist" buttons. I am clumsy and since there is no access to "History" on that page, it is a disaster (for me) waiting to happen.

Merci d'avance, Saudade7 12:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No opinion on point 2 (seldom uses either function). There is no way as of yet for point 1, though you can create subpages of links (as your categories) then use the link at the side entitled "Related changes". This takes you to a page where it looks like a watchlist, but on it is all the links of that page. You can see an example of my userpage: Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:X42bn6. That is a slightly crude solution - but the only way I can think of. x42bn6 Talk Mess 12:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I would not worry about clearing your watchlist; it is a two-step process that would be difficult to do accidentally. A backup is sensible, though. Adrian M. H. 12:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks x42bn6 Talk Mess and M. H.. I feel better knowing that I cannot erase my list, but I am still alittle confused about the sub-pages thing. I like having everything all clean and on one page. I have to say that I use "watch" more like "bookmarks" and less as a tickertape of recent changes thing. And I didn't want to take up more wiki space. Oh well. Thanks. Saudade7 12:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Featured Content

Something just struck me as odd; I realized that on the main page, and also the featured content page, there is no featured quote (there is also no featured quote on Wikiquote)! Perhaps a featured quote template should be developed. --OES23 12:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquote is a separate project from Misplaced Pages so there is no reason for a "featured quote" here. Judging which quotes would be good enough to be featured (it's not like you can rewrite a quote for clarity, etc.) would be a pretty POV process. Wikiquote uses a "Quote of the Day" on its Main Page. Users nominate quotes on the related pages: Wikiquote:WQ:QOTD. Rmhermen 14:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Bugzilla rant

Up at the top of *this* page it says to make software suggestions to Bugzilla. Well I tried and tried but I cannot figure Bugzilla out to save my life. It seems to only be looking for Bugs that one has already encountered. I finally found something resembling a “suggestion box” but when I tried to send it it would say,

"To file this bug, you must first choose a component. If necessary, just guess."

Now as a non-programming type person, I have no idea what a “component” is, which makes it hard to guess. I guessed "Suggestion" but that didn't work, neither did leaving it blank. Or "Help". Then I tried “1.11” - I didn't know what that meant either but I saw it on the page so maybe it meant something...and words weren’t working so I thought maybe it was a numbers thing. To no avail.

This is really bad design. Wiki should not assume that people who contribute and have ideas, questions, and suggestions are programmers. I am pretty pissed that I wasted so much time trying to get the stupid thing to work. I even read all the FAQ stuff, which didn’t help either.

Bad design! Saudade7 13:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I never use Bugzilla because it is user-unfriendly. Adrian M. H. 13:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Adrian M. H. for the moral support. Saudade7 14:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You were looking in the wrong place. "1.11" is the version list. The "Component" list is in the upper right hand corner, and it specifies what part of the software your bug affects - blocking people, editing, etc. If in doubt, I guess you can always choose "General/Unknown". --AnonEMouse 13:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I see it now, but I think my point is/was that I wasn't *looking* for a component list in the first place because I didn't even know what that meant! I didn't know what a "version list" was for either! And even now it doesn't make sense that "assign to" requires a "component". What might have made things easier is if that particular box had a drop-down menu with a list of the "components" to choose from (as the box directly above "assign to" has a drop down menu), rather than have something that relates to the problem located in the upper right-hand quadrant of the screen where at least my eye doesn't naturally travel. -- then I could have "guessed" but even my guess probably would have been wrong because the terminology used is programmer-specific.

The point too is that non-programming types don't "assign components", they "ask questions" and "make suggestions". The design as it is, strikes me as a bit exclusive and elitist. It is as if I just assumed that everyone knew the difference between Erwin Panofsky's and Hubert Damisch's approaches to art history. Oh, and Damisch is only on the French wiki! so Good luck with that! See? that would be unkind. God forbid someone on the "Simple English" wiki try to make a suggestion on the Bugzilla site. Sorry, it apparently has me upset. Saudade7 14:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Bugzilla is a program we use. Not one that is part of the wiki or one that we can easily change. Rmhermen 14:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a suggestion about a survey

I am making this as a very tentative suggestion. On the "Discussion" pages of articles on radio and television programmes, one frequently finds comments where Misplaced Pages readers seem more keen to give their views onthe programme, than to discuss the article's accuracy, comprehensiveness and style or structure. To prevent this, should we have, each month, a survey where Misplaced Pages readers can voice their favourite and least favourite television/ radio programmes? We would not even need to use Wiki software to analyse the data. ACEOREVIVED 19:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Basic information

I know that a good article would need all the information to comprehend the subject of the article, but certain basics, things that people assume you know, like what the 2 in X^2 is telling you to do, or how to read a graph, would not be able to be mentioned in each article because it would be redundant. However, there is no guaranty that the person reading the article has any idea of what the 2 in X^2 means, or that it's even called an exponent (that alone would make it hard for them to find the article on exponents). That's why I suggest a link to a page that is generated by both pattern recognition for simple things like X^2, and marked images which are marked by the creator or a later contributor to the image. The automatic page would list the original usage of the concept and list different subjects, like Exponent, that a person should know to be able to read it. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 02:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It can be difficult to predict what people do or do not know. For that reason, the reference desk might be useful for what you suggest—but I'm not sure how many people know about it. Gracenotes § 02:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

While the reference desk may be useful, it does have three problems:

1. Like you said, not many people know about it.
2. It can take a while to get an answer.
3. Some people don't feel comfortable asking questions to strangers, I know I wasn't my first time.

Also, the list would be automatic and it would just look for very simple patterns, and each pattern would have it's own entry on a special page that people can add to. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 02:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

B.C.(E?)

Although this seems like a very stupid question, Should Misplaced Pages be using BCE and CE instead of BC and AD for Epochs and Eras? BurnMuffin 17:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) contains the current policy on this. Like the question of whether Misplaced Pages should use British or American English, the BC/AD vs. BCE/CE question has been the subject of a number of discussions and even more pointless edit wars. The issue was ultimately settled the same way that the BE/AE issue was—use whichever format was chosen by the article's first substantive contributor; don't change formats without a very good reason; and don't sweat the small stuff. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This was also the focus of an AbCom case do to an edit war where the outcome was that no one should switch from one to the other since both were already acceptable. --Farix (Talk) 12:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Visualization

I am trying to connect with individuals in the wikipedia community who are interested in working on an open source programming project to create a visualized interface to map wikipedia. I have started to draft a proposal in my Sandbox, but am not sure where the most appropriate location is to post such a proposal or connect with interested people. Does anyone have suggestions, feedback, comments? Thanks! SlvrDreams 20:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

gyikcg kg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.100.126.124 (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Article improvement

I'm advertising this page here as well because fewer people seem to read Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous). A.Z. 22:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Navigating through diffs of the same contributor the same way we can do it with diffs to an article

Hi. I think it would be great if we could pick a contributor, then pick a diff of theirs, click on a button called "newer", and go their newer diff, then click on "newer" again, and go to the next newer diff, the same way we do with diffs on the same article or talk page. Would this be too hard to implement? Are there reasons not to do it? A.Z. 02:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

One possibility: There may or may not be a way to do this directly through the WP standard web interface. You can, however, get substantially similar functionality through the WP API. Here's a random blog link.

It's possible to query against the contributions for a specific user, and further filter the results according to any arbitrary criteria you prefer. In order to save server load, there is a limit to the number of responses you can get at any one time, but that should not present much difficulty.

Going this route, the question about "hard to implement" boils down to how much sense the WP api makes to you personally, and whether (or to what extent) you are willing to write scripts to get the exact results you want. It won't hurt if you have perl (or anything similar) installed and working properly on your machine. This is just one possibility. There may be other ways that other folks may mention. dr.ef.tymac 09:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Automatic Deletion of Anonymous IP User Pages

I have a dynamic IP that regularly cycles through a series of IP addresses owned by my ISP, a lot of which have been exposed to wikipedia. As a result I'm regularly getting messages directed at prior users as early as 2004/2005. In one case I got banned because an admin assumed bad faith due to templates left for another editor (I removed an unsourced trivia section, and then found out the talk page for the IP I was using had received the full set of warnings the month before). As a result, there are several problems I can see with retaining messages on an IP talk page:

• IP's are dynamic, the messages will often get directed at the wrong user
• Very rarely will someone leave a message of significant value on a IP talk page (eg discussion on how to improve an article), these tend to be restricted to the article's talk page or that of an identified user
• The messages can paint an editor in the wrong light, causing disruption to their editing
• The messages can scare off users from not only editing wikipedia (and eventually creating an account) but also possibly from reading the encyclopedia at all

Hence I propose that the user/talk pages of anonymous IP addresses get deleted after a period of inactivity on behalf of that IP address (say 1 week or 1 month). That way we avoid sending messages to the wrong person and prevent a clutter of temporary pages that we don't need.

(sorry if there is a technical reason why this cannot be done. I'm under the assumption that the dates from special:contributions can be easily extracted, if this is not possible then maybe the time since the last edit on the IP's talk page should be the determining factor. I'm envisioning a semiautomated bot which can only access IP talk pages, with an admin checking that each one is valid)

124.184.171.224 13:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging Peer review and Good articles

A modest proposal. I post here as neutral ground; on GA talkpages people are naturally sympathetic to GA, while on FA people are often hostile. First, PR is perenially backlogged—plenty of noms, insufficient feedback. Second, there are systemic problems with GA that are brought up fairly regularly. The Misplaced Pages:Good article review notes rather melodramatically "This is not a Peer Review Process;". I hope that's not a shibboleth of the people involved in the process. I won't get into mechanics yet—there are various ways it might happen. I'd just like to see a show of hands if the idea might be further considered and then a workshop page can be started. Advantages:

• Reduces overhead. While a quick and easy process has long been touted as GA's advantage, Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations is quite possibly the most cluttered page I've seen in the Misplaced Pages namespace.
• It merges cohorts and revives PR. Everybody in one place with more eyes on any given review. The central pass/fail structure of GA would remain, while it would take the PR title. (Editors could request a regular PR without a pass/fail.) The review could still be short.
• It finally brings GA into the FA fold. PR is the stream meant to feed FAC. Cosmetic renames of GA pages (candidates --> nominations and review --> reassessment) can't disguise the fact that GA remains a parallel process.
• By moving the reviews off of article talk it avoids buddy-buddy passes. An example was provide here. I don't think this is endemic to GA but surely it must happen sometimes.

As I say, the mechanics can wait. General feedback welcome. Marskell 13:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My initial reaction is negative, to be honest. When you say that the PR name will supplant the GA name, are you proposing that the GA rating will be dropped? If so, will an equivalent ranking be introduced? I am thinking about what happens to articles that are good, but are not going to reach FA standard at any point in the foreseeable future because of the limitations of the subject matter and/or available sources or material. For that reason, I have a vested interest in seeing GA remain as an article rank. How it is awarded is obviously less important from that point of view, so if the system was "improved" in some way, that would be OK. I used quote marks because I do not believe that it needs to be fixed. PR may be quiet (I don't participate in it, but I would if I had the time to spare) but I thought that it was a path on the route to FA, whereas GA may (sometimes must) be an endpoint in article development. I'm sure someone will say that "all articles can be FAs", which I have read before, but that is not necessarily the case in practice. I think that the two systems may be too different to merge. Adrian M. H. 13:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There would still be an equivalent rank. My preference would be "Passed peer review"; alternatively, "Good article" could be retained. Marskell 13:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In general, I like it; it could help address the backlog at peer review and some of the GA problems at the same time. However, currently peer review serves more than FA/GA needs, so I have two questions. How would a merged process handle

1. an article that has passed GA but wants an additional peer review to help prepare for FAC,
2. an article that isn't nearly ready for GA, but wants a peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

1. The nominator could leave it up as long as useful commentary was arriving; it could pass but still be on the page.
2. Two sections—it wouldn't be unmanageable.

On manageability, I did a quick WordPerfect check: GAC (excluding all the extraneous warnings and messages) and GAR have apx. 1150 words each; FAC and FAR have apx. 750 each (and are much easier on the eyes, IMO). Looking it over, there seems a delirious amount of overhead involved in GA—the exact opposite of what that process is supposed to be about. Marskell 14:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The extra words are needed precisely because thr process is lightweight: a single editor can list an article, and a single editor can delist an article. Therefore there need to be more detailed instructions. Some of the instructions could probably be rewritten and phrased more concisely, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. Geometry guy 14:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be against such an idea. Peer review must surely remain a completely optional and collaborative process, with no stick or carrot involved. It doesn't matter much that the peer review page is backlogged because most of us know that the way to get peer reviews is to ask someone we know, who we think will make useful suggestions; Misplaced Pages will always lack reviewers in whatever forum. It is rarely that one receives a peer review there out of the blue, though I think it is worth posting requests there, in case Misplaced Pages appears the work of cliques of friends.

I don't think GAC is equivalent to peer review, because it is institutionally jugemental, like FAC. GA is not a clear process, and we all have different views of it. For me, it is for articles with a smaller range, ones that are perhaps less comprehensive in sourcing. This last point doesn't mean that the sourcing is necessarily inferior: with some topics one learns very little more by turning to more and more sources. qp10qp 14:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair points. So two discreet questions then.

1. Is there anyway to rejig PR to make it work? A list of users willing to help with particular topics and then sub-PR pages? "Most of us know that the way to get peer reviews is to ask someone we know." Agreed—I skip PR and GA both and simply notify people who edit in the topic area when I go to FAC. Perhaps lists of "these are the people to ask" would serve far better.
2. Is there anyway to streamline GA, eliminate the parallelism, and eliminate the inconsistency? I'm sorry, but you can't tell me WP:GAC is a sensible page that speaks to a simple process. I find it confusing as hell (if nothing else, the layout needs a serious overhaul). WP:GAR is 153 kb. Insofar as that indicates people stopping by, good. But why does this apparently streamlined process need to waste so much on its delisting process? I think GA has clearly wandered toward into process over content territory. Marskell 15:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Why would we want to merge two processes that are constantly backlogged? That's just going to be a bigger backlog in one place. And then to say that articles could just remain listed on the page if there is a want for further review? No. GA has enough going on, we don't need to complicate the process. And who cares how we compare to FA? It's clear that FA, as a project, views GA as a mentally-handicapped step-brother. You can look through any discussion regarding GA that has FA participation and it's just a bandwagon of hate, disrespect and ignorant calls for project deletion. We're two separate projects, and should remain as such. Just as GA and PR are two separate processes, and should remain as such. Lara❤Love 15:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards