Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Armanaziz (talk | contribs) at 02:53, 8 February 2008 (→SP-KP: copyedit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

• WP:VPR
• WP:VP/PR

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.

Misplaced Pages:Featured portal candidates

There's an ongoing discussion on assigning the task of a featured portal director(s). Discussion was generated after concerns of consistency in the process, as some users promoted FPOs without complete knowledge of the process. It appears that consensus is tilting on assigning FPO director seats, with various users occupying them to coordinate the effort of promoting and maintaining the FPO lists. The discussion can be found at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured portal candidates. - Mtmelendez 12:54, 25 December 2007 ( UTC)

Tor nodes

An ongoing discussion is in progress regarding adjusting the blocking policy in reference to TOR nodes. The discussion is here. Regards, M-ercury at 13:18, January 8, 2008

Ipblock exempt proposal

A proposal has started to allow established or trusted editors to edit via Tor, or other anon proxy. This discussion is located at

talk page

The proposed policy in its “needs to be worked on” form is located at

project page

Regards, M-ercury at 23:21, January 14, 2008

What if Misplaced Pages were to allow original research (if tightly defined)?

Misplaced Pages currently has a policy against Misplaced Pages allowing original research but what if an academic knows of original research which is currently at "in press" statement - would this count as "original research"? It has long been my view that what ever the faults of Wikpedia may be, it surely has the merit of being the world's most up-to-date encyclopaedia. To ensure up-to-date coverage of academic topics, how about a policy where academics can cite articles for publication which are not yet published in print form, but which are currently "in press", even if these are articles which the academics themselves have written? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If the material is not available to the general public (having to pay a fee is allowable, as long as everyone may do this), then it should not be used as a source, as no-one will be able to verify the information. Furthermore, as I understand it, 'in press' could mean undergoing peer review, which may decide that the article is not fit for publishing at this time. LinaMishima (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's no way to readily verify the contents of 'in press' materials. Misplaced Pages can cope with waiting a few months for the article to be available through normal channels. (Note that this does not rule out the use of materials from journals that do 'advance online publication'; there's no need to wait for paper copies to be available if the documents are officially available from the journal website.)

Taken to an ugly extreme, we could face a situation where Dr. Joe Bloggs decides that his pet theory of the universe should be in Misplaced Pages, so he adds it to cosmology with an 'in-press' citation. We have no way to independently confirm that Nature really has accepted his paper, or even that any peer review has taken place.

From the standpoint of the paper's authors, it may not be wise to 'publish' material ahead of its appearance in a journal. Many journals get very upset if you distribute (and republish) preprints or articles prior to the article's appearance in print. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We are not trying to create "the world's most up-to-date encyclopaedia"; if we're viewed that way, it's nice; but we aren't trying to meet a deadline here. We'd rather be reliable and verifiable than "up to date" and neither. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there is an argument to loosen up WP:OR. As I read it, it came about precisely just because of the scenario present above, to stop crank science.

I think it is a good policy within the "hard sciences", i.e. physics, biology, engineering etc but I think it fails in the "soft sciences", e.g. sociology, anthropology, even perhaps psychology (where it tetters off toward parapsychology). Why?

Well, firstly, let's face it there is a big difference between a physics or maths paper and a sociology or anthropology paper. In the former, the sums have to add up; in the latter, its far more just someone opinion that might have gone straight from school, straight to university and straight into research. The peer review system cannot be empirical or even "evidence based".

So then we end up limiting the Misplaced Pages to the limitation set by "establishmentary academia" and any one that argues that "establishmentary academia" covers the entire scope and sum of human knowledge or IS NOT governed by funding instituted fads, fashion and censorship is a damned dishonest fool, e.g. there was a great 'Sociology of science paper written on Cold Fusion. Ditto, limiting one's self merely to the production of the academic peer review system, excludes all the science that does not pass that way, e.g. industrial, military and unfashionable science, for whatever reason, e.g. there was no general awareness of Operation Suntan - the CL-400 hydrogen power jet between 1954 and 1976, because it was a Skunk Works project and it exits only in one book of Nasa history, if you ask any engineer about hydrogen powered jets, they will know nothing of it because it is was never taught in tech school. it still does not exist on the topic page despite burning $250 million back then.

Then we look at the cultural chauvinism inherent in a white, male, primarily middle-classed based (and pro-America) educational system and its product ... the Misplaced Pages. The moments topics start heading off towards sub-cultural, racial or minorities issue ... topics and "references" dry up because they just are not done. "Peer review" is just fervent in, say, sub-cultural gang environments ("who d you know?"), it just isn't done across bi-annual peer review journals.

There is also another development that one cannot over look here, as the quality and commitment to the Misplaced Pages improves, increases and broaden; it is, of course, becoming its own peer review system (albeit an unaccountable, unqualified in places and somewhat skewed one). All the same, the Royal Academy has been accused of worse and got better as time in its own time. it is "getting real". Perhaps we should move forward to a point where the democratization of the peer review system, in place of the obesience to established hierarchies extends further than just pushing angry electrons back and forward at each other in edit-wars. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for raising these points in response to my earlier suggestion. I am now happy to recant - in particular, TenofAllTrades, I felt, had a good point about journal editors getting upset if material is too widely distributed ahead of distribution! The only point I would challenge in the all above comments is the attempt to belittle social sciences (I think that some sociology academics might be rather annoyed by suggestions that their papers are less than "academic"); however, I do wish to offer thanks to all who responded. My final decision - let us just stay as we are! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Very early on, IIRC some scientists (experts in their field!) would add clues to new stuff they were working on to wikipedia. It's an old trick, to establish that you were the first person to work on/discover something. Due to NOR being expanded way beyond its original parameters (where it was only there to stop cranks), this kind of thing is no longer possible, and at times we may need to wait years before the same information is added. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: A more pro-active watchlist type notification system

This idea stems from the current issues we've had with episode merging and the like, in the fact that people don't feel they're getting sufficient notification for various issues. While watchlists are great, when you get more than a few hundred pages it can be very hard to follow or discover certain changes, particularly if you ignore WP even over 24hrs. The idea is not to replace the watchlist system but to provide a more pro-active notification system for people that want to track changes on key articles.

Here's my idea, in terms of how it works:

1. A special template on an article's talk page is created. In this template is a list of users that are interested in this page. (possibly, the template includes support for a "notification level").
2. When a "significant change" to a page is made (specifically, I thinking : any of the major cleanup templates, AfD, merge, GA/FA, reassessment, and so forth, not other "minor changes" - ideally anything easily tracked by looking for the presence or absense of a template message), a bot will catch this. (I doubt in real time, but lets say it checks for these diffs every 6-12 hrs - slow enough to not spam the system)
3. When such a change is made, the bot notifies each uses in that template on their talk page, explaining the change.

In this fashion, those pages most important to uses can be tracked closer without having to chase through long watchlist details. The bot should also create pages, by user, so they know what they are tracking so they can maintain that list (simply by removing their name from said template and also to avoid someone enlisting them inappropriately on pages they don't want to watch). Now, I do note that unlike the watchlist which is private to a user, this does make it public that you are watching the article, but very likely, if you are, you are a major contributor to the article and thus it is no surprse that you are watching it in this fashion, and I think the value of letting people know I'm watching an article is a small price to pay for having better notification on articles I'm most interested in.

I did mention the possibility of notification levels (like with some debugging). Maybe you only want to know if the article's about to be deleted, or maybe you want any change to be notified (which may be very spammy). We could classify the types of changes into a series of levels to let uses pick which ones they want when they enter their name on the template.

The only issue I see is not so much in bot programming but how much of a load would this be; again, the delta time between checking for differences can be changed appropriately to alter this. --MASEM 18:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If in fact there are only a relatively few "high priority" pages that an editor wants to watch, one existing solution is to create an additional ("public") watchlist on a subpage. Then just click on the "Related changes" link in the toolbox on the left to view recent changes to those high-priority articles. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'm done for the day, since I learned something new! That's a great idea for personal high-priority pages. --MASEM 16:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikimessenger

I think to make conversations easier between people an instant messager should be introduced. Many people would be allowed to contribute to the conversations and also consensus building would be done much more quickly and effectively. Anybody up for a trial run of Wikimessenger? --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 13:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... we have some Internet Relay Chat channels. I'm not sure if the Mediawiki software could support an instant messenger, especially since all non-free software (Flash, Java) can't be used. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should simply advertise the #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en IRC channels on freenode more widely - it's easy to get on with any of a number of freeware clients (I prefer Colloquy, in general), or in-browser with java.freenode.net (which is freenode's official in-browser way to log in to IRC). Nihiltres 14:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm, what did you say about Java? Gracenotes § 16:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, my information is really outdated.
Anyway, I think that building an instant messenger on Misplaced Pages itself is infeasible and needless.IRC should cover our instant messaging needs, and we could have other off-wiki places designed for socialisation (Facebook groups etc.) I don't think that this should (or could) be built into the MediaWiki software.
A small improvement could be done to the talk pages, though. Some other Wikipedias have clearer ways of showing who replied to whom on talk pages (look at eo:Diskuto:Ĉefpaĝo or fr:Discuter:Accueil). Puchiko (Talk-email) 18:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We have a jabber chatroom too, but it's hardly ever used. IRC is useful. Martinp23 18:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with this idea is that, currently, consensus can be gauged by reading a conversation on a page. With IM, there's less time for reasoned discussion, research and proper consideration of other's ideas. But the real problem is: to assess consensus, we need a 'record of the discussion. The IM applet would have to log all the various discussions going on, which can be fragmented and hard to follow. Not to mention it would dramatically increase the number of pages the server has to handle, and can be easily spammed into infinity. -- Kesh (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that, ideally, if a group of people reach a consensus on IRC then they should together at least summarise what they've agreed on somewhere and each sign it, in the interests of keeping the wiki's information "complete". Complete logs of conversations sounds like a recipe for trouble, though. :-) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 20:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Public logging is prohibited, unless you have the permission of all cited persons. I don't think decisions should be made on IRC, because of the reasons Kesh gave. The advantage of talk pages is that people from across time zones can communicate with each other, you just have to wait 12 hours for a reply. Also, interested contributors are likely to have the page on their watchlists, so you know when someone makes a comment related to the page. I think IRC is great for socialisation, helping new Wikipedians, and collaboration. I don't think it's a good place to form consensus though. Puchiko (Talk-email) 10:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be potentially useful to automatically chat with people editing the same page at the same time, to coordinate effort, but in practice I think the rooms for almost all pages would be empty. The "slow-motion conversations" of talk pages work better. Dcoetzee 23:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

When possible, real time communications are to be preferred. (see: OODA loop). --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The avalibility to watch Special Pages

It would be nice if we could watchlist specialpages, such as:

• User contributions

Good for tracking the edits of problematic users

• whatlinkshere

Tracking pages created regarding a template

and etc. The benefits would be huge-- penubag  01:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Propose this on WP:VPT since it's a software feature request. MilesAgain (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

sure-- penubag  02:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Special pages aren't watchable because they aren't hard "pages" that get "changed". They're dynamically-created lists that are compiled anew when a user accesses them, and are never saved. Scripts can perform similar functions though -- User:Tra has a couple that do what you need: "user watch list" script lets you "watch" user contribs: add importScript('User:Tra/userwatchlist.js'); to your monobook.js. Instructions are at User:Tra#User_watchlist. There's also "whatlinkshere watchlist", importScript(User:Tra/whatlinksherewatchlist.js');. Instructions at User:Tra#What links here watchlist. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:54, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being of such help, once again!, I'm on a Mac using safari (doesn't seem to work), so I'll try it on my PC (with FireFox) at home. Thanks-- penubag  17:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fantastic, I didn't realise something like that existed. J Milburn (talk) 09:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Scouting"

Say a Wikipedian knows someone who would be a great addition to Misplaced Pages and convinces them to join. Maybe, there could be a barnstar or a special userbox for that person. They would apply for it, and the IP address of the new user would be checked to prevent sock puppetry. What do you think? I call it "scouting". Shapiros10 (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems way to bureaucratic to me. Apply to whom? And why would we want checkusers to spend their valuable time on this - when all that is at stake is an award? Plus getting someone to register doesn't turn them into a productive contributor - we have something like 7,000 new registered accounts every day here, and the vast majority never do another edit. But if we impose a requirement (e.g., recruited editor must do at least 100 edits, for example), then should someone (who?) confirming the award look at the type of edits (welcoming 100 new editors is hardly a significant contribution to the project).

Perhaps we should just rely on a sense of self-satisfaction to motivate Wikipedians to recruit other editors. Or, at the very most, some sort of self-award. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the "100 good edits" idea. Maybe a bot could do the sorting...Shapiros10 (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A bot that tells which edits are good and which are not... That must be every Wikipedian's dream. (Yes, that's a hyperbole; it certainly isn't my dream.)

Sorry for being harsh, but I have been here for a year, and have yet to earn any award (apart from a self-bestowed one); I should say that it takes much harder work that "100 good edits" for one to be recognised by the community. Seriously, one must put things into perspective here. We are an encyclopaedia first, and a community next. And, if you care for my opinion, I do derive self-satisfaction from editing. Even though I do hope for the eventual recognition that will aid me in, finally, taking over the world (check my user page for details), I intend to continue contributing even without it. And I think that many editors think like that, if not the most. Waltham, The Duke of 01:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

To concur with the Duke (or, it would appear, his appear private secretary), I don't think so. We're looking at a proposed system where (a) editor A needs to record that she recruited editor B, early in B's editing career (which needs to be checked); then (b) we need a bot to count and evaluate the quality of B's edits (as in, user page edits don't count, welcoming doesn't count much, RfA "support" opinions count for what?; XfD opinions count for what; fixing spelling errors counts for what?); then we need (c) checkuser to verify that A and B aren't the same person, and probably (d) some sort of panel of editors to oversee the process to make sure that the system isn't being gamed. And probably (e) something else I've missed.

I can pretty much guarantee that (c) isn't going to happen. I suggest we drop the discussion at this point, and concentrate our time and energies on actually improving articles. Or making it easier for other editors to do so. Or recruiting new editors who aren't that motivated by awards. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Concur. Sorry, although it may sound like a nice idea, it's more trouble than it's worth. Just mention on your userpage that you encouraged someone to join- that's what I'd do. J Milburn (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't you wish you could enforce assumption of good faith?

Don't we all wish you could somehow force people to assume good faith? Naturally, that's not normally possible. But I have noticed that a lot of times when people assume bad faith, they are applying policies improperly. They often accuse the vile horrible villains of deliberate violation of not one or two, but usually many many policies, all at once! Seriously, an expert troll typically has enough trouble breaking just 1 or 2 rules properly, and would be quite jealous. ;-)

Now there's something that is actually measurable ..and ... (rubs hands gleefully) punishable. Would it be going too far to say that people making false accusations, where a particular policy actually has nothing to do with anything the poor guy/gal/furry/other did... well, in those situations... couldn't we like... block the accuser? For say 24 hours for every false accusation? They might think twice before pointing fingers next time. It might even force people to actually consider and say what is really troubling them, instead of hiding behind rule ABC G7 L1 N22.

I'm probably being too naive, these are humans here, and surely they'll eventually find a way around it. But I'd be curious to see what that way might be! ;-)

This would also cut down on some amount of bureaucracy I figure.

Is there any good reason *not* to start doing this soonest?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that problem with that is that there's no way to know if the accusation is false, so when we accuse the accuser of assuming bad faith, what if that accuser of the accuser is wrong, do we then block him for 24 hours as well? ☯Ferdia O'Brien /_(C) 16:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

People can assume bad faith if it is not reasonable to assume good faith. _(1 == 2) 16:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, people can. That doesn't make it a good idea. -GTBacchus 06:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We do occasionally block editors who habitually level groundless complaints; we even block on first offense for particularly obnoxious reports. Vexatious litigants can be blocked for a pattern of disruptive editing—we only put up with them wasting a certain amount of our time. For some reason, some editors seem oblivious to the fact that admins who look at complaints on AN/I generally look at the conduct of all involved parties. We try to educate these editors as quickly as possible.

One of the most useful tests is looking on AN/I for threads that have 'admin abuse' or 'abusive admin' in the section heading. At least ninety-five times out of a hundred the complaint will turn out to be bogus. It's actually a very good way to identify editors who are headed for trouble. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean, Administrator vandalizing by blanking out article talk page? Or Vandalism by administrator, blanking out comments.? I like assuming good faith always, but sometimes it is impossible (like with the guy who wanted to know how to befriend 5 year old girls). However, I don't like pointing out, ironically you may fall in asking others to assume the assumption of good faith. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You could also go so far as to tell people to assume the assumption of the assumption of good faith ;-)

What I'm talking about is a situation where people persist in assuming bad faith, even after it has become clear that their accusations are false. And it would be nice if this also happened outside AN/I.

Hmph, basically I guess I'm advocating use of short blocks as a cluebat. ;-)

And if you're using it as a cluebat, perhaps blocking for less time (for instance 1 hour or so) would actually suffice. <scratches head>

--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My advice is: lead by example, by being helpful and friendly to everybody. • Anakin 17:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes of course! But sometimes, sometimes, don't you just wish? O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes Kim Bruning. I believe you should write an essay on various types of punishment which we will mete out for people assuming bad faith. You even have my permission to cackle while doing it. Wjhonson (talk) 07:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

*cackle* ... but but wait... what do we do with people who assume the assumption of bad faith? --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Figure them for trolls and block them indefinitely? (Oh, did I say that?) Seraphimblade 09:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(OD) Evil. Pure evil. Have a cookie.Wjhonson (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Instead of waiting for people to do something wrong, how about randomly indef-blocking one person a day as a warning to others? It'll keep people on their toes. • Anakin 15:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I like this proposal. If questioned, the blocker can simply use the great Oops Defense. We can even name this proposal honorarily after one of our greatest editors. Wjhonson (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In order to accused someone of failing to assume good faith, you have to a assume they thought assuming good faith was reasonable to do and they assumed bad faith anyways. _(1 == 2) 16:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget Hanlon's razor. You can also accuse someone of failing to assume good faith because they're stupid. • Anakin 17:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to Form Uniform Policy in Criticizing Issues in "Political Positions of" Articles

Hi, I was wondering how to best handle the certain situations that happen in "Political Positions of" articles for both politicians and commentators such as Politics of Bill O'Reilly and Political Positions of John Edwards. There seem to be criticism articles of people, such as Criticism of Bill O'Reilly, but I wanted a policy defined for when to post a criticism. Again, using Bill O'Reilly as an example, if someone was found criticizing him or his actions it should be mentioned in the "Criticism of" article, but if they had a criticism of his particular policy it should be mentioned in the "Politics of" article.

A criticism of policy would be "so and so believes that Bill O'Reilly's position on immigration does not take into account..." as opposed to a general criticism of either conservative or liberal ideology/positions. If there is a criticism of conservative (or liberal) positions in general, such as "being against pro-choice (or pro-life) is bad because...", then I personally think it should not be included.

Again, just using O'Reilly as an example here. It should be applied to all commentators and politicians both. Of course, all criticism should follow BLP and the editor must still maintain NPOV when citing the criticism. What do you guys think, allow the criticisms or disallow them? Arnabdas (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My vote is to allow them all. If the criticisms are legitimate to the positions themselves, we should let the reader determine if they are valid or not. We should let the reader in on info if the politician or pundit is hypocritical on an issue or if there are flaws to his or her issue. Arnabdas (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to Implement a Software System for Currencies, Conversions, etc.

There exist on Misplaced Pages a huge number of figures converted from some unit to another. When the ratio used for this calculation changes, the numbers given become less accurate. A system whereby a measure could be given a unit (e.g. U.S. Dollars) and a date (1988) could be added to the Misplaced Pages software that would automatically update this number for inflation at some regular time interval. Another example of where this could be useful is in the price of a commodity such as gold. On pages where dollar amounts for gold are given, these sums could be dynamic, changed by the software to reflect the current market value of the holding. An additional use for an arrangement such as this could be giving figures in Euros (or any other currency) their current equivalent dollar value, or vice versa. The necessary information is available from a huge number of websites, but I don't know what their use policies are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reb42 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It could be done with a set of templates, and not be too difficult either. ParserFunctions make the MediaWiki template syntax pretty powerful. E.g., if we had a Template:Inflation, it could be used like this:

{{inflation|USD|1988|99.95}}

which would convert $99.95 from it's worth in 1988 to its current equivalent. Or to save a lot of {{#switch:}} commands and bloated templates perhaps it would be better to use separate inflation templates for each currency. A search reveals Template:USD_inflation, but it just makes a web link to a site with inflation figures, not the same thing. Also, information can't be copyrighted, so obtaining currency and inflation conversion figures should not be a problem. • Anakin 16:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be encyclopedic to inform the reader of the present value of old monetary amounts, but it also is encyclopedic to inform the reader of the exact amount which was used at the time. The exact amount at the time of a transaction does not change. There are two issues: 1. How should both original and converted amounts be shown? and 2. Technically, how can Misplaced Pages convert across monetary units and time?. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I can answer the first question. Just write it out fully like:

"The takeover was worth $300 million (worth $1,298 million in today's money)."

Something like that anyway. I'm not sure about the second question; would it work to use an inflation template, passing the output into a currency conversion template? Or is monetary conversion more complicated than that? • Anakin 16:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Just experimenting, I implemented a test template in my sandbox. E.g., ${{User:Anakin101/inflation usd|1988|99.95|round=2}} generates: $175.21. Automatic inflation conversion is technically possible. Whether it's a good idea or not is another matter. • Anakin 16:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Templates are only updated when a page is edited. Pages that lie fallow would become inaccurate (to say nothing of forks and print versions). It's always necessary to include a date, although that date may be updated as well with each edit. Dcoetzee 20:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"This article is a bad article" under Template:Crap

"This article requires a full rewrite", "This article urgently needs work", or heck, even uncyclopedia's "This article is a piece of shit" under Template:Crap.

With all the utterly crappy articles that only get parts of them shifted around by a committee of idiots, this template is sorely needed. 81.197.39.178 (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm I see the great ability of this template to increase the bite factor. Wjhonson (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It'd not be a way to tell off the newcomers, more like "don't bother polishing this turd, just go for a rewrite". Because no amount of shuffling around of parts and grammar rewrites can improve a page that's shitty and has no useful content. 81.197.39.178 (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify more - it could also be "be extra bold when editing this article". I just think it should be under Template:Crap because we all can easily remember that. 81.197.39.178 (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We already have a template for marking an article as AfD due to being too stubby. In addition we have a template for marking an article, please help expand, etc. If you think an article is shitty, perhaps a cordial note to the author might be in-order. Cordial means kind, friendly, pleasant.Wjhonson (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So, there's usually a single author? That's new. I'm talking about long, very aged, articles, that have gone through so many rewrites and readjustments that the articles are incomprehensible piles of shit rather than actual stubs. Also, your cordiality is overrated - usually on Misplaced Pages you have to use a heavy, blunt object to get your point through. 81.197.39.178 (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Blunt? No. You need a sharp argument, I'd say. bibliomaniac15 23:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The original deletion discussion for this template is at Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/June 2005#Template:Crap and associated Category:Crap Jackaranga (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, yeah, cleanup-rewrite sums up my point nicely. Anyone care to link that to Template:Crap ? 81.197.39.178 (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(Reply to 81.197.39.178) If there are many authors, then you'll have many editors to assist you in shaping up the article. Adding a {{Shit}} template does not serve to advance the project, in my humble opinion but rather to throw mud on everyone near you while laughing hysterically. That's just my opinion. I try to treat people with respect, and I expect they will treat me with respect.Wjhonson (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, IMNSHO, you're plain wrong. Sometimes it needs to be said the article needs to be rewritten, and I'm watching enough pages to start on new ones as is. I've got a real life too, which consumes most of the time I could (but wouldn't) otherwise spend improving Misplaced Pages. Also, I quit signing my comments with anything but "-T", because the key required to sign is borken and I can't be arsed to copy it every time. -T —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.197.39.178 (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure if you submitted a templete request that wasn't quite as antagonistic as {{crap}} you'd find more support. Have a great day.Wjhonson (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeaaah. Because there are SO many ways to say "this article needs a total rewrite!" without people getting offended. They should grow a thicker skin if they're on the internet. And once they do, they don't care if it's crap or cleanup-rewrite. -T —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.93.198 (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(OD) Perhaps you could open a classroom at Wikiversity. Meanwhile us ogres have to make that supreme sacrifice to attempt to maintain a civil tone. I know it's hard sometimes. Just think of all the good karma you'll be building up, to counter-act that one time, you know.Wjhonson (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I've considered the possibility of a "bad article" process, similar and parallel to our good article process. We could use something like this:

Village pump (proposals) is a current bad article nominee. If you have not contributed significantly to this article, feel free to evaluate it according to the bad article criteria and then pass or fail the article as outlined on the nominations page.

*** Crotalus *** 19:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Template for requesting a translation of (a section of) an article from English into another language

I have recently come across an article (Sadaqah) that I feel would benefit with having a translation of its title into Arabic at the start of the article (rather like articles like Zakat). However, I did not manage to find any appropriate template for this, and was forced to create Misplaced Pages:Translation/Sadaqah, although that is not quite what I want.

I therefore propose that a template be created for when people want specific sections or words in articles in the English Misplaced Pages to be translated into other languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by It Is Me Here (talk • contribs) 09:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a WikiProject for translation tasks, or there might be one for your target language. Hunt them down and see what tools, such as templates, they have. Or just ask in their Talk page. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I searched existing templates already and haven't been able to find anything; what is the link for this WikiProject's talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by It Is Me Here (talk • contribs) 17:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Translation. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm really confused now. It says to use the "language links at the top or side of this page" for translations from English into another language, and I can't see any apart from the usual

"Languages:

• العربية
• Беларуская
• Deutsch
• Ελληνικά
• Español
• فارسی
• Français

"

However, I can't submit a request on http://ar.wikipedia.org as I don't actually know Arabic; I just want someone to translate that one word on the Sadaqah page on http://en.wikipedia.org.It Is Me Here (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You can look for a Wikipedian who speaks Arabic, at Category:User_ar. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And there are other useful links at WP:EIW#Transl. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Changing the action of clicking on Random article

When in a portal, clicking on Random article, should return an article within that portal. Eav (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "an article within that portal"? An article that's linked from the portal, an article in the portal's scope, or some mix of the two? Gracenotes § 21:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I would give my kingdom for "random unpatrolled". The community dynamics would be really useful. (unlikely that 2 people patrol the same page, and a quick way to up your edit count. Who wouldn't use it?) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC) not that I need to up my edit count

Don't understand. If you're talking about "Show me a random article, not on my watchlist", even having a watchlist of 10,000 articles would still mean less than 1 in 200 of getting a watchlisted article when you click the normal "random article" link. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Since late last year, all recent edits by untrusted users get flagged as "unpatrolled". A trusted user can then mark those pages as "patrolled" again. Currently there's several ways to check for patrolled pages, but the most useful method (show a random unpatrolled page) is missing so far. (If everyone gets sent to a random unpatrolled edit while patrolling, odds are good that everyone gets sent to *different* unpatrolled edits, leading to much less duplication of effort and/or edit conflicts) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

April Fools Day

Every year google has an april fool's hoax (see Google's hoaxes ). Should wikipedia have something like this? It would be a great publicity stunt (like the google hoaxes) and increase the circulation of the other lesser know Wikimedia brands as well as livening up the image of wikipedia (as a dull lifeless encyclopedia).... and before anyone bags the idea, consider the advantages over the disadvantages Talk to symode09's or How's my driving? 12:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

We normally have a strange topic on the main page - last year was George Washington (inventor). Will 12:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean a strange topic, I mean something big (ie. a notice saying wikipedia has been taken over by Microsoft and will be called wikiencarta or something! Talk to symode09's or How's my driving? 12:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Symode09 (talk • contribs)

Been there, done that. Sam Korn 13:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It is usually not a good trick when it says "THIS IS A JOKE" at the top of the page - and I am saying we should add something to the header for everyone to see :) Talk to symode09's or How's my driving? 14:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Symode09 (talk • contribs)

On April 1 2005, it didn't have the banner. Personally, I would also remove it now as well... Sam Korn 16:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

For 2007, Misplaced Pages:April Fool's Main Page was used to create a collaborative Main Page where each of the main panels - Today's Featured Article, In The News, Did You Know, Selected Anniversaries, and Today's Featured Picture, were all unbelievable but true. I think that's a good model to aim for this year, but you'd better get started on it now to have it ready in time. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 04:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, looks like they're already working on it, but you're free to join in! Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 04:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Join in... where?Wjhonson (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:April Fool's Main Page, I think. • Anakin 18:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Compartmentalization (article title) vs. Compartmentation (correct for US usage)

Apologies if this isn't the right place for article title questions--feel free to redirect me.

With several other editors, I've been working on a cleanup of the various articles about intelligence (i.e., military or national). There is an unsourced stub article Compartmentalization. When I try to search on "Compartmentation", I get redirected to a disambiguation page on compartmentalization, which has a link to intelligence use of the term. It is mentioned that "compartmentalisation" is the UK usage.

Unfortunately, the US usage is "compartmented" or "compartmentation". This is mentioned correctly in Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, and in the Classified information in the United States articles.

My proposal would be to rename the "compartmentalization" article to "compartmentation". I'm willing to take that article in hand, source the term, and add examples, and/or creating an article on "Sensitive Compartmented Information". I might also create an article on "Special Access Program", which is the military equivalent of the "SCI" term specific to intelligence.

The disambiguation page on compartmentalization would also need to change the intelligence-related link to compartmentation. I can check with a UK editor on what they use as the term.

How should I proceed? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and be bold. What's critical is to have only one disambiguation page, and only one article. In particular, I'd recommend that there not be a separate article on "Special Access Programs"; articles at Misplaced Pages are about topics, not names. We're not a dictionary; better to have one longer article than two shorter ones. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Help me understand your thinking. At this point, (unless I'm missing a spelling) there are no separate articles on "Sensitive Compartmented Information" and "Special Access Program". There is an article on "Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility". The two categories are mentioned briefly in "Classified Information in the US", but I'm not sure it would occur to a new user to look there. I could see redirects for the two terms going to that article, and conceivably merging the SCIF material there.

I'm not immediately sure how to straighten out the redirects of compartmentation to compartmentalization -- I'll try, but I don't want to break anything by doing so. Far too many programmers I have known had their last professional words be "relax, this is easy"! Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I am confused as to exactly what it is you are proposing to do with the compartmentalization article? Do you mean Compartmentalization (intelligence) specifically, or the current definition/disambiguation page at compartmentalization? LinaMishima (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandal color signal

My proposal relates to the treatment of vandals. I do my share of recent change patrol and discovered, that our treatment of vandals is quite ineffective. First we warn them. Then, if it's a IP address, we usually don't do anything, because this could affect innocent users too. If it's a registered editor, we delete his account. That's something, which hurts only real editors with many contributions. As long as they don't go crazy, these editors usually don't vandalize wikipedia. The typical vandal is not interested in his account. For him it's easier to create a new account, than it was for us, to delete the old one. We only lose the trace of the vandal and he can begin anew.
Therefore my proposal: Is there a possibility to give the administrators a tool, which changes the color of dangerous IP addresses and/or editors in the article history and the recent changes page, by adding something to the userpage or page of the ID. Today, all names of users with user pages, which were not edited, appear in red. Dangerous IP adresses or users would appear in yellow, brown or another color. To be able to discover them, would make it easier to fight them. I think, that's more effective than to delete their acounts, just to have them create a new, unknown account, one minute later.--Thw1309 (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea if it could be done. I doubt most vandals would notice the change of colour of their username, and even less would know what it meant. ----Seans Potato Business 23:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Try reverting vandalism using irc://irc.freenode.net/cvn-wp-en, which uses its own blacklist system. Making an internal MediaWiki blacklist would be controversial, and some overly enthusiastic admins could drive away potential editors. An external blacklist system, however, is entirely doable. The software that runs the #cvn-wp-en IRC channel automatically blacklists blocked users, greylists those reverted by admins and whitelisted users, and can store reasons for inclusion in those groups. In short, it's a system that has worked for nearly 2 years, and seems to do what you describe, but is external to MediaWiki. Gracenotes § 23:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

When I click on that link, Firefox tells me it doesn't know how to deal with the IRC protocol. People shouldn't have to download special software to identify vandals. Besides, it doesn't address the issue; the issue is vandals creating new accounts from which to vandalise. What's the point of a blacklist of blocked users? Blocked users can't vandalise by definition. You suggested that admins might drive away potential editors, but I don't think that turning someone's username orange and paying super-close attention to their edits is going to drive any more people away than blocking/deleting their account. Besides, most new editors are unlikely to persistently vandalise as part of their "getting to know wikipedia" process. --Seans Potato Business 00:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Simply put, you're talking about a Scarlet Letter system. Or worse. (Must... not... trigger Godwin!) We aren't going to antagonize users with a system like this. Not to mention it being ripe for abuse. If you want to do it for yourself, I'm sure someone can come up with a JavaScript option. But I don't see any way this could gain consensus on Misplaced Pages itself. We do not punish users for vandalism, we block persistent vandals to protect the encyclopedia. -- Kesh (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not talking about a Scarlet Letter system, because I don't want to punish someone, but to protect the encyclopedia. It is useless to block persistent vandals, because they are able to create a new account. By the way, the criminological effect of a Scarlet Letter system bases on the permanent feeling of being identified as a criminal (or/and sinner), creating a permanent feeling of shame. This does not work in an anonymous system. The Scarlet Letter does not create any effect, as long as the bearer is allowed to wear a mask too. So, for the vandal, such a system is a minor limitation of his rights, compared to a complete block, and to us, it is a better chance to fight vandalism.--Thw1309 (talk) 08:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggest removal of 'please fix double redirects' message after page move.

After moving a page, the following message is presented:

Please check whether this move has created any double redirects, and fix them as necessary. For this purpose, you can use the following text: #REDIRECT ]''

However bots exists whose speciality is checking the list of double redirects and correcting them automatically, less than half an hour after their creation.

Humans have a special ability to think in a way that bots cannot, and their time should not be wasted on this pointless, tedious, demoralising work that is practically designed for a piece of mindless computer code. The time of a human editor is better spent on things that a bot cannot do, and sparing it in this way, will free the time for more productive purposes and boost the morale of all. ----Seans Potato Business 14:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is this issue being ignored? It's a simple way to stop people from wasting their time, so please support it! ----Seans Potato Business 00:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed it: MediaWiki:Movepage-moved.--Patrick (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

My hero!! Thanks :) ----Seans Potato Business 13:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Has the frequency of bot fixing of double redirects changed? The MediaWiki message now says If this move has created any double redirects, they will be fixed automatically within 30 minutes, but I thought that the bots used the page Special:DoubleRedirects, which is only generated every couple of days, to fix double redirects.

If in fact nothing has changed, then please adjust the message - there are advantages to editors fixing double redirects, though it's not a big deal to let them sit for a couple of days. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to "couple of days".--Patrick (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

How about keeping the former text, but also mentioning that editors need not fix the double redirects if it inconveniences them? "automatically" is a not a good word to use here, in my opinion, since the double-redirect fixing is not part of MediaWiki software, but rather some client software that runs whenever it's needed. Rather than a "couple of days", how about "the next time the bot runs"? There's nothing wrong with editors fixing double redirects themselves, and it is a good thing to feel useful :), so I do support including that as an option. Gracenotes § 03:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The distinction between MediaWiki software and client software does not seem relevant for a user. Also, probably more people understand "automatically" than "bot". A time indication is useful, otherwise it could be seconds or years. I don't mind adding something about fixing redirects oneself, but even now "They will be fixed automatically within a couple of days" implies that having it done faster requires doing it oneself.--Patrick (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is: include information about how to fix any potential double redirect problems, but also say that a bot (with the link) does it periodically, i.e. every couple of days, and that it's not necessary to fix. What you want to do is shield the user from information, and even distort the inner workings of the automated double-redirect fixing system so as not to bore the user with technical distinctions, which is not beneficial to anyone, in my opinion. A user who reads that a bot fixes the problem may be interested in learning to make a Misplaced Pages bot. (Hypothetical, of course...) The best way to learn what a double redirect is in the first place is fix one, so I see no harm with saying "here's how to fix it, and if you don't want to it'll be taken care of for you". Gracenotes § 16:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I rephrased it again.--Patrick (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I may suggest some further wording down the line on the talk page, but that's probably enough editing for now :) Cheers, Gracenotes § 23:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with Gracenotes. I am probably (again) too late, but my opinion is that editors should not be encouraged to just let bots clean up after them. Not only do they miss the chance to gain some very useful experience, but bots lack the judgement necessary in some cases; yesterday I had to retarget WT:I from Richard Evans (British author), which is insane on three different levels. The expansion of bots must be checked. Waltham, The Duke of 12:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm still frustrated that the software doesn't simply follow multiple redirects. There are cases where multiple redirects are useful - for example, where one may wish to split out part of the page later to one of its redirects, not at all an unlikely scenario. Why are we flattening the useful structure of multiple redirects instead of fixing the software to deal with this efficiently? Dcoetzee 20:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Not following double-redirects is the easiest way to keep the software from getting caught up in infinite redirect loops. --Carnildo (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Automatic addition of merge template on sister article

When a person adds a merge template to an article, A to be merged with article B (i.e. {{merge|B}}), then automatic addition of the corresponding template to the sister article, B ({{merge|A}}) would save the editor time and effort. You wont need to notify anyone of the change, 'cause they'll notice it themselves when they go to the second article. A {{mergeto|B}} template will obviously invoke a {{mergefrom|A}} on the sister article. ----Seans Potato Business 22:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this something too cumbersome for editors to do? I don't see the need for this, although I could write a user script, if you want. Gracenotes § 00:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The idea is to automate more tasks - how can there be no need to free up editor's time? If it's something a computer can do, I figure a computer should do it instead of a human editor. It's a bother to do it manually, especially for slower internet connections, since it involves three extra (hopefully unnecessary) page loads. If you write a script, can it be implemented throughout the project? ----Seans Potato Business 00:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Increased automation is usually good, so long as we don't develop a disdain for doing tasks simply because they can be automated. (This is usually accompanied with thinking that the converse is true – that bots can do nothing but the simplest tasks, since they're sub-human, etc.) The script would be implemented for anyone who installs it in their monobook.js, and would still load pages, but in the background. Gracenotes § 00:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

In order for people to install it, they'd have to know about it. In order for everyone to benefit, it should be automatic for everyone. People shouldn't be penalised for not knowing about it. Imagine if someone else had made this suggestion instead of me, and you'd written them a monobook script and that was that. I'd still be doing it the old fashioned way like a chump. I don't see the reason that anyone would object to this proposal - it helps everyone that uses at least one merge template and I don't think it hurts anyone. I just need to gather consensus support so I can take it to the bug report facility (assuming it's not something that can be implemented without their involvement (since the feature needs to be called immediately upon insertion of the template, in order for the second template to have already been inserted before the user gets to that page). --Seans Potato Business 00:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not something that would be built into MediaWiki software, since to the parser, merge tags have no semantic meaning beyond a set of curly braces transcluding a template called Template:Merge. WP:US exists so that anyone wanting user scripts can get what they want, or ask; if one doesn't know the proper place to look, it's too bad, but there's not anything we can do about it. Giving the script to everyone would produce the same kind of misuse and abuse that giving the toolbar to everyone has produced. Adding two merge tags is by no means a penalty, in my opinion – it's the normal process for editing. Gracenotes § 01:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"Normal" isn't necessary a good thing. It's the "old way" of editing, that isn't streamlined. I don't see how it would be open to abuse... vandals don't usually bother suggesting merges do they? And I don't think they'd be encouraged to try it... If this isn't done automatically then it isn't worth doing at all, since no-one would know that the thing existed and probably don't suggest merges frequently enough to make it worth the hassle of figuring out how to work the monobook. I think it is owed to Wikipedians, to make it as easy as possible to perform the tasks that they've volunteered to do. ----Seans Potato Business 02:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not as concerned about abuse so much as misuse; as I mentioned, the same happens with the toolbar all the time (e.g. ). If someone clicks a "merge" button with knowing what it does, that's a problem. That a user runs software that adds the text {{merge|A}} to article B does not imply that the user wants to suggest merging A into B; he/she could just be testing. Merging is a high-level editing procedure, and it's worked for the past four years with users adding templates. Gracenotes § 02:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. I had not considered the possibility of someone testing the merge template. Would it not be possible to detect also the removal of the merge template, so then it could be automatically removed from the sister article? It's worked for four years, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved. ----Seans Potato Business 10:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The 'save changes' button

Please redirect me to Bugzilla if this does require a change in software but could we please have the 'Save changes' button no longer being the default (perhaps the 'Show preview' button would be a better default). I request this because when attempting to use the shift and/or delete keys I sometimes accidentally hit the return key which automatically saves the page with the typos etc I was trying to correct. I realise that this is due to my own clumsiness but it would make editing just that little bit easier. It would also make edit histories slightly less of a mess because I would not have to make another change to correct my own mistakes in the main article or in the edit summary. Any thoughts? --Hydraton31 (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Some language versions of Misplaced Pages do force preview before you can save, so it is built into the software - just not turned on in the English Misplaced Pages. A workaround is to enable "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" in the Editing section of "Preferences".-gadfium 07:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be a change to MediaWiki:Common.js. However, at the moment, I don't believe it has consensus. fr.wiki requires previewing for anonymous users only.... --MZMcBride (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. If you hit the return key while the cursor is in the edit text box, this should insert a line-break and not initiate the saving of the page. --Seans Potato Business 13:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It happens when you are in the "edit summary" box. Is has happened several times to me too. Very annoying. In that case the setting "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" does not help either. −Woodstone (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a simple user script that asks "Are you sure you want to submit?" when you submit the form:

addOnloadHook(function() {
     var editform = document.forms;
     if (!editform) return;
     editform.onsubmit = function() {
         return confirm("Save changes to " + decodeURIComponent(wgPageName.replace(/_/g, " ")) + "?");
     }
});

If accidentally hitting return in the edit summary box is the main problem, or this one gets too annoying, I could write another script that causes hitting the key to do nothing when a form element is focused. (I personally find form submission from the edit summary box useful...) Gracenotes § 20:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to ensure that the save page button will only be activated by a mouse click. Personally I rarely use the return key to save page changes anyway but this may just be me. --89.242.143.22 (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to login! --Hydraton31 (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Real names

Some commercial sites like amazon note whether the name used by a user is their "real name" or not : it is checked with the name on their credit card.

Misplaced Pages allows people to use any name they wish, which is fine. But some people would like to use their real name and prove it is their real name (like myself).

Surely it would be possible on wikipedia to set up some mechanism for doing this.

I personally think that except for a very small number of situations where it is not safe to use your real name, real names are much better and encourage honesty and directness.

John C Mullen 90.11.74.49 (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC) (real name!)

The key issue there is "prove it is their real name." There's very few ways to do this aside from entering a credit card number, which is really against what Misplaced Pages stands for.

Further, real names do nothing to "encourage honesty and directness." Try reading some blogs on the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debates, for instance. Even though these people use their real names, often many of these individuals (on both sides) resort to ad-homs, indirect insults and other rude acts. And don't even get me started on politics!

Personally, I use a pseudonym because I've been harassed under my real name before. You'd be surprised how much information people can find about you with little effort, and twist around to use against you. -- Kesh (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind some optional way to verify identity, outside of proving it personally to the wikimedia foundation. Obviously Misplaced Pages:Admins willing to make difficult blocks and the idea of registering to hide one's IP are built on the basis of anonymity. But, for those whose users names make it blatantly easy to find them (mine for example, Jimbo, David Gerard, etc), it really wouldn't make a difference. Sometimes its nice to be able to refer to a person by their actual name, as opposed to some unpronouncable usernae. MBisanz 02:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is possible in some circumstances to identify yourself to the foundation. This is only done when necessary. You can also use crypto-keys to self-identify (though I haven't done so yet). I wonder if we could get pubkey login for wikipedia. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We already have confirmation of real life identity for users with CheckUser access and Arbitration Committee members. This is for legal reasons and I understand it's necessary but the process is impossible to implement on a larger scale.
I wouldn't mind any real identity confirmation process for regular users and administrators, as long as it is strictly voluntary. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Empty sections

I haven't fully read through Help:Sections, but I don't think it says anything on this matter. Should we have any recommendations on empty sections? I think these look rather unprofessional, and generally keep them within hidden comment tags myself. This also applies to sections which aren't empty per se, but have only a 'this section is a stub' or 'this article cites no sources' tag. It's very 'scaffoldy' and I think we should avoid these. However, I have no idea whether others will agree on this. I would bring it up on the respective page, but there won't be any replies, and it's one of those meta crossover pages where I have no idea which talk page to use anyway. Richard001 (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Scaffoldy is good. It indicates where you still need to add stuff. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is amateurish and unnecessarily messy, and I have always removed them on sight. I hope that all editors are bright enough not to need what amounts to the equivalent of a sign that states "put more text here". If a page is in need of expansion, it can be tagged as such if absolutely necessary. Adrian M. H. 03:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's not good. Never remove things like that, only expand. Otherwise people won't know that the article "isn't finished yet". Some people also remove redlinks for similar reasons. That is equally unwise. Misplaced Pages is a wiki, and these kinds of things help show where we are still weak and need improvement. All you are doing by tidying up is giving a false sense of accuracy, where in fact none exists. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think empty sections clutter the page. If you want to indicate the need and/or plans for new sections, use the talk page.--Patrick (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just old fashioned, see:
http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/Rules_to_consider

specifically:

• Always leave something undone
• Make omissions explicit

I think I still agree with the reasoning presented there. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks are valuable. On the other hand, empty "See also" and "References" sections, for example, are pointless. Nor, in a stub bio, do I see a point in setting up a half-dozen sections with little or no content - it just makes the article difficult to read.

If in fact an article needs information that isn't obviously missing, I suggest putting a note on the article talk page.

What Misplaced Pages doesn't need is someone who spends huge amounts of time adding empty section headings, thinking that this is more useful than actually adding real content. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Encrypted/https access to Misplaced Pages

I apologize if this has been discussed previously; I haven't been able to find any comments on this so far.

I know this is a big request, but I suggest providing access to Misplaced Pages over an encrypted/https connection. This would allow users to explore and contribute to Misplaced Pages without concern about eavesdropping by overly-curious governments, ISPs, neighbors, etc. (And, I'm hopeful that it would set a precedent. I'd like to eventually see pervasive encryption of even the most innocuous network traffic.) 24.6.86.200 (talk) 08:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

See https://meta.wikimedia.org/Talk:Don%27t_leave_your_fly_open?oldid=588199#secure.wikimedia.org. I've looked for info on this service in the past and failed to find anything at all beyond the address. HTH --Jeremyb (talk) 09:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's not well advertised, but it is certainly there, and (at risk of being slapped with a trout by the devs) I use it exclusively. See https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/Main_Page. Problem is it puts a much higher load on the servers, and is much slower. • Anakin 18:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Highlight all changes to pages that are unwatched in the RecentChanges list made by anon users

Many vandals edit Misplaced Pages but are quickly reverted by RC patrol and by watchlisters get the occasional edits that slip in, but what about edits that slip RC patrol and aren't watchlisted? Maybe these edits could be highlighted in yellow or red in the RC list like we have at special:newpages. I recently had to contact an expert pertaining to many anon edits to Template:Infobox copper. There was false information unnoticed for weeks, and who knows where this will happen again. I believe my simple proposal can help levy the problem -- penubag  (Talk) 17:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the spirit of this idea, but it would have to be made so that it doesn't seem TOO obtrusive looking to the eye. Arnabdas (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

CSS maybe? -- SEWilco (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm of mixed mind. 80% of the random low level trouble here comes from anon editors, but on the other hand isn't it against the spirit of anonymous editing to be looking over their shoulders all the time?Wikidemo (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous editing means that the editor does not wish to disclose their identity, but watching over them closer seems like a fine compromise. -- penubag  (talk) 08:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no way that articles that aren't watchlisted are going to identified to other than admins. And there is no way to tell which edits "slip RC patrol" and which in fact are reviewed by an RC patroller and evaluated as acceptable.

What would be possible is to do what another Misplaced Pages (Dutch language?) is doing - having patrolled edits for anonymous IP edits only. That reduces the percentage of edits that need to be marked as patrolled, and it focuses attention on edits most likely to be vandalism (something on the order of 1 in every 5). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Bots to edit protected pages

When preforming mindless tasks such as fixing double redirects with a bot, you often encounter pages protected (generally for vandalism). These would have to be dealt with manually and this is quite irritating. And they eventually pile up if left unattended.

I propose the idea that bots be allowed to edit protected pages. Since all bot edits are REQUIRED to be non-controversial this shouldn't be an issue. I am posting this to start a general discussion on the mater.

-- Cat 23:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Bots make lots of mistakes, and are often approved for things on the theory that if they do make a mistake it's easy enough to revert. Wikidemo (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any evidence that anything important piles up because bots can't edit fully protected pages. These are few and far between, and fixing double redirects can be done by changing a redirect page (I'd be surprised if more than one or two of these are protected, if any).

Then there is the technical issue that the software treats bot accounts exactly as if they are human editors, except that some (doing the most mundane tasks) have a bot flag. So the software would have to be changed to treat bots differently - essentially, to give them admin powers. And that, I can pretty much guarantee, is a non-starter. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, to edit protected pages there would either have to be a change in how the software treats accounts with a bot flag, or bots would need to be given admin privileges. The only bot I know of with admin powers is User:RedirectCleanupBot, and despite doing a decidedly non-controversial task, its request for adminship was still pretty contentious. jwillbur 02:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

search box is too low

Location of search box: left margin is fine, but it should be placed higher, more towards the top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.135.37.84 (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree; the search box is most useful (and obvious) if it's at the very top of the quickbar (left column), just below the logo. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to see a preview, but I'm really used to it where it is and it's perfectly fine to me. Reywas92 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

New Archive Box

I have created a new archive box to replace the current {{archives}}, {{archive box}}, and {{archive box collapsible}} templates. It incorporates all of the necessary parameters. Could I please get some comments/suggestions on it. And how would I go about implementing it? Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A proposal to alter Template:User for interwiki.

I wrote some code which would allow Template:User to be interwikied.

• Template:Usernewtest, English Misplaced Pages (original)
• Template:Usernewtest, English Misplaced Pages (with new redundant parameter!)
• Template:Usernewtest, French Misplaced Pages
• Template:Usernewtest, Japanese Misplaced Pages
• Template:Usernewtest, Dutch Misplaced Pages
• Template:Usernewtest, Spanish Misplaced Pages
• Template:Usernewtest, German Misplaced Pages
• Template:Usernewtest, Polish Misplaced Pages
• Template:Usernewtest, Italian Misplaced Pages
• Template:Usernewtest, Portugese Misplaced Pages
• Template:Usernewtest, Swedish Misplaced Pages

Etcetera. It works for all wikis.

Useful, huh?

If you think so, leave a comment at Template talk:User#Altering template-user to allow for Interwiki. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Gadget proposals

This has been sitting around for a while, so I thought I'd get this page some attention. Misplaced Pages:Gadget/proposals has a few gadget proposals (such as the log table and metadata scripts) that have been there for quite a long time with no objections, some support, but not many people commenting. I'm requesting some more input on these proposals or, better yet, for an administrator to simply make them into gadgets.

Please respond at Misplaced Pages:Gadget/proposals. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 00:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad image controversy, a proposal to revisit

Most of you probably know that there is a strong controversy regarding some images posted on Misplaced Pages article on Muhammad. More specifically these are the images that show an attempt to draw his face (i.e. this and this ). About one year back, on behalf of the community some editors and admins have decided to retain those images on the article. However, because of the changed circumstances (widespread awareness about the issue and a strong opinion against that decision) we need to revisit that decision. I have the following proposal to make in this regard. I have made this suggestion on designated Article talk page, but I have been told there, unless I get my proposal validated here, it is "hot air". So here I am. I request Misplaced Pages admins to go through this post and if it sounds reasonable, please request the admins who are deciding the fate of article Muhammad to atleast nullify the erlier concensus and reopen serious discussion.

Context of the Proposal

There are some arguments to retain the debated images on Muhammad. They are summarized at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. While some of these arguments have merit, there is a more compelling counterargument for not including the images. And the counterargument can be summrized in short as "the images are misrepresentative".

The FAQ page on this subject tries to refute the argument that the "Muhammad images are false" by comparing it with other pages like Homer, and Jesus. First of all, that's not a logic, that's an analogy and secondly, it is a very incorrect analogy indeed. It is a fact that Muhammad did not have any photograph or any painting drawn by any person that actually met him. This is probably the same case as Homer or Jesus. So no currently available image of Homer, Jesus or Muhammad can give a reasonable representation of the subject person. Saying so, the images of Homer or Jesus used on their respective Misplaced Pages articles have been regarded as the mainstream/popular view of their resemblance by many scholarly and/or popular sources. So these images, statues, etc. though probably have little practical value of exactly depicting the subject, have attained a symbolic value of representing the subject in the mind of modern people. This symbolic value may justify their inclusion in the articles on these subjects. However, this symbolic value is exactly what the images on Muhammad’s article lack. The images used in Muhammad page have seldom been used by any scholarly or popular source as the mainstream or popular view of his resemblance. These are isolated imaginary paintings arbitrarily labeled as "Muhammad", which have never ever received any acceptance as his representation (outside Misplaced Pages). So, these pictures have no more information value as to depicting Muhammad than a stick-man image that I can draw and label as Homer or Jesus. The fact that these images are old definitely increases their antique value and make them precious collection items for museums, but does not increase their value as a media portraying the subject. The "Fact" with respect to Muhammad's physical depiction is: Since Muhammad strongly discouraged portrayal of living things (including himself) his contemporaries never tried to portray him, or such paintings don't exist. However, throghout history there has been isolated attempts to paint him by both muslim and non-muslim sources, but such imgaes never got widespread acceptance as reasonable representation of Muhammad. And because of this fact, respected encyclopedias like Britannica, Encarta etc. have never used any arbitary image drawn by some historical person on their articles on Prophet Muhammad. By posting these images on the article and locking it permanently, a handful of Misplaced Pages admins are trying to distort this fact, and trying to give these images some sort of "recognition" of importance as the available pictoral depiction of Muhammad. Misplaced Pages's task is to establish and present the facts, not to give some arbitary imaginary paintings new value/recognition that they never received before, no matter how old these images be.

Let me also clarify that I am not comparing my "straw-man" drawing with the drawings on Muhammad’s article in terms of quality, or historical significance; I am only saying they are comparable in terms of their relevance in illustrating the subject. Of course those images are important and have their place on Misplaced Pages. They can be good examples of historical works of art. They are even quite relevant for the article on Depiction of Muhammad, because they indeed are early attempts to draw Muhammad. But they should not be placed on the article on Muhammad because historically they have totally failed to establish their value as a representative illustration of Muhammad.

Why is Muhammad’s case so unique that it has to be different from that of Homer, Jesus, or Buddha? It is simply because unlike all the others mentioned, it is a historically recorded fact that Muhammad forbid drawing living objects (especially himself). And because of this explicit prohibition, Muhammad’s followers as well as non-muslim scholars while researching on Muhammad have not recognized these images as an acceptable representation of the person. When I say, the images of Homer or Jesus are the mainstream view of the resemblance of these subjects, what I mean is these are iconic images that have helped serve as the representation of these people. For example The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints represents a group of people who have used those specific images of Jesus as a faithful representation of the person. Even if they don't qualify as mainstream, there is still a group that believed those images are good representation of Jesus. If the number of people believing they are good representation of Jesus is absolutely minimum, then those images have no place in Jesus’s article either. The point that I am trying to establish is, when we add an imaginary painting to a biography, it should meet a minimum test: does a significant number of people believe this is the available representative depiction of the person? Or in more “Misplaced Pages-like” words, can it be shown that independent reliable third party sources have reproduced these images or their likeness as a means to depict the subject in question. This is the test that Muhammad’s images fail. The references that have been provided in the article, include, University of Edinburgh and Ali, Wijdan. Both these scholalrly sources analyze these images as a part of analysis of histrory of art, not as part of their commentry on Muhammad. When it came to discussion of Muhammad, all respectable scholarly sources (including mainstream encyclopedias) have refrained from reproducing these images, because no matter how valuable they be in the study of art history, these images have not recieved any notable acceptance as good representation of Muhammad. Furthermore, by refraining from inserting these paintings in their respective articles, all these scholarly sources have tried to respect the fact that there is no widely accepted pictoral depiction of Muhammad. By going against this tradition, Misplaced Pages (or more specifically a handful of editors from Misplaced Pages, who have decided to establish censorship – in terms of limiting people’s edit right on article) is distorting the long established fact, trying to establish these handful of images as the “best available pictoral depiction of Muhammad”, which they are not, and perhaps least importantly have offended millions of people.

The Proposal

In view of my argument above, I am proposing: since Misplaced Pages’s task is to faithfully reproduce facts and information as they are available in scholarly sources, these images should be removed from Muhammad article, placed on other relevant articles, where they are appropriate (Depiction of Muhammad for example), and the article on Muhammad can mention:

As in absence of any widely accepted images of Muhammad most notable scholarly discussions on Muhammad have refrained from using any image to portray him, Misplaced Pages continues to follow the tradition. However, there are historical evidence that many sources have tried to prortray the subject, but never got widespread acceptance as reasonable representation of Muhammad. If you are interested in such images, please refer to Depiction of Muhammad.

This is not a request to compromise, or impose cencorship; neither is this Islamic law – this is simply a request to follow the scholalry tradition and stick to the facts, refraining from misrepresentation, which not only goes against Misplaced Pages values, but also destroys its credibility and acceptibility to millions of people. The request here is to stop distorting a long established fact that there is no acceptable pictoral depiction of Muhammad, because distorting fact goes against the fundamental value of any scholarly work. The request is to the Misplaced Pages admins to follow the tradition of majority of scholarly sources of not including such images while discussing life of Muhammad, than going its own way and setting a precedence not acceptable to a high number of people. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and its goal is to present facts as they are, not starting new trends. Thank you. Arman 04:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Yahel Guhan

• Oppose How many times do we have to go through the same old arguements over and over again? Almost a year of mediation that lead to a general consensus, and now we have to do it all over again? What more is to be said? Everything said has already been argued. Any futher discussion is just repeating things and arguements already presented, and is therefore pointless. Yahel Guhan 06:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have three comments about your post. 1) Consensus can change. 2) When you are deciding whether or not to break a tradition that has been established through an evolution over several 100 years, 1 year discussion is merely the beginning. And 3) I challenge your comment that I am repeating old argument. If you can prove this exact line of argument has been refuted satisfactorily before, I’ll withdraw my proposal. Arman 02:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Lor

• Oppose - While I appreciate your effort, and admit there is a little merit in your arguments, I'm afraid that the very scarcity of depictions of Muhammad, and the taboo against depictions of him, are one of the main reasons that pictures such as these are interesting, and valuable to an article about him. The lack of accurate depictions make those few that do exist all the more interesting. An article on Muhammad as a man, Muhammad as an individual, would of course need to consider very carefully whether to use non-contemporary pictures of him - however, an article about Muhammad as a Prophet, and as a religious symbol can, and should include examples of the very few interpretations of his likeness in art. Compare this with the few, and probably inaccurate depictions of Shakespeare.

It's also quite interesting how this controversy over the pictures being included in Muhammad's article will, in all probability, only reinforce the reasons to have the pictures in the article, by reaffirming the existence of the taboo, and increasing public interest in depictions of Muhammad. Lor (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this seriously, very few editors have shown this decency so far. You have four very interesting points, I’m refuting them one by one:

1. Scarcity of Image and taboo against depiction make it more interesting: There is no scarcity of image. The very first image used in the Misplaced Pages article, the one with “Muhammad” written in Arabic calligraphy, is indeed the best and so far only iconic depiction of Muhammad. Christians don’t write “Jesus” in Hebrew and hang it on their wall; Buddhists don’t write “Buddha” in Sanskrit and post it in their temples, but Muslims, indeed write Muhammad in Arabic calligraphy and use it at their prayer places and homes to remind them about this person. So, this is the true iconic depiction of Muhammad. (Are you thinking, how come it does not have eye, nose beard etc?). Remember, in the first place we established no true depiction of the subject exists, we are only looking for the iconic depiction. Many other articles on people don’t have physical image. Should Misplaced Pages being and encyclopedia assign an artists to draw them all based on imagination, or should it look for images that have some sort of scholalrly or popular acceptance as an image of the subject. Without such acceptance and imaginary cartoon drawn today and one drawn 1,000 year back will do the same justice to the subject.
2. The taboo makes the images more interesting: I agree – but all laws make breaking the law more interesting, so should we start breaking all laws?
3. Compare with the image of Shakespeare: Like I did compare it with Jesus and Homer in my original argument, the image of Shakespeare represent the mainstream view of how he looks. Even if you ask someone to draw, Shakespeare, she will paint a person with very wide forehead, beard and Victorian dress, like in the images. These images represent Shakespeare in the modern mind. But look, the images on Muhammad don’t.
4. This controversy over the pictures being included in Muhammad's article will, in all probability, only reinforce the reasons to have the pictures in the article: Absolutely right! This is exactly why I am opposing this. Today if Misplaced Pages breaks the tradition of not using portraits in discussion on Muhammad and uses these images and over the years establishes their iconic value – inevitably in future other sources will start to mimic this, and very rightly so. Why shouldn’t they? The iconic value of these images have been established by Misplaced Pages. But the question we need to ask our selves is NOT whether Misplaced Pages CAN do it, rather whether Misplaced Pages SHOULD do it? Starting new trend, breaking taboo, giving some images iconic value they did not have before are all part of a deliberate agenda to manipulate how the world views the subject today. Is pushing such agenda a mandate of Misplaced Pages? Or is it simply mandated to reproduce facts and analysis from reliable 3-rd party sources as they are? This is the question we need to answer first.

May be you are thinking we already reached the consensus to break the tradition, because it is the right thing to do. Instead of going into debate whether breaking this tradition is right or wrong, let’s assume a group of influential Wikipedians come to a “Consensus” that the Election of Hillary Clinton as US President will help USA and Humanity in general. Do they have a right to manipulate the article on Hillary to make her look like Saint, or should they stick to how Hillary is depicted by other mainstream scholalrly sources? Please think. Arman 02:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Nihiltres

• Oppose - I'm afraid I'm more convinced by the argument to keep the images, as an uninvolved outsider. I would suggest that a fair solution would be to surround all such images with <div class="muhammad-image"> </div> and add a Gadget containing only the CSS code div.muhammad-image {display:none;}, which would be a simple way for any user to have the article personally censored for them while leaving users who do not mind completely unaffected. Nihiltres 16:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don’t care whose eye’s hurt by looking at these images. Mine don’t. What I am proposing Misplaced Pages to do, is to stop misrepresenting a topic (which can only be done by sticking to the scholalrly tradition of how Muhammad is discussed), not to save people whose eyes or feelings will get hurt by looking at these images. Let's try to find the "right" solution, not the "fair" one. Arman 02:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

SP-KP

• Question - Arman, if the illustrations of Muhammad were retained in the Muhammad article, but grouped together in the depictions section, would this be acceptable to you? SP-KP (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No it won’t. We keep discussion on A Beautiful Mind (film), separate from a discussion on John Forbes Nash, don’t we? We keep discussion on Gandhi movie and the person separate don’t we? Then why can’t we keep Depiction of Muhammad, and Muhammad as a person separate? All other mainstream scholalrly sources do that. An imaginary painting should only be justifyably included in a Biography article, if that painting has attained wide acceptance as iconic depiction of the subject. Try to understand the rationale behind this proposed guideline, and you’ll see the right thing to do is not to use these images on article Muhammad at all. Arman 02:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Preventing users/anons from blanking

Blanking an entire page, especially established pages (pages not likely to be moved or deleted anytime soon), seems to be a common form of vandalism/newbie testing. Can this somehow be prevented? It is pretty much inherently unconstructive. --Merovingian (T, C) 05:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe some interstitial notice along the lines of Removing all content from this article/page is not recommended. If you are attempting to experiment with Misplaced Pages, please use the Misplaced Pages:Sandbox. can be displayed? I'm thinking of something that would work in the same way as when you enable the site to prompt you to provide an edit summary. --Merovingian (T, C) 05:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Letting anons blank pages makes spotting vandalism so easy that even a bot can do it. --Carnildo (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Offhand, I can't think of any case where it would be valid to completely blank an article page. (It might be acceptable to replace the page with a template like {{copyvio}}, but that's different than blanking.) On the other hand, if someone wants to blank their own user page, they should be allowed to. If such a feature was added, it should only prohibit blanking in article space. I would also limit the restriction to users who are not autoconfirmed. *** Crotalus *** 17:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Carnildo, preventing page blanking might just encourage vandalism that won't get bot reverted in 5 seconds. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

quickbar fantasy

Maybe this feature already exists? Maybe it has already been discussed?

Wouldn't it be great if you could edit your quickbar, adding and/or removing links. Imagine putting a link in your quickbar to your toolbox page. Then you could have better navigation at any workstation you're using! Sounds cool, I think. Kingturtle (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that you are talking about the user navigation at the top right of the page (Username, talk, preferences, watchlist, contribs, log out), you can change it using your skin.js file. I have modified mine to add a link to my sandbox, and to the log of my user actions. You can see it at User:Nihiltres/monobook.js, at or near the bottom. With slight modification, you could use the same to add links as you desire. To remove links, find the CSS class or id of the element to remove, and add .class {display:none;} or #id {display:none;} to your skin.css file (I've removed and altered some things this way via my monobook.css page, you can check that out if you want). I hope that helps, Nihiltres 15:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I am talking about the sidebar, that contains Main Page, Contents, Featured content, Current events, Random article, My watchlist, My contributions, Edit this page, Post a comment, Stop watching, Move this page, Delete this page, Remove protection, Discuss this page, Page history, What links here, Related changes, Upload file, Special pages, Contact Misplaced Pages, Donate to Misplaced Pages. Kingturtle (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC) P.S. But your idea sounds good too! Kingturtle (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Along the tabs, you can use the same strategy, though you have to specify a different container - the prefix is ca- for the tab bar. To add a tab, add the following to your skin.js (probably monobook) page, filling in as appropriate:

addOnloadHook(function() {
addPortletLink('p-cactions','/Yourlinkhere','display name','css-name','Tooltip text','',document.getElementById('id of what it should appear ahead of, omit this entirely if you want it at the end'));
});

This better? I don't remember the code for the toolbox or other boxes, I'm afraid - but the same approach should probably work on them. It does require a certain amount of knowledge of CSS, though. Nihiltres 16:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That's going to take me some time to figure out. But I will work on it. It would be nice someday to go to My Preferences/Quickbar and have a system there that's easy to use. Kingturtle (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want me to come up with code for a particular link, just tell me where you want it, what it should say, and where it should link, and I'll come up with some code to make it happen. :) Nihiltres 16:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You could have a utility function, addQuickbarLink(pagename), and edit your monobook.js to edit the contents of the quickbar. e.g.,

addQuickbarLink("WP:VPT");
addQuickbarLink("Kitten");

This still might be too cumbersome for non-technical editors, however. Gracenotes § 16:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I made something similar to this last week. Exactly like the "toolbox" pane I added a "personal toolbox" pane and put it up at the top above the "navigation" one. I did it with GreaseMonkey though so I didn't have to waste database revisions on Misplaced Pages every time I wanted to update the list of links I use (which has grown quite long!). I seem to remember there was also a bugzilla request for a personal toolbox to be added to MediaWiki as a software enhancement. • Anakin 23:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Good article nominees