Misplaced Pages

:Village pump (proposals): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:09, 23 March 2007 view sourceA.Z. (talk | contribs)6,644 edits →"Print this article"← Previous edit Revision as of 09:14, 23 March 2007 view source Punk Boi 8 (talk | contribs)1,154 edits WikisuiteNext edit →
Line 1,018: Line 1,018:
:It's possible to print a single section at the moment, but only in a hacky way, by editing the section, previewing it, and printing the preview. Most browsers will have an option to 'print selected text' if you go through the menus to print rather than using their toolbar, so you could try selecting the sections you want by dragging over them and using that. --] 09:04, 23 March 2007 (]]]) :It's possible to print a single section at the moment, but only in a hacky way, by editing the section, previewing it, and printing the preview. Most browsers will have an option to 'print selected text' if you go through the menus to print rather than using their toolbar, so you could try selecting the sections you want by dragging over them and using that. --] 09:04, 23 March 2007 (]]])
::Most people will never think of doing those things. And a lot of people would prefer to waste paper and ink rather than figuring out how to print only the sections they want. Don´t you think that trying to figure a way to allow sections to be chosen is worth it? ] 09:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC) ::Most people will never think of doing those things. And a lot of people would prefer to waste paper and ink rather than figuring out how to print only the sections they want. Don´t you think that trying to figure a way to allow sections to be chosen is worth it? ] 09:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

== Wikisuite ==

I have proposed ]. Please comment. -- ] 09:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:14, 23 March 2007

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcut
  • ]
The proposals section of the village pump is used to discuss new ideas and proposals that are not policy related (see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) for that).

Recurring policy proposals are discussed at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (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.


« Archives, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216
This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

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

A proposal

There are hundreds of accounts of Users that have never made an edit at all.

I know that it's not standard practice/policy as the User may at any time return & edit - but there are some Users that have registered in 2004 and have never made an edit. Why not bring up a policy and delete such useless accounts (if anyone returns after three years, he could simply re-register). --PaxEquilibrium 19:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Interiot's edit counter, Tra vanished for 16 months, and has now returned, and has become a highly active user. It may not be a wise idea to block all the accounts that are doing nothing. Also, accounts cannot be deleted. I agree that most of those accounts probably won't do anything, but blocking them all won't solve anything. I actually don't know what to do with them; maybe I could create a new template to place on talk pages saying about a user who has never done any edits, but the account has been around for more than a year. Acalamari 20:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
You're effectively proposing WP:DUU90, which gained consensus but was rejected by the developers. --ais523 14:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A comment

This is a hindrance to people trying to register an account.
Yesterday I was trying to register me a username, ... and I am a bit annoyed by the first 20 or so names I came up with already being taken, in most cases with no edits to its credit.

Since Usurpation isn't allowed for registering new accounts, what I think I'll do is to register my preferred name on some other Wikimedia project, and then wait for it to be given to me on Misplaced Pages when the transition to Unified login happens. --83.253.36.136 10:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a suggestion for a tip to be added to the message that is displayed on the account creation page

Since more than 1,000,000 usernames have already been registered, most common names and words have already been taken. Therefore, be creative when making up your username: Choose an unusual name or word, make a creative combination of words, or modify the name in a unique way.

--83.253.36.136 10:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
HA! My username can never be usurped - between Misplaced Pages and Wiktionary (and a few other miscellaneous projects) I have over 70,000 edits. Muaah-ha-ha-ha-ha! bd2412 T 00:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Today's picture

I suggest we add the option to have today's picture emailed to people, so that we may send it to friends and stuff. Isn't that how featured articles work? If not, than that option should be made availale. I knwo you can do it by file, but thats so long.Tourskin 21:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages doesn't do mass mailings as far as I know, but if you want to e-mail pictures to your frields go right ahread (just be sure to include the license terms in case they want to modify or use them for whatever). If you want to keep tabs on the picture of the day just add {{POTD}} to your userpage. --Sherool (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected, we actualy do have a "daily picture" mailing list. You can sign up here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/daily-image-l --Sherool (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Cross-wiki redirects

I was browsing along the Homestar Runner Wiki after a look at the the Battlestar Galactica Wiki and I thought... how about cross-wiki redirects? By this I means sending people who look up Commander Adama here directly to the BSG wiki and having a link on the diambig page for Deutschmann to the joke on the H*R wiki. I suggest this because:

It would free up space on wikipedia's servers.

It would give credit for wiki-interest in things like Star Trek and Star Wars to where it belongs.

The coverage on the specialized wikis is better.

It will avoid all sorts of unnecessary redundancy.

And it will mean fewer jokes about wikipedia's focus on fictional things (I think they call it "fancruft"). I'm new to Misplaced Pages, so please forgive if this isn't a new idea. Misaf-Keru 01:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

But then wikipedia is essentially endorsing the other wiki, and giving up on the task of writing an encyclopedic article about the topic. Misplaced Pages has seriously different standards for articles about fiction than fanwikis. A wikipedia article should focus on things like themes, critical analysis, and reviewer responses, generally real-world impact. Fanwikis focus on extreme levels of detail, and ones like memory alpha explicitly segregate out of universe information into secondary locations. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 12:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, but what about providing external links to fanwikis on their associated articles here? What that fit in with WP:EL or instead be a violation; or might it be something worth modifying the policy to provide for? --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 22:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK, how about a policy that further restricts WP's info on this sort of thing but explicitly encourages ELs to other wikis? After further thought, my main point should have been thisː

• That it would add to the credibility here while simultaneously allowing fans access to more detail if they want it. Win-win. So what do you think of this proposal? Misaf-Keru 06:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This proposal will need a change in the MediaWiki software, and will go nowhere here. File this as an enhancement request type "bug" at the Bugzilla mentioned in the header above. Jesse Viviano 22:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: add "Contents" to Misplaced Pages's main menu

This proposal is to add "Contents" to the navigation menu on the sidebar, directly below "Main page", so that Misplaced Pages's table of contents is avaiable with one click regardless of where you are in the encyclopedia.

Users, and especially new users, should not have to search around for Misplaced Pages's table of contents. It should be the easiest page to find and access on Misplaced Pages...

Here's what the main menu would look like:

navigation

I look forward to reading your thoughts on this matter.

The Transhumanist   20:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you guys ever considered getting rid of stuff on that menu? Or spliting it up (ala n:MediaWiki:Sidebar). As it stands its way to long, and I find it annoying to read it all when i'm looking for a specific link, so I just don't. Bawolff 00:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. bibliomaniac15 00:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree, and request that this wait until:

  1. The List of reference tables page needs to have its merge completed. (only 3 sections to go!)
  2. As I suggested at Misplaced Pages talk:Contents#Merge Proposal, I'd also like to see those 2 list pages merged. (struck per Transhumanist's reply below) --Quiddity 08:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
3. The various wikiprojects/portals/groups need to be informed that there exists a "basic topic list" and "topic list" concerning their subject. Many of the lists, whilst of good quality, were written by a single editor (you), and I'm not comfortable promoting that on the sidebar as something representative of Misplaced Pages.

I understand that you're tired of waiting for the Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign to find developer time, but I can't agree with promoting these pages any more, until they are of a higher total quality. --Quiddity 05:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Contents is extremely useful regardless of the configuration of the little header line at the top of the page. As Misplaced Pages's table of contents, it should be as easy to find as possible.
Concerning the recruiting of assistance to develop and maintain the topic lists, notifying each WikiProject of the lists which correspond to them would be a logistics nightmare, and would have to be done by hand. A much more effective solution would be to simply have Contents on the main menu, because that would make the topic lists easily accessible for everyone to work on, as they are displayed at the very top of the Contents page.
On the side issue Quiddity mentioned, merging the two topic list pages would ruin the basic topic set, making it much harder to browse the basic topic lists. You'd be forcing beginners to scour a more extensive general list to find them. On the current Lists of basic topics, it's easy to find the basic lists, because they are all basic. The page Lists of topics is far more extensive, with vastly more entries, and if links to the basic lists were added to it, they'd be obscurred in a sea of non-basic list links.
The more people who use Misplaced Pages:Contents, the more people there will be to potentially work on the pages listed there. All the more reason to make it more accessible.
Keep in mind that every page on Misplaced Pages is already representative of Misplaced Pages, including the pages listed at Misplaced Pages:Contents, -- which has a link on the Main Page. So they're very "representative" already. They are very useful browsing pages, and they would be even more useful if the table of contents was given a link in Misplaced Pages's main menu. The Transhumanist   07:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Notifying the relevant wikiprojects would not be "a logistics nightmare". All it requires is a summarised 'form-letter' style of note, posted to each talk page. "Hello, I've created a "List of basic philosophy topics" linked to from Lists of basic topics, that could benefit from your project's input and oversight."
The pages written just by you are not representative of Misplaced Pages in the same way that the Community portal or Features articles are. That should be obvious; perhaps you are blinded by your pride in this work?
Overall the set of pages is at maybe a "B" quality level. I'd like to see them all at an "A" or even "Featured" quality level, before adding the Contents link to the sidebar. --Quiddity 19:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


Quiddity, there is no reason to get personal by doubting my good intentions. You should assume good faith. I am approaching this matter with the utmost of objectivity...

The two users most critical of the topic lists, you and I, both agree that they need lots of work, and so did the Community portal, before someone stirred the community to action. My main desire here is that more people help develop these pages, and I frequently urge people to do so. But the element you may be missing is that the reason the Misplaced Pages:Community Portal has reached its current well-developed and well-maintained state is because of its visibility and centralized accessibility. I don't know about others, but for me, that was the key reason I got involved with it - it was on the main menu, yet it was in comparatively sad shape -- the same thing applied to the Main Page and Help:Contents, both of which have been on the main menu for a very long time and have been improved while so positioned.

I think the pages you are worried about could reach "A-level" or "Featured" quality a lot faster if they were linked-to based on their function. Yet, in their present incompleted form, they are still extremely useful -- they are the table of contents system, after all - so hiding these pages is counter-productive to their function and limits their usefulness.

Your "representative" concern is counter to the way consensus works on Misplaced Pages. The pages have consensus, being fairly well-used with almost no complaints. Quoting Wikipedias' concensus policy:

Over time, every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community (or at least everyone who has looked at the page). "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it.

The unwritten corollary to the above principle is that traffic drives change. The more people who visit a page, the more likely the page will be edited and improved.

The main contents pages are much better along than the Community portal, the Main Page, and the main Help page were before their respective overhauls. Yet those three examples were on the main menu the whole time! Here's what they looked like:

Form follows function. The Community portal is placed where it is most useful, and so should the table of contents. Everything else on Misplaced Pages is positioned based on its function: articles, help pages, etc., and the vast majority of pages on Misplaced Pages are works-in-progress. The essense of Misplaced Pages is that it is a work-in-progress. So your position baffles me.

For a book, it makes no sense to have the table of contents buried somewhere in the middle of the book. The same principle applies here.

Contents is a well-polished and emminently useful page. We should place it on the main menu where it will do the most good.

Sincerely, The Transhumanist   21:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You asked for feedback, I gave it: 2 requests for things that need to be fixed/done first. --Quiddity 00:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Well that's not as bad 3.  :-) I've been picking away at the List of reference tables, so it's down to about 2 and a half sections (I knocked off half of Natural Science a few days ago). AWB should be able to handle a standard notice to Wikiprojects pretty easily. So don't worry about it. We'll get there. The Transhumanist   08:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Improving the sidebar immensely with just a single link

This proposal is to add "Contents" to the main menu, directly under "Main page".

The only thing this proposal has to do with is the utility of the current sidebar and how we could greatly improve it by adding a single link. It's such an easy upgrade. And users would benefit immediately from having a link to the table of contents on Misplaced Pages's main menu. Meanwhile, adding it would not conflict in any way with the pending redesigned sidebar, because it's included in that design.

Contents is the perfect companion to the search box. By including Contents on the main menu, both major methods of finding things on Misplaced Pages would then be covered. It just seems like an obvious improvement to add a link to Misplaced Pages's table of contents to the main menu.

The Transhumanist   07:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think its perfect Rostik17 13:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I second that. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 23:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been a (very) active user for a year and didn't even know it existed. Add it! --Dweller 23:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea. Thank you for proposing it. Durova 05:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Good evening all; I've always said Misplaced Pages should go a little bit further to meet that medium between HTML-sites (for example answers.com) and an encyclopedia such as Misplaced Pages. The contents page would perfectly meet that medium - a link to the main subject areas, as well as more specific options - for example, the indexes. An excellent addition that meets our goal to ever strive to improve our encyclopedia.
Regards,
anthonycfc 20:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A 'normal' wiki usually doesn't have a core structure, and so people don't expect it, but Misplaced Pages has quite a lot of material, and various ways of organizing it. Having a link in the sidebar to the contents page will help people to discover what organization there is. (whether perfect or not a separate topic). And, actually, pointing people to the contents page and getting their resulting comments will improve the page. Don't wait for the improvements first... Shenme 04:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I support the proposal to add the Misplaced Pages:Contents link. —Quarl 2007-03-17 07:42Z

There's a contents page? I didn't even know there was one till I spotted this article. I think it would be a good idea to make it a little more obvious for the idiots like me. --**CatoftheNight** 17:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Me neither! I think this would be a great addition! --Spixels 23:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

See also the proposal below, #Sidebar redesign. Could use feedback. --Quiddity 02:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I put this link in based on the discussion here. However, that hasn't been extensive enough to indicate a true community-wide consensus so we'll have to see how people react. Note that you may not see this change right away as it takes a while for the sidebar to update.
  • Currently I added this as just a simple link (the same as 'Featured content'), but there are options for showing the link in the language set in the user's preferences which we can implement if this change is accepted. I also put in a 'tooltip' for the entry. Let me know if we should use some other text for that. --CBD 10:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation Namespace:

Would it be possible to create a disambiguation namespace for all the disambiguation "Articles"? That would make the article coint more accurate. It would just have the now title redirect to the diambiguation namespace, which then links you to hte right article like diasambiguation pages do right now. The Placebo Effect 12:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably not really needed. The disambiguation pages are a proper part of the encyclopedia and contain explanatory text. Standardised text to be sure, but still stuff written out by hand. Dabs pages and redirects are like the blind entries you find in paper encyclopedias. The number of disambiguation pages can be tracked with the template and associated categories. So this would seem more hassle than it is worth, in my opinion. The current system works well. Carcharoth 12:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Only if we create a Redirect: namespace (since those are non-articles in mainspace too), and a List: namespace (since most lists contain no introduction and are otherwise generally prose-free), and an AFD: namespace (since AfD's are the largest ever-growing group of articles that threaten to swamp out the Misplaced Pages: namespace), and along those same lines a MFD: and RFA: namespace. No... not needed. Disambiguation pages are already clearly marked by Template:Disambig and Category:Disambiguation... if you need a more accurate count, then just count up how many pages are in that category, and subtract from the total. --Interiot 02:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Execpt redirect aren't included in the article count and lists can still be encylopedic. The Placebo Effect 12:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Impractical idea. >Radiant< 12:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
My idea or what Interiot said? The Placebo Effect 12:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a MediaWiki:Disambiguationspage so that the software can tell a dab page from a non-dab page, but it isn't factored in to Special:Statistics at the moment. --ais523 12:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Would that be hard to do or not? The Placebo Effect 13:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hard until bugzilla:6754 is fixed. --ais523 13:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Viewing old revisions

Every now and again, someone passes around a link to a vandalised version of an article and passes it off as truth, and people get very alarmed; or people somehow stumble across history and get thoroughly confused by all the old revisions.

Thing is, when you look at it, it really isn't very clear that these revisions are actually old - we know well that they may be vandalised, or incorrect, or simply bad and not representative of our beatiful, beautiful prose... but the casual external reader doesn't, as all we do is list a small bit of text at the top, and if you're not familiar with the MediaWiki UI then it looks exactly like a live article.

19:57, 15 March 2007, last edited by Shimgray (Talk | contribs | block)
(diff) ← Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

..it doesn't actually say "this is an old version", does it, or explain anywhere what kept revisions are? This is, on the whole, unhelpful to our readers. Useful for our editors, but we need to remember we're not the sole audience.

I've made a somewhat more verbose explanation - see MediaWiki:Revision-info - and comments would be appreciated. What I'd like to do is get the UI to display this obviously - say, visually something as striking and apparent as the new-messages bar. Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 20:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, and urge something be done about this. The old versions of pages should be better identified as such. The Transhumanist   21:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
A great idea. Anything that improves transparency is a good idea. OK. Not "anything". You get my drift. --Dweller 21:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. A banner similar to the one you see when you edit and old version would be great. Koweja 21:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Verbosity is bad. The more words there are, the less likely it is that anyone will read them. --Carnildo 17:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've trimmed it a bit for redundancy, tell me what you think. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There is some kind of coding problem presently. If you go to the History tab and click on the most current version, it gives you that same banner message. It already is the current version. Qxz wisely brought this up on the relevant talk page. Until this can get tweaked proper, I think I'm against it. Mahalo. --198.185.18.207 12:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
and on a side note, I take offence, bruddah, with the way you treat anons, too. Aren't all edits da same? Mahaloo. --198.185.18.207 13:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

With no offense to Flcelloguy's boldness, it looks horrible. Merely an aesthetic judgement, but I do not want to look at text that is basically as annoying as this when looking through consecutive versions of a page and trying to concentrate on changes. Or even with current versions. I realized the latter and brought up on #wikipedia, but the discussion sort of fizzled out after a while.

Really, there is no way to make this fail-safe. I believe that if there should be no disclaimer templates on present versions of a page, they shouldn't be there on past versions, since there is no guarantee that only the past version will have a problem, and only the present one won't. (And when using "permanent link", look, there's a disclaimer template built into the interface! This is against the spirit of the guidelines, and redundant with the link below.) Gracenotes § 15:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Then it should say "old" not "archived" and "problems" not "vandalism, cowbell, and much ado about nothing." I think it is entirely appropriate, and recommend that everyone see Carnildo's recommendations at MediaWiki talk:Revision-info. --Iamunknown 17:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed policy: Template prod

From a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Templates for deletion I have created a draft policy for situations in which templates may be proposed for deletion. Please see Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion/Template prod and discuss it at Misplaced Pages talk:Proposed deletion/Template prod. Thank you. —dgiesc 17:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Should we publish a compilation of featured articles?

I've heard a lot about the Misplaced Pages:Release Version, and I thought, why not release a CD containing all the featured articles? Or maybe a DVD with all the featured content? It could be released as a stand-alone version, or in a double-disk with the currently proposed release version?

Please respond at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured articles#Should we publish a compilation of featured articles? — Jack · talk · 18:47, Friday, 16 March 2007

Detailed user statistics

Hi, on the Special:Statistics page, would it be possible to get more detailed statistics available? Perhaps stating as a percentage how many of the 4 million-odd users are actually active - i.e. have made edits in the last 6 months? And the number of distinctive IP addresses have been used to edit would be brilliant too. Thanks in advance for your responses — Jack · talk · 19:08, Friday, 16 March 2007

Number of active user accounts would be useful. —Quarl 2007-03-17 08:15Z
These data are available at Misplaced Pages Statistics, gathered regularly by User:Erik Zachte. JoJan 08:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, forgot about that. —Quarl 2007-03-17 09:31Z
Why not include it in Special:Statistics? — Jack · talk · 07:52, Sunday, 18 March 2007
The statistics on Misplaced Pages:Statistics are mostly generated from queries on the database dumps made roughly every month or so. If they were placed on the Special:Statistics page, I would anticipate a major strain on the servers, either by a) calculating percentages on every load of the statistics page, or b) requiring a major change in the software. Harryboyles 10:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Login across languages

As it currently stands you have to have a separate login to edit an article in a different language. As it has been explained to me this is because different languages have different administrations/rules. However, what would stop one login name from having access to all languages. The different rules and administrations would still apply to a specific language, but users who are able to edit multiple languages could do so with one login. Wikipediatoperfection 07:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea. It's been implemented but roll-out is stalled. See m:Help:Unified login. —Quarl 2007-03-17 07:43Z

"Policy" in names of policies

(I previously posted this elsewhere, but it was too low-traffic.)

When we write new policies, can we avoid using the word "policy" in the name of the policy? Misplaced Pages:Attribution isn't any less of a policy even though it's not called "Misplaced Pages:Attribution Policy". For example, an alternative to "Misplaced Pages:Protection policy" might be "Misplaced Pages:Protection" or "Misplaced Pages:Article protection". —Quarl 2007-03-17 08:12Z

Possibly the difference is that "Misplaced Pages:Protection policy" is our policy regarding protection. "Misplaced Pages:Attribution" is the policy (ie that information must be, er, attributable) rather than our policy regarding attribution. --Cherry blossom tree 11:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, though I don't see significant difference between the two things you said. I think the reason currently some have "policy" in the name and some don't is simply because people named them arbitrarily. Anyway I'm more concerned about going forward. —Quarl 2007-03-17 11:48Z
I'm scratching my head to see the difference as well. Consistency in titling is desirable, but I'm thinking it might be better to have "Policy" at the end of the name, when it is a policy, so that people recognise its importance (as opposed to an essay, for example). Tyrenius 02:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In fact most of those pages with "policy" in the name predate the {{policy}} tag and indeed the entire classification. Hence the names were used for emphasis. >Radiant< 13:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks, that explains how we got where we are. Any objection to making titles consistent (one way or another)? —Quarl 2007-03-21 05:44Z

Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by number of total stars

I have just started a article with the title mentioned above. Perhaps it would be interesting contributing\starting with me to this list; it might be fun if their is some kind of a competition between several users, to be on top of that list! Maybe some people would go and work harder, do more, contribute more, and vandalise less! So, what do you say?

the Old and respectable Kashwialariski 15:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This would only work if there were some sort of qualifying standard for the award of stars; as it is, they are given at random by editors at random to people whom they feel deserve them. At random. I like the concept in principle, but to make it work would entail the total formalisation of star awards, which I suspect many people would be unhappy with.--Anthony.bradbury 16:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I would prefer a list of wikipedians per promoted featured or good articles (which do exist hidden somewhere). -- ReyBrujo 17:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
No, barnstars are not a competition, and we should not make them into a popularity contest. This is a bad idea and should not continue. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Night Gyr.↔NMajdan•talk 21:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Night Gyr — Omegatron 00:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Relevant discussion at→ Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of total stars

Myspace on Misplaced Pages

I have seen a number of articles that list Myspace as either a reference or, more often, an external link. I can't help but think that that looks really unencyclopedic, linking to a site with more media-enhanced problems than Misplaced Pages and has basically zero credibility. Why is there nothing that says Don't link to Myspace? This would definitely increase our credibility (or at least our image of credibility.) Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS (Part of Misplaced Pages:Attribution now) does that job. It doesn't look well followed, seeing this(long load). I also noticed that you have to manually modify the URL in Special:Linksearch to change the number of links showed and search by namespace. Someone should fix that. Prodego 02:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Also WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided no. 10 specifically mentions myspace. Tyrenius 02:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
But as of the time I checked, there are 16,435 links to myspace form Misplaced Pages, so this obviously isn't enforced. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 02:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
But does that include userpages? Prodego 02:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It won't be enfored, it is a guideline, guidelines aren't enforced. Cbrown1023 talk 03:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe "enforced" was too srong a word. It obviously isn't very implemented. As the template for the MoS pages states "Misplaced Pages articles should heed these guidelines." I'm not seeing much heeding. And no, that count should only be article namespace, total, there are 22,610 links. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 03:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
ACtually, Iron Man (film)'s director has an official mySpace so that way fans will know what is really happening with the movie. So mySpace can by reliable. The Placebo Effect 02:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yup, it's okay to link to the myspace page of the subject of an article, just as it's okay to link to a personal webpage. So a lot of the links are fine. What percentage, of course, is a different question. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a word for that - fancruft. Catering to the fan, and not to the general encyclopedia reader. Actually, the link to "Iron Man Movie Group on Myspace" in Iron Man (film) is rather inappropriate, because it doesn't really add anything to the encyclopedic value of the article. If someone else concurs with me, they should probably remove it, or we could talk about it. Gracenotes § 05:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, the wording on WP:EL is a little unclear "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article" does this mean "a page about the subject" or only "the page is the subject." The more I read it, the more it seems like the latter. If it is, then links to myspace should really only be on articles where myspace is the "official website" or on Myspace. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 19:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Is only a guideline, and it should be followed as much as it can be. So if there's an official site that it updated relatively frequently, my rule of thumb is to remove any MySpace links (since it adds the social networking aspect, that an official site wouldn't have -- auxiliary forums don't count, since they are not irrevocably entangled with useful content. If the only official site is a MySpace, I either let it be, or carefully consider deletion according to guidelines. Gracenotes § 21:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, most articles that can only list myspace as a source or external link probably fail WP:ATT and WP:N anyway. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Attribution is policy, which is why I mentioned it. However, there are legitimate uses (such as John Broughton's example). Using as a reference, and not just a link, is a problem if the page is not official. Prodego 03:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sidebar redesign

What ever happened to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign? It was so active in Spetember 2006, and then just sort of fizzed out without any explanation. Below is the final draft, if anyone fancies restarting the discussion. — Jack · talk · 07:06, Sunday, 18 March 2007


Original

navigation search

 
toolbox

Redesign

navigate search

 
interact toolbox

Re-Redesign?

navigate interact search

 
toolbox

It was implemented in early December 2006, but was later reverted to do something or another. Gracenotes § 14:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

More correctly, someone tried to implement the parts of this that didn't require developer involvement, but doing so pushed down the search box to the point of causing display problems on small screens, and so was reverted. As I pointed out during the course of the Sidebar redesign discussion, changing the toolbox or creating a second box below the search box require developer effort. Since the developers aren't interested in this, nothing has changed. (And frankly the toolbox changes create so many cross-platform issues, that they might never be implemented even is a developer was interested.) Dragons flight 14:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Or you could say that the developers are interested in it if the community is... Gracenotes § 15:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. IMO, the proposed version is superior to the current version in many ways. Should we contact the developers again? Exactly what cross-platform issues will the implementation create? — Jack · talk · 22:28, Sunday, 18 March 2007
  • Support. Oh hell, I'm ready to throw up my arms and let the simple draft be discussed/implemented.
    Since 3 of the links were merged into the single Misplaced Pages:Contents link, it's not as bad size-wise anyway. I've added a Re-Redesign draft above, which would be very easy to implement.
    The only thing that would require moving/discussion is where to put "Recent changes" link; I somewhat randomly selected above "Make a donation". Does that look good?
    (And thank, Jack, for updating the proposal page, and bringing this up again :) --Quiddity 06:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to say, I think I'd rather stick with the original redesign. The rationale behind the three boxes is "viewing encyclopedia" -> "running encyclopedia" -> "editing encyclopedia". Search should probably stay with viewing(navigation), and recent changes should stay with editing(toolbox), in amongst the none-contextual links(below the line). How can I inspire this idea in people? Should I make an announcement somewhere? — Jack · talk · 14:01, Wednesday, 21 March 2007
Eep! Just realised the current sidebar has grown by one link...look how bloated the navigation box is! It seriously needed to be cut into bitesize amounts; especially since there are the two key "featured" and "donate" buttons in there. We need people to push those ones! — Jack · talk · 14:18, Wednesday, 21 March 2007
I'd rather have the original redesign too, but the devs don't appear to have the time/workforce to implement it, so I was suggesting we go with the half-implementation for now. Many other Wikipedias have 2 nav boxes above the search, e.g. all 6 of the 250,000+ {{Wikipedialang}}uages do.
As for the new 'Contents' link, yeah, The Transhumanist pushed through his proposal above and then asked an admin to implement it this morning. I still stand by my disagreements listed at the proposal, and am annoyed by his tactics such as making a subheader purely to detour past my criticisms. I'd suggest pushing "Featured content" to the 2nd link placement, ahead of 'Contents'. --Quiddity 19:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
What if the search box was moved under the interact box? That way it is more visible, and it can be used to search the encyclopedia, whereas the interact box is not directly encyclopedia-oriented .--HereToHelp 03:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Assuming you mean "above the interact box", that was the original/optimal redesign (listed above as "redesign". see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign), but it requires a developer to do extra wiki-backend work in order to implement it, which isn't a high priority for dev time, hence hasn't been implemented yet (since we achieved consensus on the final draft back in September). --Quiddity 03:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Why is it more visible under or above the interact box? It's there either way, and if it stays ajacent to the navigate box it seems more obvious what it's for, IMO — Jack · talk · 05:55, Thursday, 22 March 2007
The Transhumanist started a new discussion on this topic.
See #Proposal: Temporary fix for main menu on the sidebar below for continuation... --Quiddity 04:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Mine is a lot different with custom modifications. It stays in place as you scroll and generates its own scrollbars for the translations and the entire bar if the browser is too small to display it. See m:Help:User style/floating quickbar. Maybe we should incorporate some of these changes site-wide? — Omegatron 19:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

proposal: treatment database of case studies

why not set up a Wiki project whereby people enter in how they were treated / cured of various ailments or injuries. This will then end up being a huge repository of case studies, enabling people to see which treatments are effective.

This isn't really a proposal for Misplaced Pages. This is more a proposal for an entire new wiki. For that, see m:Proposals for new projects. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 17:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Encyclopedias do not do their own studies, though this may be a good idea for a new wiki. InBC 17:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Although, like Misplaced Pages, it may be inaccurate—and we're dealing with medical advice, not just general knowledge, so I foresee some problems there. Gracenotes § 21:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Anecdotal evidence Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Use WebCite for web references

WebCite is like the Internet Archive, but caches pages on demand, allowing you to cite the exact version that you viewed regardless of whether the page changes or goes offline. Should we be using this whenever we cite a webpage? — Omegatron 22:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

couldn't we integrate this into the {{cite web}} template, so that editors don't need to worry about it, and links better off without it (like exlinks and links to the New York Times for an article, for example) don't get it? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
well, now that I look, apparently they require you to attach yourself to each link you create, so they wouldn't quite work with something on the scale of wikipedia. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we should be careful about the use of outside products. WebCite may be a non-profit organization and free to individuals using it this way, but it is supported by publisher fees. Its copyright policy is that "Except for archived content, this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License." I see no reason why an editor may not choose to use this, but it should not be WP policy to incorporate requirements or expectations to use an outside service. I am not sure it has general acceptance. DGG 22:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't like it. The Internet Archive has been around for years, is pretty trustworthy, and in any case, is used as a last resource. Asking people to use it sounds like an advertisement for the site. -- ReyBrujo 22:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


couldn't we integrate this into the {{cite web}} template, so that editors don't need to worry about it

Exactly. It already has an archiveurl= parameter.

apparently they require you to attach yourself to each link you create

Meaning what?

The Internet Archive has been around for years, is pretty trustworthy, and in any case, is used as a last resource.

The Internet Archive only archives things that the Alexa toolbar finds, though, which leaves a lot of gaps. And it's usually only linked to after a site has gone offline, not when a site changes. WebCite creates an archive at the moment the page is cited. If we cite a page that later changes, our citation is no longer valid.

Asking people to use it sounds like an advertisement for the site.

WP:AGF? — Omegatron 18:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't archive automatically when you pass it a URL. It archives when you give it the command at a form, and that form requires you to enter an email address, where they email you when your archive is ready. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah. It would be great if we could just archive things automatically by linking to http://www.somearchivesite.org/thecurrenttimeinUTC/http://www.thesitetobecited.com/page.html
Also, I read through http://www.webcitation.org/faq (which also explains why Internet Archive isn't good enough), and the service is currently an academic project at the University of Toronto, with a Collective Commons-licensed site, so the advertisement accusation is unfounded. — Omegatron 19:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


Proposals: 1) Dynamic Searchable 'Intelligent' Keyword FAQ & 2) Watch Feature Renamed & 3) Mail & 4) 'Did You Mean' suggestion

1) Misplaced Pages should have an FAQ which allows a user to literally ask a question, and the site will direct the user to possible FAQ's that may answer their inquiry, based upon keywords in their question. Friendster.com has such an FAQ (when contacting customer service, any inquiry will be filtered through such a system).

2) The 'watch' feature is a great one, but its function is not entirely obvious. I recommend it either be renamed to, 'Watch This Article' or 'Add to Favorites' (or something to that effect).

3) I had new mail and didn't realize it until stumbling upon a small message informing me of this fact. Perhaps there should be a more localized place for new messages, such as "Check Messages", or "Inbox"

4) Before rejecting this suggestion, hear me out. I was told that there would not be enough processor power & servers available to achieve the following suggestion. Please read my suggestions on how to possibly achieve this at the end of this recommendation:

Misplaced Pages should have a "did you mean" feature when users search for a misspelled term, such as the one dictionary.com offers. If one looks up a word in dictionary.com and it is misspelled, the site offers several suggestions of words that the user may have meant to write. This will not only help people find the articles they are seeking, in an age where spelling is worsening due to computer spell checks, but will also help people find articles they seek that may be worded just a little differently than how they wrote their search term.

For example, 'Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis' is a word in the English language. But if one replaces the last vowel with an 'o' to yield: 'Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosos', then Misplaced Pages falls short of suggesting any similar terms.

I recommend using 'google' or dictionary.com some how (perhaps an agreement between wikipedia and the aforementioned) to achieve this. If Misplaced Pages doesn't have the processor power and servers, could it not take advantage of google's vast amount of servers? Could Misplaced Pages not run the search through a 3rd party? And how much power would it really take to run a search through a dictionary even, to at least check for probably spelling errors?

Sincerely, Danfogel 05:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Robots.txt keeps google out of AfD and a number of other places on wikipedia. We need an internal search for those. Search Suggestions are a perennial propose and just too taxing on the servers to implement. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Content Disclaimers

A new perennial proposal has come up at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(perennial_proposals)#Content_disclaimers. mrholybrain's talk 10:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:UW redirects reminder

Hi,

Just a reminder for the strawpoll on WP:UW about redirecting the old user warnings templates to the new system which closes tomorrow. If you have any interest in this issue please leave your comments here. Original message. Cheers 10:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Academics on Misplaced Pages

I feel that academics should be allowed individual pages of their own on Misplaced Pages. This is because a lot of the research that they do is publicly funded and so they should be accountable for it. Misplaced Pages could help a lot in this, as it already exists. Academics working on particular fields could be searched for and their work examined by interested folk. I have noticed that a lot of less well known academicsa get deleted from the site based on their lack of fame. However, these academics tend to be famous in their own field and less well known outside of it. As such it seems strange to allow people to delete these articles just because they are not celebrity characters.
Could anybody explain this to me? If so what is the deletion policy.
Many Thanks. Synthesis for all 14:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Curious Gregor

As far as I'm concerned, I will not nominate anyone for deletion if they have a published research document under their belt. That, to me, is their notability. 99% of the world may not have heard of him or her, but that 1% of experts in that field may be more than familiar with the work or could be attempting to track down that very info. I agree with you: academics should be permitted to have their respective articles on Misplaced Pages per WP:PAPER. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 17:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
"Anyone who has ever published a paper is notable" wouldn't work; we still have to have criteria. —Quarl 2007-03-22 06:23Z

There are already sister projects at WikiScholar and

Proposed "spring cleaning" day

See User:Naconkantari/cleanup. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 15:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

New bot

Resolved

I'm no programmer, so perhaps a bot that removes links to no-longer-existant images? AdamBiswanger1 16:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:CommonsDelinker and User:OrphanBot (for images on Commons and Misplaced Pages, respectively) manage most of that work between them. --ais523 16:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, that's good to know. Thanks AdamBiswanger1 19:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Grammar editing

I think what we could really use, in addition to a Peer Review section, is a Grammar Review page. If an article is of solid quality, but the writing is somewhat less than adequate, it would be a handy place where wikipedians with strong grammar skills could give a PR'd page a good polish (prior to moving forward for FAC). Any thoughts on this? — RJH (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

{{copyedit}} ? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Free Images

As all images under a free license are being pushed over to commons, shouldn't we remove the free license templates and simply prohibit people from uploading anything but WP:FAIR images on enwiki, or is there something I'm missing here? mrholybrain's talk 02:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely you mean "shouldn't we remove the free use templates"? -Amarkov moo! 02:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you're correct. mrholybrain's talk 12:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Ideally yes mrholybrain. There is Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Moving_free_images_to_Wikimedia_Commons, but there is a current problem with the "Upload file" link in the sidebar going to the upload form, so people tend to ignore the pointer to Commons and upload free media here anyway. I think the "Upload file" link should point to page (eg Misplaced Pages:Upload, which is currently a redirect) that directs people to the Commons upload form (for free material) or the Misplaced Pages upload form (for fair use material).--Commander Keane 08:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to add a bit to WP:NOT

I'm proposing to add a small subsection to Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. My proposed subsection merely states that Misplaced Pages articles should be summaries of their topics, not an exhaustive collection of every bit of data which exists on that topic, and that facts which are neither notable nor even interesting should not be included in a wikipedia article. While this may sound like a statement of something utterly obvious, it appears to exist nowhere within wikipedia policies or guidelines, and many new or inexperienced editors do indeed believe that adding every bit of info they can think of to an article is reasonable.

I am getting very little in the way of comments or feedback on this, so please drop by to WT:NOT#Proposal_to_add_to_Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information and support, oppose, or help amend what I'm trying to add. --Xyzzyplugh 07:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AVTRIVIA? Also, it's basically in there under WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Be careful what you wish for because triviality is often subjective. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
How about we add "Misplaced Pages does not need to present the same rule in different words"? InBC 16:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages in the classroom

Here's an idea I've had on the back burner for a while: given that an increasing number of university professors are assigning their students to edit Misplaced Pages article, are we ready to have a WikiProject where they can share strategies? So far all that Misplaced Pages has done is document those examples. It looks like it could be very beneficial to this site (and to the educators) if there we created a place where they could get together and see what works best for their classrooms and for the encyclopedia. Durova 17:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I though of such a project, however I was thinking that a separate dedicated wiki would be a better place for such a thing as it may wish to have a broader scope than Misplaced Pages. InBC 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a fantastic idea. Misplaced Pages:Students' notice board, anyone? Keeping it on Misplaced Pages will make coordination easier than on an outside wiki.--Pharos 17:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement. I think WikiProject format is more suitable than noticeboard format, unless you're thinking of something different. My primary idea was to make this a forum where professors and teachers can share strategies for incorporating Misplaced Pages assignments into their classrooms. Within that project the students might have their own section to coordinate their end of the work. Durova 17:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I only suggested a noticeboard as noticeboards tend to be defined by their members (such as the noticeboards for citizens of different countries), while wikiprojects are defined by their subject areas. But either way, I totally agree with the concept.--Pharos 18:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a very good point. The difference I see is that country noticeboards are useful for active Wikipedians but many of these people would be new users or infrequent contributors: educators who are intrigued by the project and need just enough information to structure a classroom assignment. So instead of ongoing developments this would address the same issues multiple times. WikiProject format fills that need although I'm receptive to any better idea that comes along. Durova 13:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The project idea is good. It is a subject based idea, not a group based idea because regular Wikipedians will be able to give inputs on the ideas the teachers have, which lets face it are not always compatible with our goals. It will give us a forum to guide their lessons into something that is compatible and beneficial to Misplaced Pages. InBC 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. It would be very good to have a place where seasoned Wikipedians can help the professors and teachers understand the site better so their assignments are compatible with our policies. A couple of months ago we had a ruckus when one instructor issued a classroom assignment to vandalize Misplaced Pages. That led to Jimbo's direct involvement and one of our administrators quit. Proactive community involvement should head off that kind of problem and facilitate more productive contributions. I'd be very happy if more students were improving Misplaced Pages from their university libraries, and if my recollections from my own student days haven't grown too hazy, I think my class assignments would have felt more meaningful if they'd actually been published. Durova 18:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#WikiProject_classroom_coordination Sign up if you're interested and we'll get this off the ground. Durova 18:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Excellent idea. I seem to recall a similar page being set up over a year ago, but the issue was less pressing then and it kind of fizzled out. I'll see if I can locate it. >Radiant< 10:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do. I anticipate part of what this project would do is organize information about classroom Misplaced Pages assignments, sorting things by assignment type and educational level which would be more useful than the chronological arrangement for an instructor who's planning a syllabus. Anything relevant that's already onsite would help. Durova 16:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD template change

I have proposed a change in an AfD template. Please comment at Template talk:REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD. —dgiesc 17:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Notability (science)

A poll is underway at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (science) concerning whether or not this guideline currently enjoys general support from the community. Please feel free to join the discussion. Mangojuice 20:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I will second this. I support this proposed guideline but am happy to see it genuinely ruled on by the community as a whole and not just by those of us who have worked on it. --EMS | Talk 02:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah, no, that's not at all how it works. Guidelines aren't "ruled on" by anyone, nor are they created through polling. Rather, there is discussion ongoing on the page. At the moment there do not seem to be any real arguments against the page, but one or two editors object on grounds that process wasn't followed (regardless of the fact that the process they refer to doesn't actually exist). Comments are of course welcome. >Radiant< 09:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Actually, I do think the "discussion" that should have been happening was being treated as a poll, but naturally what we want is a discussion: does WP:SCIENCE have community support or not, and should it be a guideline? Mangojuice 12:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Christian hymns

I note that many articles in this category contain the full lyrics to the hymn, which is source text and really should belong in wikisource. Should we do something about this? Comments please. >Radiant< 08:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree that we should transwiki some of them. The few I briefly looked at, however, do not indicate the specific source (i.e. hymnal, music dictionary, etc.); the text should be redacted from those as it may be a copyright violation - especially the translations. Many are also rather small. Perhaps a merge might be in order? That, however, is a ways off. --Iamunknown 20:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Or a merge and move to Wikisource - Wikiprojects need to do a much better job of crosslinking and crossreferencing on matters such as these. bd2412 T 00:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: explain abbreviations on "User Contributions" page

OK, I'm a fairly new contributor, and I look at my "User Contributions" page, and I see various abbreviations apparently indicating something about my contributions. But I can't find where they are explained.

So I propose that they be explained right at the bottom of that page, every time it is displayed. I think that could be done in just a single line.

The specific abbreviations I'm referring to are:

  • top -- this one is fairly obvious. And I did eventually find an explanation.
  • m -- still don't know what this means.
  • hist -- history of changes. Guessable, but should be explained.
  • diff -- difference between revisions. Also guessable, but should be explained.

Having an explanation of these right on the page would be helpful for new contributors.

I think something like the following would be sufficient:

top=most recent edit.     m= something???.     hist= revision history.     diff=Difference between revisions.

T-bonham 13:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

m means that the change is a minor change (you clicked on the "minor edit" box or a process was performed which is by default considered a minor change (such as using the admin rollback capability). Corvus cornix 20:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a key at the top of the page history that describes these (and some other things), so I think people become familiar with them there. Plus I think it's quite easy to remember what they mean when you've seen them once and when you click them (the links) you can see what they do. I don't think there is a MediaWiki message at the top of the contributions page, so it would need developer attention for implementation (if desired by the community). mattbr 21:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's main aim

Rather than providing free knowledge to everybody on the globe, shouldn't Misplaced Pages's main aim be to provide in-depth free information. I think Misplaced Pages, rather than striving to create more articles, should focus on making the articles it already has as Featured Articles. What do people think? Ahadland 13:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps true, but directing everyone's efforts to this end is a futile task if you ask me. AdamBiswanger1 14:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Please state why you feel that way? Id rather have 1.6 million featured article, than 3.2 million stubs. Wouldn't you? Ahadland 15:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Easy to say, harder to do. I take credit for 1 featured article and 2 featured lists. I've probably edited several thousand other articles. If those are your priorities, by all means walk the walk. Durova 16:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you in principle, but I don't see how we could direct the efforts of someone who likes writing articles about obscure cricket players into someone who likes sharpening language and finding sources and references. There are those who enjoy writing and editing within their interests, and then there are those who enjoy improving the encyclopedia because they are passionate about it. The latter are much less common, and they are willing to do what you ask. But making the former into the latter would be a herculean task. The way to achieve this, or at least try to achieve it is a separate question. Advertising? Incentives? Who knows, but convincing users to delve into the nitty-gritty fact-checking, organization, and reference-finding work needed for and FA seems futile. AdamBiswanger1 16:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Ye but we could still direct our efforts into achieving that, try and make users passionate. One way we could do this is by leaving templates on their talk pages, such as, to use your example, if you are interested in cricket players please consider looking at and cleaning these: Article here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahadland1234 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
That wouldn't help me: I know almost nothing about cricket. Durova 16:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you could make it a personal habit of yours to solicit the help of users toward specific articles that you think deserve more information. That would be just fine, and I have several personal practices myself that are like that. But to embark on a widespread campaign toward this end would waste time that is better served editing the encyclopedia. I'm glad to see you interested in and passionate about Misplaced Pages, though. AdamBiswanger1 16:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo made a comment to exactly that effect. He wished that we could have a hundred thousand featured articles by the end of 2007. Not gonna happen, but it's a good sentiment. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Well if all users have the same defeatist attitude it obviously wont happen. All users with the tireless contributor barnstar im sure would be happy to help.Ahadland 23:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Journalism noticeboard?

Here's another dish that's been simmering on my back burner: a lot of mainstream journalism articles about Misplaced Pages either contain factual mistakes (such as failure to distinguish between editors, administrators, and arbitrators) or overlook features and developments (such as stories about vandalism that fail to mention semi-protection, anti-vandal bots, and plans to adapt the German Misplaced Pages's stable versions feature into the English language site). In fairness to those hardworking members of the press, they operate on tight deadlines and may not have sufficient time to learn the knowledge a devoted Wikipedian acquires over months or years.

So would it be practical to implement a journalism noticeboard where they could post factual questions and get answers from Wikipedians? I foresee a couple of pitfalls here: journalists normally ask these questions through private channels and need a contact's full name. Also there's a risk of the page getting abused by disruptive users. But if experienced editors provide verifiable diffs and links, if journalists provide their bona fides, and if some of the discussion follows up via e-mail, then this might be useful. The main advantage is that this could provide more and speedier answers than a query to a particular contact who might not receive it until after press time.

What are your thoughts? Would the benefits be worth it and could we resolve the pitfalls? Durova 16:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't we have centralized locations for press about wikipedia already? It seems like it would be best integrated there. (a place to go before you write the story, as well as a collection of stories that have been written) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there any interactive place where they can ask questions and get swift answers? The Help Desk has its own problems and doesn't seem appropriate for that function. I've given my name to the Foundation as someone who's willing to answer questions, but nobody's followed up with me via that route. My only interactive contact with journalists has happened when I initiated it myself. Durova 22:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

downlaod.wikiepdia.org other way of downloading

it has come to my attention that download.wikipedia.org isn't frequently updated nor gives it very specific downloads. SO what I would love to do is in fact make special downloads for every 'portal' on the site. I'm modest opinion, I think that it will save some GB's on the traffic counter.

And the structure isn't quit user-friendly when unpacked in a directory. So I would propose the make a directory structure that is very clear:

/root index.html


sub-portal directory exemple

/portal1 -/a-z directory --/images ---/images display html files ---/images —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Webscriptz (talk • contribs) 18:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Proposal: Temporary fix for main menu on the sidebar

Implementation of the redesigned sidebar (which was completed via consensus last September) is way behind. In the meantime, Misplaced Pages's main menu has become bloated.

I propose that while we're waiting for the developers to implement the new design, that a temporary fix be made to break up the main menu and make it easier to read. Like this:

navigation

The rest of the sidebar would remain the same. This proposal only affects the top menu box.

It wouldn't require a developer, and any admin could implement it.

There's the same number of links, but the lines and rearrangement make it much easier to see the structure and to read.

The Transhumanist   20:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support - as proposer. The Transhumanist   21:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a good idea, but wouldn't it make more sense for "Community Portal" to be in the top section? Nihiltres 21:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC) (never mind, that's not a problem Nihiltres 21:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC))
  • Why do I dislike that Help is sorta buried in the middle...?   Having it at the end (current state) means that when in reading all the items they become a blur, at least you'll see the important last item 'help'. I'm thinking leave it at the end, or put it above the line and after Current events. The divisions do help to some extent, but two or one, which items above and which below? Ouch, I already have a headache! Shenme 21:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Sorry, I'm just entering the discussion. Where would the search box be? --Iamunknown 21:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Same place it is now. The proposal only affects the top box on the sidebar. The rest have been left off, but will remain the same.
    • Below all of that. Prodego 21:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I already have to scroll down to reach useful tools; the more space that is used for decorative purposes, the more scrolling will be needed. Notinasnaid 21:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support -- I like it, and I agree w/ removing the "navigation" text. I do kind of feel that the Community Portal should be in the top portion, but I'd be fine either way. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 21:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I like that; the separation is clearer. I can certainly appreciate Notinasnaid's comment about scrolling, but I think this small increase in height is worth it. Adrian M. H. 22:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I feel that this is a fix for a problem that doesn't really exist. The sidebar is not really bloated as it currently stands, and I doubt that a redesign will slim it down much anyway. (at least none of the proposed redesigns I saw seemed to do so) Then again, I usually browse with a very high resolution, so everything looks small to me. Is there any possibility of writing a script or adding a preference to customize the sidebar? (i.e. remove links that you don't use very often)--Danaman5 22:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Can already be done with user CSS (e.g. to hide the "Main page" link, add
#n-Main-page {display: none}
to here – Qxz 22:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons already stated: I fail to see the need for this change and it pushes the most important feature (the search bar) lower on the page. That's a big negative for the vision impaired who have to use low resolution settings. Well intentioned but counterproductive. Durova 22:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • removing "navigation" from the top of the box should offset any drop in the search box. The Transhumanist   22:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I still don't get it. The introduction calls this long overdue yet fails to provide any reason why change is even needed. The current organization looks just fine. What exactly is lacking that any of the proposed changes would improve? And before assuring anyone the new version is better, please readjust your screen resolution to the appropriate levels for an eighty-seven year old grandmother with cataracts or her twenty-two year old grandson with glaucoma. Test before you put this to a vote. I'm rather surprised to have been the first to raise this objection, which makes me wary of quick oh-that's-no-problem assurances. Too many times in the past I've seen tech staff give hand waving promises for stuff they hadn't quality checked and then walk away from the problems they had created. Durova 01:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Allow me to explain... What I was referring to as "way behind" is the implementation of a design that was already ratified back in September. It received consensus, but has been held up by inavaiability of programmers to make the necessary changes to the MediaWiki software. The problem we are trying to solve here with this proposal is that the main menu has become cludgy and hard to "get" at a glance. It needs to be broken up visually to make it easier to read. Two horizontal lines are fairly inobtrusive and do not elongate it by much, while providing most users with an immediate benefit. The Transhumanist   05:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. A great improvement and easy to implement. Terrific. --Dweller 22:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Awesome its a lot easier to find what you are looking for with this. -- Darkest Hour 23:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. It's probably the only thing that brings people away from usership, since the rest of the links on the sidebar are community-related. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HubmaN (talk • contribs) 05:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Support design B — while I'm still convinced that the original #Sidebar redesign is the way froward, I guess this is a logical compromise — Jack · talk · 05:49, Thursday, 22 March 2007


Alternative designs

design A



navigation

design B



navigation

design C



navigate interact

design D



navigate interact
  • This is the other potential design, as proposed earlier, at #Sidebar redesign. Just as easy to implement, and the searchbox only moves down by about 1.5cm. Many other Wikipedias have 2 nav boxes above the search, e.g. all 6 of the 250,000+ {{Wikipedialang}}uages do. --Quiddity 23:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • So that's what you meant by "Oh hell, I'm ready to throw up my arms and let the simple draft be discussed/implemented." Man, I didn't have a clue what you were talking about. A simpler sidebar redesign to submit to developers is what I thought you were referring to. The essence of your proposal should be in the heading. My guess is most people skipped it or skimmed over it. --TT
    • It does drop down quite a bit. To improve it, you should move "Help" to the bottom, and remove Questions, because that is already at the top of the Help page. That way you keep it to 11 links. The interact box is already starting to suffer from bloat. The Transhumanist   00:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • By the way, where does the wikicode for the boxes go? They're not at MediaWiki:Sidebar. The Transhumanist   00:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, "navigate" and "interact" don't serve any purpose whatsoever. So we should remove those. The Transhumanist   00:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I actually like the navigate and interact. They're verb tense, so it makes the reader interested in helping out, or at least getting to know Misplaced Pages. I like the separation of the third one, too, because it's not so overwhelming. I say #3. └┘talk  01:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, and that was one of the points we spent weeks arguing about. --Quiddity 03:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Design D implements most of the redesign draft ideas, removes 'Questions' (per TT), moves 'Featured content' back to the 2nd spot and leaves both 'Help' and 'Donations' prominent (per Jack). That's the best and smallest I can suggest. --Quiddity 04:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Featured content is going to be included on the contents navbar soon, and so will be displayed at the top of the Contents page. Therefore, there's no need to place it before Contents on the main menu, as it is more specialized than Contents. "Contents", being the more general of the two should probably go first, because "Featured content" is a subcategory of it and not the other way around. Contents is the table of contents for the entire encyclopedia, not just a sampling of it. It makes logical sense for it to go first. The Transhumanist   05:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
      • 'Featured content' should go before 'Contents' because Misplaced Pages is currently striving to improve quality, not quantity. (Do I have to go hunt down Jimmy Wales' quote, or do you know what I mean?) --Quiddity 18:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The order of links in design A is superior. Both "Community Portal" and "Help" stand out, as they should, and "Help" stands out more by being placed at the end. "Make a donation" still stands out, as well, because it hangs out over the end of "Help". And since the eye is drawn to "Help" when it is on the end, it prompts the user to read the items in reverse order, which creates an unintended but appriopriate message: "Help, make a donation." It's perfect. The Transhumanist   05:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Design E, for Eloquence

Well, it looks like Eloquence bypassed the discussions and went straight for the throat, and changed the MediaWiki:Sidebar directly. A bold move. But I LIKE IT! And five stars for audacity. Cheers.

It's close enough to all the versions above, but has one distinct advantage: the job is done. So now we can move on to more productive tasks. The Transhumanist   08:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree that Eloquence was very bold, and it's clearly been demonstrated we can do it, go Eloquence! Although, the changes weren't exactly what we asked for, and I've left a message on the MediaWiki talkpage — Jack · talk · 08:22, Thursday, 22 March 2007

Was there something wrong with the original?

I just don't see why there's this strong trend lately to change parts of the user interface that have worked just fine for years. Plus, I just went to click recent changes, and wound up with Featured content instead, because someone moved the button (: VectorPotential 11:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is really annoying... everything's pushed down. I'm a vandal hunting admin, and it bugs me to have to scroll down to access 'user contributions' and 'block user' every time I do a block. Is there any way you can turn this option off? Something I can put in my css? – Riana 15:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"#p-about h5 {display:none}" helps a bit, but still leaves about a line's worth of space. --ais523 15:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
That's better, thanks. At least I can get to contributions quickly - blocking is secondary. – Riana 15:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Come to think of it, ".portlet h5 {display:none}" probably saves you enough space to reach both links ('block' is just below 'contributions' isn't it (I test on a sysop account on a non-Wikimedia MediaWiki wiki), yes it is). It removes all the sidebar headers, even the ones that were there before. --ais523 16:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
That's excellent, that totally works. Thanks! :) – Riana 16:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done to all concerned. It's a big improvement. --Dweller 18:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages "State" Movie

Many businesses and states and other organizations have logos, themes and other favorite things which represent what they do or stand for. In this regard I think the Misplaced Pages should adopt "Thanksgiving" which was Amazing Stories' second season, ninth episode to first air on November 24, 1986 as the Misplaced Pages theme movie since it portrays interaction with the Misplaced Pages by all users very well. Nebraska bob 01:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If this 1986 tv episode portrayed interaction with Misplaced Pages by its users, that truly would be Amazing. --Xyzzyplugh 02:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Major problems with Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary

At the moment, WP:WINAD forbids articles on words, but in reality we have probably thousands of articles on words. Either we need to delete these thousands of articles, from Truthiness to Thou, or we need to make some major changes in this policy. Please come to Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Major_problem_concerning_this_policy and discuss this issue. --Xyzzyplugh 02:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Um... nearly all of our articles are "on words". Some of those words are people's names. Some of them are things like 'aardvark', which you could also certainly find in a dictionary. The difference is not in what we have articles about, but in what the articles say. One glance at our article on Truthiness will tell you that it is nothing like a dictionary entry... it talks about the cultural significance of the word rather than just it's meaning, etymology, et cetera. Ditto Thou. Our entry for Yes, on the other hand, doesn't contain anything you couldn't find in a dictionary... such as wikt:Yes. --CBD 10:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
No, almost none of our articles are about words, they are about the subjects the words describe. War is not about the word "war", it is about war as a subject, it's about violent armed combat. If it were about the word, it would instead be about the etymology, how the word is used, examples of use, and so on. George Washington is not about the word "George" or about the word "Washington", but instead about the famous person who happened to have that name. There are several pages of discussion on this at Misplaced Pages talk:Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary, which would be the place to respond if you want to say more about this. --Xyzzyplugh 14:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Just AfD anything you think is in violation, and explain why. InBC 14:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Modification to WP:3O

I propose that Misplaced Pages:Third opinion be revised to reflect its use. I believe 3O would be best served as a general request for an outside opinion. Most of the articles that get listed there have more than two parties disputing various issues. It is very useful for soliciting a neutral opinion. I believe that WP:3O should reflect this broader usefulness and the actual usage of the page. I raised this on the 3O talk page on March 16 and no objections have been made. I wanted to seek some outside input to make sure this change was acceptable to the community at large. Vassyana 04:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Redlinks replaced by redquestionmark?

I don't know if there was an unannounced design change but I noticed over the past hour that I cannot seem to find redlinks but rather where there is a non-existent link it is now comprised of blacktext followed by a red question mark, all of which act as a hyperlink to the non-existent edit page. I for one do not like this design because it makes it more difficult to find the tags and the redlinks as well as the question marks are incredibly distrating to the flow. --Valley2city 06:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

for an example, nonexistantlink. That wasn't a question, but it sure looks like one.--Valley2city 06:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
From the Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical) FAQ:

... it's probably because your browser failed to load one of the stylesheets (or the server sent you a wrong one). Do a forced reload or bypass your cache.

Misplaced Pages:Bypass your cache explains how to do that. It is also an option in Special:Preferences under 'Misc' which you might want to check if that doesn't solve it. Hope that helps, mattbr 10:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki registration

Maybe a shot in the dark but some of us multi-lingual folk, as well as those of us who also work on Metawiki and the Commons, would probably benefit from the ability to cross-register; that we don't need separate accounts for the various Wikimedia wikis and can easily transfer things over. Just checking if anyone likes the idea and if developers think it's feasible. --Valley2city 06:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a shot in the dark at all: meta:Help:Unified login. I'm not sure how far this really is--I thought it was successfully tested sometime last year, but it looks like it's currently stalled again. --Dapeteばか 09:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Trashy articles

Looking at the large number of new articles that are total rubbish Ebony spears, Gilbert snatch I realise what an ongoing battle is needed to keep the situation under control. The Request for Deletion process is far too elaborate and should take the form of a tab at the top of the page which might speed up the process of bringing such articles to the attention of whoever does the final deletion. Paul venter 16:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts for information on how you can make speedy-delete requests into a tab. (By the way, are you aware of Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion, which is a lot simpler than AfD for deleting obvious rubbish?) --ais523 16:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As a "veteran" of the Newpages patrol, I understand your frustrations. Thankfully, we have an infrastructure designed for this, so 90% of the "inappropriate" articles can be deleted through Speedy Deletion. GhostPirate 18:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Greater distinction between fact and fiction (possiblly using a template)

I think that for pages such as Ankh-Morpork, Admiral_Daala and Lilliput_and_Blefuscu (all fiction places, characters or so on) a template should be created for the top of the page to make clear that the topic under discussion is about a fictional place, person, whatever.


Currently they say some thing such as "Lilliput and Blefuscu are two fictional island nations".


However, I think that a more obvious template would be clearer.


Something along the lines of


The page is about a fictional person, place, weapon or something else. This page is not about a real person place or whatever. Please keep this in mind when reading it.


For pages about books or films (etc.) this is obviously not needed, only for pages that are dedicated to fiction, which is known to be fiction. So for pages about a biography of a person who was not known to be not real, it might not be needed. (I'm not being clear am I :( ) Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AFA (talk • contribs) 21:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Wouldn't that be a disclaimer template and thus forbidden under Misplaced Pages:No disclaimer templates? --tjstrf talk 21:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe not. No disclaimers seems to focus mainly on disclaimers relating to objectionable content (this page contains profanity) and legal disclaimers (Misplaced Pages is not a substitute for a doctor). Also, its a guideline, it has exceptions. I see this more like the future/planned templates, like those here. While we couldn't require it, it may be a decent idea. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Why is this necessary? It says it's fiction at the start. If the reader doesn't bother to read the first sentence, I'm not sure any notice will help them. Also, what's the cutoff? Will this be included for Sherlock Holmes? Loki? Uncle Sam? --Golbez 22:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

world map by centuries

I think it is a good idea to make a politica world map by centuries or decades and include it in the articles about that century

Having maps of various time periods is a good idea, though I question 1) the utility of a world map, that would be a big much to maintain, and 2) When in the century? That is to say, what map would you include in an article on the 20th century? A map as the world was on January 1 1900? May 15 1945? December 31 2000? --Golbez 22:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I've often thoughts this same thing and even started a book on just that. If I recall is off the top of my head, I had used periods of 500 years prior to 5000 BC(E), 100 years up to 500 AD (CE), 50 years between 500 and 1700, and decades afterward. It was a hefty project, rife with errors, and of course never completed due to its sheer scale. Definitely fascinating, however, to see how varying cultures meandered about over time. I think it'd make a fine addition to Misplaced Pages, but would be a major endeavor for even a team of professional historians. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 23:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
These maps may be a good starting point - http://commons.wikimedia.org/Category:Maps_of_the_world_showing_history -- Chuq 00:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
It might be an idea to see the world through the eyes of the cartographers of the period - in other words, don't do a high-tech 21st century version of Gengis Khan's empire, but rather a compendium of maps that survive from that era - or perhaps both versions would be better - awful lot of research! Paul venter 04:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Naconkantari/cleanup - Misplaced Pages cleanup day

For those that may not have heard, there is a proposal at User:Naconkantari/cleanup concerning holding a "cleanup day" where editing will be restricted to autoconfirmed editors only. There is also a non-binding poll to determine the specifics and community reaction to the proposal. Before commenting, please read through the entire proposal as it should answer most questions that may arise. This message has been crossposted to several noticeboards, please direct comments to User talk:Naconkantari/cleanup. Cheers, Naconkantari 05:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"Print this article"

Last year I was studying to get into college (which I did) and I printed about 200 articles from Misplaced Pages. I understood the importance of the sources in the articles, but I never checked them. I thought it was a waste of paper and ink to print so many pages of sources that I was just not going to read. So I had this idea: that there should be an option to choose which sections of the article you want to print, including the possibility of not printing the references and sources. Can it be done? A.Z. 08:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's possible to print a single section at the moment, but only in a hacky way, by editing the section, previewing it, and printing the preview. Most browsers will have an option to 'print selected text' if you go through the menus to print rather than using their toolbar, so you could try selecting the sections you want by dragging over them and using that. --ais523 09:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Most people will never think of doing those things. And a lot of people would prefer to waste paper and ink rather than figuring out how to print only the sections they want. Don´t you think that trying to figure a way to allow sections to be chosen is worth it? A.Z. 09:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikisuite

I have proposed Wikisuite. Please comment. -- Punk Boi 8 09:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories: