Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

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

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

Wiki works really well whereas our law system (Parliament, laws, governing bodies etc...) only works moderately well, It is quite dysfunctional in places, among other things it varies wildly in different countries and tends to go back and forth changing things then charging them back again when a different party is in power. I propose wiki could create a project for a theoretical perfect coherent "theoretical Wiki world law", the systems sounding it and possibly how to get there from where we are now, wiki as a huge intelligent collective can think in such a way that one political party or dictator never could. if wiki was in charge words like "recession" would be a thing of the past.

u need an a new article im very curious and want to see how this article would turn out the article is WIKIPEDIA'S WAR ON VANDALS yea just want to see an article of the war over the past years

I would like if Wikipedia had a Korean version. It would be particularly helpful because of the increasing population of Korean speaking persons and the increasing power of the Korean public. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.252.184.1 (talk • contribs) .

There is already a Korean version. -- JLaTondre 23:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But in the home page, there is no version of Korean Wikipedia. There is only a Chinese version. Also, the translated articles have missing information. I would like if the articles were translated fully.

First of all, the main page only lists the ten largest Wikipedias. If you go to the full list, you'll find Korean. Second of all, that's where you come in - we'd love to have you working on it and translating. But we can't. Because we don't speak Korean. And you probably do. --Golbez 09:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean http://www.wikipedia.org/ -- all languages over 100 articles are there, you just have to scroll down below the search box. Korean is the fourth item under the "10,000+" header. (They currently have 27,839 articles.) By all means, please help to write these articles. Translate from English or any other language if you like, but articles across languages don't have to be translations of each other -- each Wikipedia is permitted to develop their articles independently if they wish. (And indeed, even if one starts out as an exact translation, they soon diverge as different pools of editors work on them.)

I think this divergent development of multilingual content is one of the interesting aspects of Wikipedia that's almost never mentioned in the press, and one that I suspect will be an intriguing project for research papers someday -- comparing and contrasting how different cultures write about the same topic, comparing controversies in article histories, comparing evolution over time, and so on.

Anyway, good luck, I hope the Korean Wikipedia continues its rapid growth so that more people like you can find the content they're looking for. Encourage Korean media to write about it, and maybe we'll attract some more editors there. — Catherine\^talk 04:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is presently a lack of candidates for adminship on WP:RFA. So, please consider nominating yourself or another editor you think would make a competent admin. >Radiant< 09:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In today's RfA climate, I'm not sure I'd be able to make it. There might be a reason for the ebb in the flow. - 01:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairboy (talk • contribs)

There's a point to that, but the best way to counter it is with a new wave of enthousiastic candidates. >Radiant< 09:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Chairboy here. I think that there are a number of editors who feel they are doing a competent, useful job without being an admin and feel that the whole RFA process is a way for people to explain to you that you suck. I don't participate in RFAs much but I still have seen what happens to enthusiastic candidates [1] [2] [3] [4]. It takes really devoted people to want to go running the gauntlet of RFA. Pascal.Tesson 15:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd love ... oh wait, I haven't written 10 feature articles today all by myself. Nevermind. Fagstein 05:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Obviously Chairboy would make an awful admin he didn't even sign the above comment! (yes this is sarcasm). JoshuaZ 05:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose As JohnnyBGood put it there are already too many admins and you can only be an admin if you don't have a real life. Pascal.Tesson 14:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose "I am unsure from the nomination of the candidate's reasons for wanting to become an Admin, other than to generally help out" (oppose vote reasoning by User:SilkTork). CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 11:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking the p!ss aren't you. Editors have better things to do than turn themselves into bland sycophantic non-entities in order to do that.ALR 19:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant, you should link this to the RfA talk page : ) - jc37 21:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the reason that I haven't yet even considered becoming an admin (or nominating friends) is that it won't help many people. I generally do not have much time outside of my real life to contribute, but I do help, start things so that they can grow, and clean up things that I find. I do a decent job, don't correct something that I'm not sure about (or revert myself if I make a mistake) and try honestly to help people if they ask and I have the ability. While I can't claim anything special (many of my ~1000 edits are minor) I have made a difference - I watch ~100 articles and have been casually rewriting a few articles to bring them past stubs. I've made a userbox that features as an example on Wikipedia:Userboxes#Grouping_userboxes. Despite this, the only time that I needed help with administrative power was when my user page was being repeatedly vandalized and needed a brief protection to discourage the vandal. I'd love to be an admin, but it wouldn't help me help more people through my editing. If I really thought that my becoming an admin would allow me to do that, I'd be on RfA right now pleading my case. Nihiltres 04:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the Simple English Wikipedia is an indispensable tool for learners of the language, I'd like to ask for simple wikipedias in other commonly taught languages, such as french, chinese and arabic. The Chinese one could be written in pinyin (just a thought). - Anders Hjortshøj 20:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by simple. But you are aware that Wikipedia has running versions in just about every language widely spoken on the planet, right? Pascal.Tesson 20:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the original English Wikipedia (this one), there is a simple English Wikipedia. Anders proposes that simple versions be created for other languages. —David Levy 20:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaah. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 21:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but I would tend to dispute that it is an "indispensable tool for learners of the language". And even if it were, it is of course not the object of the Wikipedia project to provide language courses (it is, rather, to write an encyclopedia). The problem with simple-wiki is that it isn't aware of its target audience. Is it for children? For learners? Learners of what age? Does "simplicity" trump "accuracy" (since, obviously, if you wanted the facts, you'd consult a non-simple edition) -- just consider its headline, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can change". They found no way to replace the "difficult" word 'encyclopedia', but they thought 'change' is "simpler" than 'edit'. For whom? Certainly not for learners of English who come from another European language ('edit' is from Latin and has counterparts in practically every other language. 'change' is Englich inherited core vocabulary). Certainly not for learners with access to a dictionary (as an ancient English word, "change" has a large range of meanings and shades of meanings. 'edit' has one straightforward meaning. This just what I have to say on the very first line of text of that project. The problems get worse from there. dab (ᛏ) 12:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the simple language writing faces a dilemma when approaching any technical or just complicated subject: it either fails to provide information or becomes almost normal language; or a compromise which reads funny and still omits most details. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 05:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see your points, and might reevaluate my opinions of the "simple" idea, but I still think a mandarin pinyin wikipedia would be useful.

Support Simple Wikipedias in other languages, such as Chinese. I am weak in Chinese, and trying to improve my Chinese, so I would find a Simple Chinese Wikipedia very useful. Oppose having a Simple Chinese Wikipedia in pinyin: many Chinese characters of different meanings may have the same pinyin. It would be easier to program a bot to read out Simple Chinese articles. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know I for one would love to see a simple wikipedia in French. My french is just good enough that I can decipher articles on the French Wikipedia on topics I know stuff about (like the U.S., Indiana, Water), but when I go to the talk pages (where there are misspellings, typos, poor grammer, abreviations, and generally informal language) I get lost. I'm also lost on more complex subjects. For example, they had an article in their current events section of their main page a while back that talked about a ban on genetically modified rice grown in the U.S. I knew just enough French to understand that the European Union was going to introduce a trade embargo against the United States. For whatever reason I didn't understand that it was related to rice, or to genetically modified foods, and finally, desperate to figure out what the article was talking about, I used Google translate on it. I rarely contribute to the French wikipedia, even when I can understand an article and know I have something valuable to add, because I'm paralyzed by the fear that what I write will end up seeming like utter nonsense. A Simple French Wikipedia based on the same principles the Simple English Wikipedia is based on would be a valuable tool for people like me.

However, the Simple English Wikipedia seems to be sort of an experiment, and one that, from what I've seen in my (short, limited) experience there, is not terribly successful. From what I've seen articles on the Simple English Wikipedia are written by two groups of people 1)Well-intentioned native speakers and 2)Well-intentioned non-native speakers with limited knowledge of the language. Take a look at their article on John Kerry for example. It uses words like "nominee" and "Senator" and "lieutenant governor" without explaining them at all (even by internal links). It would be useless to a non-native speaker with a level of English understanding equivilant to my level of French understanding. They might as well come here and read our article on John Kerry. Except that it's longer, it's no more difficult to understand, and it provides more information. Then, on the other hand, they have articles like Uri (an old version), with virtually no content and horrible misspellings, or Go Fish which might well be a bad joke, but if I were to assume good faith, I would think that it was a non-native speaker who maybe wasn't all that familiar with the game trying to explain it.

Moreover, English is by far the largest of the Wikipedias, none of the other languages have anywhere near the number of participants and articles as us. English can afford to have would-be participants split their efforts between a main encyclopedia and a simple version. Most other languages cannot. The Simple English Wikipedia already has more articles than 202 other language Wikipedias; do you honestly think a simple version of some other Wikipedias would be nearly as successful? Moreover some other Simple English projects (Wikitonary, Wikibooks, Wikiquote, but not Wikipedia) are up for deletion, see here. If Simple English is failing to generate enough interest for these other projects, do you think any other language will be able to generate enough interest for even a Wikipedia?

Finally, Simple English is based on word lists created by people outside Wikipedia. These word lists are established, known, things that already exist that contributers can refer to in working on the Simple English Wikipedia. SE contributers don't have to argue about what Simple English is, these word lists have been around for a while. Do other languages (like French or Chinese) have anything similar? Is there anything around that says what Simple French or Simple Chinese really is? Or would contributers to the Simple French Wikipedia each be making up their own version of Simple French? That's already one of Simple English Wikipedia's problems.

At any rate, this really should be brought up for discussion on Meta, as it has little or nothing to do with en.wikipedia. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I have a hard time finding an article on Wikipedia because I spell the item incorrectly in the search box. Often, when I don't know how to spell whatever it is I'm looking for, I'll search for it in Google. Google says, "Did you mean: [suggesting a spelling correction]?" Then I copy/past Google's suggestion into the Wikipedia search box.

It would be great if Wikipedia eliminated this intermediate step. Perhaps Google will license the spelling suggestion technology for a reasonable price. Otherwise, I'm sure Wikipedians design such a program.

I'll also note that this would be very useful in application to Wiktionary as well. One reason it would be good is because Google's "spelling suggestor" is better even than that of Microsoft Word's. For example, just a few minutes ago, while writing something in Word, it did not have a spelling suggestion when I typed in "rotweiler," but Google gave me the correct spelling (add a second 't'). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.72.48 (talk • contribs)

• You can always search Wikikpedia using Google, if you like. Just add " site:en.wikipedia.org" to a query, e.g. [5]. Because a Google result is seemingly much more likely to point users to the article they want than a search using the built-in engine, I personally think we should probably just have people use Google by default. Adding a "Did you mean" function to the default WP search seems unlikely... someone would have to write it and so on, it seems like a relatively complicated thing to build from scratch. It seems simpler just o use Google's. --W.marsh 00:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you feel that your misspelling is likely to be common, don't hesitate to create a redirect. I'm confident that redirects like Muriel Hemingway, Ghandi are very useful. (Anyone's got stats on the ratio of searches which redirect?) Pascal.Tesson 14:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect and searching using Google suggestions are workarounds. I think the people running this whole thing should talk to Google. You'd be surprised what big companies are willing to do for charity. Google might be willing to charitably license its "Did you mean..." software. Of course, Google might be licensing it from elsewhere.... To make it from scratch--I'm no programmer, but this is what I would think you'd do--any search that doesn't go directly to an article, run through Aspell (an open source spell checker), which would then output a few possible suggestions. Then improve the suggestion software over time through use. In the meantime, however, I'll keep both of those earlier suggestions in mind for my own use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.228.244.110 (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• I believe the problem isn't that we're unable to code it, but the issue is one of server load. >Radiant< 15:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • During some times of overload (or perhaps it's timeout) invitation to search via Google appears. Ricksy 22:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Would it make sense to have a hierarchy of categories? One of the problems with having categories such as Category:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles actors (see also the long debate here) is, for example, that actors suddelny belong to 50 categories. It would be pretty simple to have some categories marked as being "minor" or "of trivia interest". Articles would, by default, show only categories of importance and a "show all" would allow the full list to appear. For actor categories for instance, we could hide the "X award nominee" and show only "x award winner".

Note that this need not be an attribute of the categories themselves. It's probably much easier to implement by some sort of code in the article so that some cats show and others don't. For instance, this allows us to show category:House actors for Hugh Laurie but only on request for Dominic Purcell. This would allow the survival of somewhat less useful categories without clogging articles with too many categories at once. Pascal.Tesson 15:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid that would not be pretty simple. The software change is not that difficult, but it's hard to define objectively what is a "minor" category. This will quite possibly lead to lots of heated debate. >Radiant< 15:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I agree, but I'm a bit more optimistic than you are in terms of the debates that would ensue. I mean, we could have a note about it in the categorization guidelines and say, for instance, that biography articles (which, for all practical purposes are the only ones facing this problem) should try to keep the number of categories shown by default below a certain threshold of X. Take for example Woody Allen. I don't think there would be much debate about hiding "What's my line panelists", "I've got a secret panelists", "Living people", "Greenwich village scene" or even "Best Actor Academy Award nominees". Another advantage I see is that we could automatically hide all the cleanup categories. I don't think anybody will read the Woody Allen article and decide to follow the link to the category "Articles with unsourced statements" but if you're browsing that category, then it's good to have Woody Allen showing up there. This is especially true for categories that result from templates like {{cleanup}} {{nn}} {{wikify}} {{linkless}} {{uncat}} which produce in any case thes big can't-miss'em boxes. Pascal.Tesson 17:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that all references to the cleanup templates can be found from "whatlinkshere", I fail to see any point to these cleanup categories. Similarly, I think "minor" attributes also should not be categories. I really don't understand why everyone wants to use categories for every trivial attribute. I've nominated the (non-winning) Academy Award nominees categories for deletion (at least once) - lists are a far more appropriate mechanism for these. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Well as someone who regularly does cleanup jobs, I happen to think that cleanup categories are God sent. As for minor categories, I don't see how they're doing any harm, especially with my proposal of a priori hiding the most obscure. I think you might be taking too extreme a deletionist stand on this. Lists are nice but you don't happen to visit them by accident. I recently remember browsing through the category of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles actors. It's one of those trivial-but-entertaining categories that, like it or not, are part of the fun side of Wikipedia. Now I would never have actually gone and looked for that category had I not been visiting the article of someone who was in the category. That category is a typical example of trivial yet verifiable and perhaps interesting to some information that happens to be available around here. What good comes out of deleting it? I understand that clogging pages with such information actually makes it harder to find the most relevant information but the hiding feature is a better compromise than deleting the whole thing. Pascal.Tesson 22:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose that the set of various protection templates be revamped to be made smaller and significantly less-obtrusive to articles. It is my belief that placing a large template box atop any article that is protected, semi-protected, and so on, qualifies as a glaring and unnecessary self-reference in the form of metadata. Some other template boxes do contain valuable information about an article and its contents, like the set of temporal templates. For example, they might inform the user that the article's content may change with time. However, protection templates reference the inner-workings / security of Wikipedia and have no bearing on the article content. For example, the article on Nintendo's Wii has contained both of the template box-types I have mentioned. As you can see, the box that references vandalism seems out of place because it does not contribute to the article, nor would it necessarily make sense to someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia.

The only benefit that I see to including such a template so prominently in the article is as a service to editors. It informs anyone that wishes to contribute to the current article of what they must do in order to proceed. However, I think that Wikipedia's #1 aim is to be a good encyclopedia, not a tool that is easy to edit. It should always be assumed that the reason a user is visiting an article is to learn about the topic, which need not be marred by the details of the particular page's protection-level.

So, if the philosophy behind why to make this template as unobtrusive as possible is dealt with, I would like to make a few small suggestions for how this could be done. As I see it, the best options are:

• A small padlock icon in a title template, like the featured article and Spoken Wikipedia templates.
• A small sentence of italicized text, similar to disambiguation and redirection templates.
• A simple sisterproject or portal-styled infobox atop the page, containing the [:Image:Padlock.svg|padlock]] icon, and short descriptive text.

Since the last two options are fairly unprecedented uses of those styles of templates, I believe the best option by-far is the first. Some arguments against use of this format might include:

• This template is too small or obscure. Editors could not tell what level of protection is assigned to an article by looking at it.
  • As I noted before, the purpose of the article's main presentation should be to present information related directly to the topic, while attempting to make editor's job as easy as possible as a secondary concern. This could be accomplished by including contextually-valid alt-text for the lock image, which describe the level of protection for the article. The image would lead to a description of the particular protection, and editors would have to visit the talk page to further discuss the issue. This would not sacrifice much functionality from current protection templates, as the only context-sensitive information found in most of them is a link to the current talk page.
• Other title templates have a generally positive connotation, while the lock symbol would not. It would seem out of place.
  • This is true. The current set of icons in the title bar almost represent badges or awards recognizing a particular article for its greatness, either by belonging to the Spoken Wikipedia project, or by being a featured article. However, I think that the current template box used to signify protected articles would have a considerably greater negative connotation for the article, and is by no means less 'out of place'. As I have said, it contains self-references to Wikipedia's inner-workings. Whereas, the title icons do not explicitly appear to be a part of the article. They are simply an identifier for the article's status.

So, after all is said and done, here is a simple proposal for how to represent a semi-protected article, in the title bar:

--Inarius 19:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well, and there has been a huge debate over this at various talk pages (including Template talk:Protected). You should check out what they're saying at the talk pages and try to respond there. — Mets501  (talk)  22:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing me to this. I actually did check that page, but I hadn't noticed the discussion under the topic An idea. That is the only section I see that references this issue. Are there others? Also, I originally expected that te proper talk page for such a discussion would be at Category talk:Protection templates, but needles to say, it hasn't been mentioned there. I know that this has been discussed in greater detail on that page, but I feel that perhaps this might be a better location for the discussion since there would be several templates involved. What do you think? --Inarius 22:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am including a conversation regarding this topic (an implementation of the second option that I mention in my initial suggestion above) originally discussed earlier this year in Template talk:Protected. I belive it would be better suited here:

--Inarius 23:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else use Magnus Manske's CommonsHelper? Would it be a good idea to make a page promoting this idea, perhaps, Wikipedia:Push for Commons? --evrik 19:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone? --evrik 17:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the CommonsHelper? What does it do, what is it for? Maybe if we knew we'd use it. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 03:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a tool that helps people move free images from the individual wikis to the commons. I don't know if you saw this article in the signpost, voting on turning off local uploads. I don't suggest we turn off uploads on rthe en.wp, like the es.wp did ... but I like the idea of moving free images to commons so everyone can use them. Here are a couple of examples:
  • it:Image:Sagata_ct.jpg to commons:Image:Sagata_ct.jpg
  • en:Image:Campion.jpg to commons:Image:Campion.jpg

--evrik 17:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MFIC (Moving free images to the Commons). pfctdayelise (translate?) 17:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks pfctdayelise! --evrik 18:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I spend most of my WP time at the RefDesk. Humanities in particular, as that's where most of my expertise lies. Although I do find the whole thing fascinating, as well as a fun learning experience, I sincerely hope that I'm actually contributing by answering questions to the best of my ability.

One big problem about the RefDesk is that it's very poorly defined. The link to get you there mentions that it's for asking questions like: ""How old is the Earth?" or "What does 'lorem ipsum' mean?". As I've pointed out so many times on the RefDesk, these are very poor examples of questions that are meant for the RefDesk. In fact, if one were to ask the question: "What does 'lorem ipsum' mean?", a clever editor would no doubt point out that the question is inappropriate for the RefDesk, and would direct the questioner to enter: "lorem ipsum" in the search box, as there's an entire article on it!

Similarly, if one were to ask: "How old is the Earth?", the answer to that question would require only very slightly more ingenuity. Simply enter Age of Earth or Age of the Earth and one would be instantly directed to an article with every possible bit of information one could possibly desire concerning the question: "How old is the Earth?"

The RefDesk is a GREAT place (that's why I spend so much time there!) but it's obviously not meant for such simple questions. It's meant for either far more unique questions regarding particular scenarios that may not have ever occurred to anyone before, or for far more nuanced questions, questions that simply have no clear NPOV answer, questions that are clearly meant as invitations for a variety of responses with a variety of opposing POVs.

I think those kinds of questions are great, and I love throwing in my admittedly POV two-cents into them, and I delight in another editor throwing in his or her also POV two-cents into it. I'm a firm believer in the Socratic Method of educating one's self through civil argumentation by editors with a variety of POV's, to arrive at an answer that as closely approaches what one would call an NPOV answer. I sometimes even play devil's advocate, when I see a certain POV not being argued for. This, to me, is the essence of the RefDesk.

Yet so many editors, and apparently admins as well seem so uncomfortable with the idea. Whenever one POV is argued, they reprimand that particular editor by pointing out that "Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox!" Well of course it isn't a soapbox. Of course it's not a place to push one POV over another for the purpose of advancing any particular agenda. Of course it's not a place for editors to go around saying, in a completely gratuitous fashion: "Vote Republican!" or "Enjoy Coca-Cola!". That, I'll admit, is a clear abuse of the RefDesk. Yet I can't seem to understand why some people are so anti-POV. It's true, NPOV should be striven for in the actual articles, but I just don't see any problem with it at the RefDesk. On the contrary, I consider it exteremely informative for a variety of POVs to be canvassed, in as civil a manner as possible, in order to best arrive at the truest and most informative answer to a RefDesk question. It may be counterintuitive, but I actually believe that a fair number of opposing POV answers to a difficult question is actually a far greater method at arriving at a fair NPOV sense of the truth, rather than expecting everyone to keep repeating the same "NPOV" answer over and over again. To me, at best it'll lead to a rather uninformative, unsophisticated answer, and at worst, it'll just propagate political correctness, and I know we've all had WAY to much of that!

Therefore, I have three proposals:

1) The "definition" of the RefDesk as a place to get answers to questions like "How old is the Earth?" or "What does 'lorem ipsum' mean?" MUST be reconsidered, and a more appropriate definition should be applied;

2) The whole "anti-POV" rule, one which I admit is crucial for the "regular" wiki articles, should be greatly relaxed, if not eliminated on the RefDesk; and

3) For goodness sake! Whoever is responsible for "declaring" certain questions as "Answered" and thereby cutting off further debate, PLEASE STOP!! No good RefDesk question is EVER really answered. I actually find it rather arrogant of whoever is actually doing this, to appoint him/herself as ultimate arbiter of when a question has been "answered". It's actually quite rude to the editors engaged in a friendly debate, and ultimately, it's rather stifling for a questioner (as I've been at times) at getting a full answer to the question. I think the old week by week format worked excellently. Obviously debate should be cut off at some point, otherwise it would go on forever. If you haven't said everything you wanted to say after a full week, that seems like an appropriate, neutral point to end the debate and to move on to newer questions.

Thanks to all of you for considering my proposals.

Loomis 19:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love it! Great ideas. Now I just wonder how we can get that implemented... — Mets501  (talk)  22:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The basic question is what do we need refdesk for. It's been used for helping readers find answers to questions, for helping editors find resources, and for a more general enlightening debate. It's certainly most useful when it leads to improvement of articles in some way. Zocky | picture popups 15:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I answered why we need the RefDesk. It's for 1)Answering unique questions concerning unique scenarios that could not, by definition be answered in the regular articles because of their uniqueness; and 2) For asking nuanced questions that by definition have no NPOV answer, but rather require the input of several editors with different POV's to at least get a grasp of the issue. Sort of like the Op-Ed or Editorial pages of a newspaper. These sections are crucial to any newspaper, as a break from all the so-called NPOV reporting (similar to our "regular" articles"), and a chance to get an insight into what various people with various backgrounds "think" about a certain issue. I've been to other "discussion pages" and they're utter failures. They're just made up of unintelligent, uncivil people with polarized opinions engaging in a useless shouting match. The amazing thing about OUR RefDesk is that somehow our editors tend to be civil and intelligent, and OUR debates rarely descend into shouting matches. I'm not really sure why we seem to have escaped the ugliness of other discussion pages, but somehow we have, and as such I see it as an INCREDIBLE source for learning from other intelligent editors about subjects that fascinate me. Loomis 15:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing this very important feature to watch articles added to categories. I'm not sure if this has be proposed before, but there are a lot of categories such as Category:Wikipedians looking for help which need users to just enter it all the time to get updated, but users tend to forget, just like what happened to articles before the watch feature was invented. Michaelas10 20:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree, but this is a bugzilla question, not a question for the village pump. — Mets501  (talk)  22:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is bugzilla:7148, but it doesn't sound likely to be implemented anytime soon (if ever). -- Rick Block (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a series of templates created that could be used for unit conversion. For example:

The [[chemical element]] with the highest melting point is [[tungsten]], at 3695 K (3422 °C, 6192 °F).

... would be changed to:

The [[chemical element]] with the highest melting point is [[tungsten]], at {{unit-temp|K=3695|C=3422|F=6192}}.

Then, in the user preferences there would be a "Units" page, with choices to show metric, imperial, etc. If the user had checked "Imperial units" and unchecked "Metric", then it would be displayed as:

The chemical element with the highest melting point is tungsten, at 6192 °F.

If no preference was specified, it would display all three, as in the original. — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 01:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not {{unit-K|3695}}? The other values can be calculated by MediaWiki. -- ３２４７ (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good suggestion, and would eliminate the imperial vs metric revert wars that occassionally crop up. 3247's modification makes sense. Now if only the imperials could decide what exactly they mean by horsepower, gallon etc. ;) Zunaid 08:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So do I have to submit this to Bugzilla since it would require the addition of something to the preferences? — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 13:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wishing for this today when trawling through a million Premier League player pages, about half with their height in feet and the rest in metres (and occasionally meters). Impossible. Even if one adds one or the other, which comes first? Either way, an underhanded attack on US-European solidarity. As if the whole football thing itself wasnt bad enough. Hornplease 09:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mets501 recently created Template:Dist which does this very sort of thing for distances. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 14:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! However one important thing is missing, the ability to turn on and off which units you prefer to see using your preferences. It's probably gonna require something similar to our date-format preferences setting. Zunaid 14:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent round of debates, one issue surfaced again and again: Most (really, all) of us don't know what other people do on Wikipedia. It's hard to appreciate how much work is done, and it's hard to find out if somebody is already doing something you would like to do. So, I created Wikipedia:Job Center, where we can provide descriptions of Wikipedian jobs, both for newbies to find a niche, and for old hands to have an overview of various "jobs" and contacts to editors who do them.

So, pretty please, provide the description of your job. Zocky | picture popups 04:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting a page where Wikipedians are organized based on their Wikipedia activities (writing articles, fighting vandalism)? I write and re-write articles, aiming to improve them to Good Article statua. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's intended as an overview of "how Wikipedia works", to enhance navigation around the project. Sort of like the left column of "to do lists" at the Community portal, only much improved. Zocky | picture popups 15:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that wikipedia should not be censored, explicit images distract some readers from content and in some ways turn wikipedia into a shock site. For example, while clicking on an unmarked link in the "terminology" section of the Anime article, I was sent to the article for Shotacon which contains an explicit image which would widely be considered offensive. While I do not dispute that the image (and others like it) are legitimate and relavent to their articles, I am confident that many people who use wikipedia would appreciate it if they could read articles on subjects pertaining to material they may find offensive, without the fear of being subjected to the offensive material itself. For example, I wish to read the article on Public Hair to learn about its relation to sanitation and pheremones, but do not wish to be subjected to the nude photographs which accompany the page. This is why I propose that there should be an option for registered users to disable images in wikipedia if they so choose. This would allow users to censor themselves from what they do not wish to see, and would not compromise wikipedia's existing policies. Ziiv 07:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it would be very handy to disable images, not to prevent the display of possibly offensive material, but to speed up delivery of content. A preferences option to disable images and a button in the nav panel to display the images would probably save Wikipedia huge amounts of bandwidth, and users equally huge amounts of time.--Dave 08:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not get a web browser (or browser extension) that provides this feature. Opera, for example, has such a button and there's probably a plugin for Firefox, too. -- ３２４７ (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putting img {display:none;} in monobook.css will hide the images. However, this includes the toolbar buttons and the enhanced Recent Changes, but the Wikipedia logo and the user icon at the top will not be affected. Tra (Talk) 13:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support the idea for both reasons previously posted: not seeing shock images, and improving performance/loading speed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if it would be possible in the many geographical articles availble to put a google earth placemark to be able to view the location of the item talked about in the article. Many articles include a Latitude and a Longitude, but its not always easy to locate things that way. Since google earth basic is a shareware that most poeple can download and use free, I think it could be a nice addition that can complement pictures. Artephius 20:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The latitude and longitude is often hyperlinked to a page that displays links to various pages where a map can be generated. The Google Earth link is somewhere near the bottom. Tra (Talk) 20:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking that if Wikipedia were to start letting companies advertise via the site, that it could earn a lot of money that way. Wikipedia is one of the most visited sites on the net, and I'm sure that companies would jump at the chance to advertise here.--Rouge Rosado Oui? 22:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason Wikipedia is so popular is, in a large part, because there is no advertising (ecept for the drives...ugh...). Besides, it's distracting (maybe Google text ads?).--HereToHelp 22:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that WikiPedia SHOULD have ads, as long as:
1. They are placed on a common "Ads" page and on the closest related page
2. There is a setting which allows users to block ads when they browse. Guests would have the ads up all the time.
--Cricket Boy 03:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but HECK NO!!!! By doing ads, Wikipedia no longer appears neutral to the public. [[User:Nwwaew|Nwwaew]] 03:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google AdSense would help fund Wikipedia. In addition, since the ads will be based on the content of the articles, they will be beneficial to the readers as well. They are small and unobstrusive, and most browsers have options for blocking ads (registered users should be allowed to specify in their preferences whether they wish to block ads or not). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many people (wrong or right) would then think that Google might want some control over our content. I know Google has rules for Adsense on forums, so... --Golbez 04:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how could we thenafter claim that WP is non-profit if it then makes money out of it? Lincher 04:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, who's to say they would make a true profit? They could simply funnel the moneys from advertising back into the foundation, improving servers, services, etc. This isn't to include their pay. Non-profit organizations are allowed to sell things. --Golbez 04:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not going to happen, but I'll point this out anyway: If something like adsense was used, that would give the incentive to advertisers to edit target articles so that their ad gets shown more often. Zocky | picture popups

This is a perrenial proposal that comes up every week or so and has been discussed in-depth many times. We should really list it somewhere for future reference. Deco 08:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Jimbo ever decides that Wikipedia needs advertisers, he'll do it. Until that day, we seem to be in no danger of the bills not being paid. wikipediatrix 17:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll add it to WP:PEREN. >Radiant< 12:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get really annoyed by all the images out there that could use some editing (usually to remove the background). My idea is to create a page where people with the appropriate software to edit images well can take requests from those of us who don't have such means. (Feel free to play with the title of the page—image modification, for instance.)--HereToHelp 22:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I uploaded a few images which could really do with some photoshopping (which I am not good at). Perhaps a template to put on the image page and a category would be more practical than a Wikipedia page. Like Category:Fair use size reduction request and the corresponding {{fair use reduce}}. Garion96 (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although on the one hand perhaps it would be more practical for this to be on Wikimedia Commons. (if it doesn't exist there already) Garion96 (talk) 23:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflicted) And we'd have to get people with the software capability to actually keep track of the category. The template should include a field of what you want the person to do, and a place for you to sign and date it. As for the Commons...interesting idea, since we can't modify fair use stuff.--HereToHelp 23:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just try contacting some of the people at Wikipedia:Requested pictures, Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Graphic artists, or even Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates -- many talented graphics folks there who take requests. — Catherine\^talk 05:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my proposal at User:Poccil/uploadlist and comment on it. My changes to the list in part reflect practices on Wikimedia Commons. Peter O. (Talk) 04:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we have a listing under the navigation box or toolbox that makes it easy to email an article? Most other sites make allowance for this.216.164.152.36 13:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want it to e-mail the article as it exists when e-mailed, or do you just want to send the link to someone? — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 13:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't your browser have this feature? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, if your browser has this feature, it automatically sends the e-mail using Outlook or some similar program. Not everyone uses Outlook, or necessarily wants to send it from the e-mail address that is tied to their Outlook. Some people use multiple computers, and don't always have their Outook on the computer they are using. I think what the person is suggesting is a feature more like cnn.com's e-mail this article feature, where you type in the from address as well as the to one. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 03:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be nice to know if an article is featured before clicking on its link? It's not a particularly necessary change, but it would be quite useful. Also, I think, people would be more likely to check out an article knowing it's featured. The easiest, most non-intrusive way of implementing this that I can think of would be to change the the colour of links to FAs from blue to gold, thereby making an easily recognisable but not visually clunky or annoying indication that the article is featured. Anybody with me? RWhite 17:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The MediaWiki software is used for many projects besides Wikipedia and, currently, the software itself has absolutely no knowledge of whether a Wikipedia article is "featured" or not. To implement this suggestion, the software would have to be changed to allow some articles to be designated as special in some way, and then allow the link format for "special" articles to be changed independently of the regular link format. I suspect this change won't be made, but you're welcome to suggest it as an enhancement using wikipedia:bugzilla. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is being featured really so fundamentally critical that it needs to be known before you even click on it? We don't even differentiate between links to different namespaces. Fagstein 06:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is wikiformat for tables, blockquotes, Egyptian hieroglyphics... Does anyone besides myself believe there should be some for sheet music? --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 20:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. And the best part is that there already is one, it's just not enabled. (see http://wikisophia.org/wiki/Wikitex#Music). Now, how to get it enabled... —Mets501 (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals. ddcc 21:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to get your own name show up in a different color in history and on the watch page?

Like...back when my userpage was still a red link, i found it really convient because i could immediately pick out where my edits where on the history for an article, or on my watchlist. Now that my userpage is no longer a red link, it's a bit annoying trying to pick out my name on history pages and watchlists.

So i don't suppose there's any way to make my name show up differently on history and watchlist for me?

If there isn't, would such a feature be possible to add? (as in people when logged in, will see their own names on history pages and watchlists in a different color)? --`/aksha 08:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend making those lines bold or italicized instead. Fagstein 03:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I want to quickly point out one person's edits in the article history (doesn't matter if it's mine or someone else's) I visit their user page. Then click back to the history. Voila, their username is purple. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 14:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's....actually a really good idea ONUnicorn, it never occured to me. Thanks! --`/aksha 23:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they should just be bolded, like stuff on your watchlist in the Recent Changes.--HereToHelp 01:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that on viewing the contributions of any given user under Special:Contributions/User, you do not see N's as I have seen elsewhere for the creation of a new page. Wouldn't it be useful to be able to see in Special:Contributions whether a certain edit was the creation of a new page? Forgive me if this is a drastic technical problem, but I think the ability would be useful. Nihiltres 14:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Graphic warning

This is just an example template. I really think that this template is needed in many articles and is requested enough to get its own template. As you can see, in most of the articles with graphic images, such as the one provided above, they have been moved to the external links section, but a lot of articles didn't do it yet. I understand that Wikipedia is not censored, but these images can really turn people off articles and even case health problems to some; nearly all websites with these graphic image warn before showing them to viewers as well.

A proposal has already been made here. Michaelas10 16:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but Wikipedia is not censored. Joelito (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...I know, I just said so. Yet it would be good to have a warning messege so these images would be moved to the external links section. Michaelas10 16:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea. wikipediatrix 17:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think pictures should be linked to in external links just because they are scary or very graphic. We don't censor articles, moving images to external links would be censoring. And we don't need warning templates for articles with graphic pictures, because the fact that we're not censored is already covered in our content disclaimer --`/aksha 02:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a perennial proposal. We've discussed it many times in the past and the decision has always been that we do not need disclaimer templates. >Radiant< 12:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per this proposal, I would like to add

.messagebox.standard-talk {
   border: 1px solid #c0c090;
   background-color: #f8eaba;
   float: right;
   border:1px solid #000;
   margin:1px;
   width:238px;
   font-size: 8pt;
   line-height: 10pt;
   clear: both;
}

to MediaWiki:Common.css and remove the old .messagebox.standard-talk code, which will make all talk page messageboxes small. The only change necessary would be to change a few templates (namely {{todo}}, {{bot}}, {{move}}, {{talkheader}}, and {{warning}}, and possibly others) that should remain large to use .messagebox.alternate-talk which will be large like the current talk boxes. As an example, the difference is this:

Village pump (proposals) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

vs. the one shown floating on the right. Anyone object? —Mets501 (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Village pump (proposals) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

Umm, yeah. A lot of templates won't shrink gracefully (or even shrink at all) because the layout assumes a bit more than 238px of horizontal space available. If you want to try this design, add it as messagebox standard-talk-small and convert the templates individually, making certain that they're not horribly broken as a result. Kirill Lokshin 23:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I support the idea behind this, but simply changing the CSS now is a bit too hasty in the implementation (per Kirill's comment). >Radiant< 12:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. I rushed too do this too quickly. —Mets501 (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came up with an idea for a new level of user access. Some vandals create accounts that remain dormant for four days, so they can vandalise semi-protected pages. A solution to this would be for a new user rights level that allows a user to do everything a normal registered user can do, except for edit semi-protected pages. Temporary demotion to this level could be the result of vandalism to semi-protected pages, as a less harsh alternative to blocking or banning. Admins would have the power to demote the users, though most changes of user rights can only be performed by bureaucrats. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 21:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that if a user can't be trusted to edit semi-protected pages, how can they be trusted to edit unprotected pages? Tra (Talk) 21:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demotion to this level... For vandals? They can change account. For violating editors? There's little or no difference between normal/semiprotected pages in this regard - we semiprotect high-profile pages which are targets of vandalism, either constantly like pages about widely hated people, or temporarily in cases of internet flashmobs or the Colbert Report. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came up with an idea to make a new namespace, called List Namespace for all the articles containing phrase as "list". It will make distinction between lists and articles. Existence articles starting with List of will be associated with List namespace, if my proposal could get consensus. Shyam ^(T/C) 21:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very major and unexpected change but I'd support that. Will there be any differences between the list namespace and the article namespace? How about special templates for lists? Michaelas10 21:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually writing something like that up, myself : )
Essentially for the user, it's a change in naming from "List of" to "List:". This should help with searches, among other things. (Clarity is typically a good thing.) - jc37 22:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be nice if there was a tool which does a "down-n-dirty" copy of a category to a rough list format. (This would be very useful for CfD resolutions.) - jc37 22:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting proposal. Could we sent trivia lists there too? --W.marsh 21:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably if the trivia is long enough. Michaelas10 22:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was referring to the any number of "List of trivia from (whatever TV show/movie/etc)" articles, many of which have been to AfD recently. --W.marsh 22:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this requires large amount of work obviously but it will make search easier for the list. Some features can also be added in the list namespace to make lists also, but I don't know how feasible is it. There would be no requirement to type List of again and again in search toolbar. We have featured lists which is also in mainspace. That can also be simply replaced in List namespace. Shyam ^(T/C) 22:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What problem is this actually trying to solve? None that I can see, aside from the fact that some people have an irrational hatred for lists. Besides, how do you define "list" for the purposes of this new namespace? Compare List of Doctor Who serials to List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens -- one is a list pointing to individual articles, in a specific, non-alphabetical order, the other is a collection of what is, essentially, small articles, grouped together because the subjects do not warrant their own articles. Which one is a "list" ? --SB | T 22:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of saw it as a pro-list/trivia thing, it lets people who are obviously interested in reading/writing lists and trivia articles do their thing, without nearly as much interference from MoS, reliable sourcing and other concerns many list and trivia articles tend to run afowl of. I think it could be a lot easier to include lists and trivia if we had a seperate namespace for it, with slightly different rules than for the article namespace. --W.marsh 22:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think that it deserves its own Wiki, and I proposed it over on MediaWiki but have decided to not promote the proposal until they work out whether they're going to move the process to the Incubator. There are lots of different types of lists, so I don't see how it would make sense putting them all at List: (unlikely Category:, which has only one format). Besides that, there are a lot of lists that are unencyclopedic, but not without some kind of value, which means that one way or another they'd get deleted from here but could quite legitimately belong on a new wiki with different guidelines. Confusing Manifestation 02:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about disambiguation pages? Tables? Fagstein 03:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation namespace is really a bad idea, since they link to mainspace articles articles anyway, and there are many mixed disambiguation pages. Tables just seem good inside the article, and there are too few of them. Michaelas10 (T|C) 10:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of a list namespace. What for? Articles that are currently lists are few. We already have the category namespace. Trivia isn't allowed because wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and trivia doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Besides...i don't think moving articles from main namespace to another namespace is a good idea. The main namespace should contain all encyclopediac articles, moving articles like List of dinosaurs to a list namespace will mean we have two namespaces containing encyclopediac articles. besides list articles and trivia, what else can we put onto the list namespace that doesn't already go into the category namespace? --`/aksha 03:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that we can seperate number of articles which are not detailed and having various data mentioned. The artcles having lists are not very few. See Category:Lists for example. This is not trivia as the lists also contain imprtant information and data. One point is that we do not have encyclopediac articles other than main space but I do not see any harm in it. If a person search for a list in toolbar without typing List:, which does not exist in main space (s)he will get search page where he can fount the desired list. If an article with same name exist in mainspace as well as listspace then we can produce a reverse link in the list and in the article as well. I am unable to get what do you mean by what else can we put onto the list namespace that doesn't already go into the category namespace?. Shyam ^(T/C) 08:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The persons who have any oppositions to this proposal, please mark your oppositions with valid reasons. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 19:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main reasons expressed here for opposing it are that:

• It can sometimes be hard to draw a boundry between an article with lots of sections and a list
• It may be a good idea to give them their own wiki
• We already have a namespace for categories, so there's no point having a namespace for a list
• Extensive trivia (which has been mentioned) doesn't belong inside an encyclopedia
• Introducing the namespace will mean there are two namespaces for encyclopedic articles

Tra (Talk) 23:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Introducing the namespace will mean there are two namespaces for encyclopedic articles" this is the main reason. Two encyclopedia namespaces would be bad, unless there was really a great need for it. The encyclopedia namespace, being the 'main' one, is the actual "Wikipedia". All the other namespaces are more like 'supporting namespaces'. Having two namespaces spreads out the encyclopedia. Plus...places that mirror Wikipedia only mirror the main namespace. people looking for articles know they can just type in the name of the article after "wiki/" on the url. With list, it'll become "wiki/list:". Besides...each namespace has a unique function. I don't see any purpose for the list namespace, it just intrudes into the boundaries of the main namespace and the category namespace. --`/aksha 23:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response from my side:

1. It can sometimes be hard to draw a boundry between an article with lots of sections and a list - Yes, sometimes it can be hard, but by drawing about the boundaries based upon the contextx included in list vs contexts existed outside the list, the problem could be resolved. We have featured articles and featured lists sepeartely. What is the process to choose them wheather it is list or an article? If an article starts with List of then it should go into this namespace.
2. It may be a good idea to give them their own wiki - This is a different issue. I am prposing it to Wikipedia project. It could be better on seperate wiki also. But I am not seeking any harm in it on the wikipedia.
3. We already have a namespace for categories, so there's no point having a namespace for a list - The Category namespace has different purpose behind his set up. It is different from category namespace. The main motive for category space to connect differnet articles which are somehow related to each other what I suppose. The list namespace would be for only a single article which has not enough contexts out of the associated list(s).
4. Extensive trivia (which has been mentioned) doesn't belong inside an encyclopedia - This is not trivia because the lists already associated with Wikipedia have important data and informations. So it could not be said that the list namespace would be a part of extensive trivia.
5. Introducing the namespace will mean there are two namespaces for encyclopedic articles - Yes, I agree at that point that it is a bad proposal at that point. But there is not so big deal to have two namespaces associated with encyclopediac articles if it is worthful to do so.
6. All the other namespaces are more like 'supporting namespaces'. - This would also be supportive. Some special features could be added in the toolbar for this namespace, but I am not sure how could it be?
7. people looking for articles know they can just type in the name of the article after "wiki/" on the url. With list, it'll become "wiki/list:" - Right now we have articles starting with Listof. After introducing List namespace it would not create difficulty rather than solving problem, becuase the they would need to type only List: instead of List_of.

Still is there any issues which could create problem to Wikipedia, please mention them. If I am wrong at any this point to answer, please correct me. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 07:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A "thank you" to Tra for the summary : )

• It can sometimes be hard to draw a boundry between an article with lots of sections and a list

• Which is actually a good reason to have this new namespace. Also, see Wikipedia:List. If you feel it needs more clarity, Either be bold, with all that entails, or feel free to drop some change suggestions on the talk page. I'm sure that there are other concerned editors : )

• It may be a good idea to give them their own wiki

• Perhaps, but whether that's true or not, moving them to their own namespace is a great way to isolate them for discussion. There were comments above which said that they feel that there are not many lists on Wikipedia. I disagree. Would someone provide some data on lists?

• We already have a namespace for categories, so there's no point having a namespace for a list

• I think that any editor who feels that way should read: Wikipedia:Categorization, Wikipedia:List, and most importantly, Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. There is a distinct difference, and a need for all three.

• Extensive trivia (which has been mentioned) doesn't belong inside an encyclopedia

• One man's trivia is another man's vital information. Dates of historical events is a prime example of "trivia" which I would hope would be present on WIkipedia.

• Introducing the namespace will mean there are two namespaces for encyclopedic articles

• Technically, there is "encyclopedic" information also in template and category space. It could be argued that lists are not articles, any more than categories are. Which, I think, is another good reason for it's own namespace.

I've heard it asked: Where's the good?
The good is clarity, usablity, and readability for the casual reader (as opposed to those of us entrenched in wikipedian policies : )
Also, with it's own namespace, searching would actually be easier. When searching for something, hit "search", rather than "go", sometime. Look at the bottom of the search page. If lists had their own namespace, then you could actually choose to include/disinclude the list namespace in your searches. This would be great for those who wish to limit their searches to articles. Lists tend to duplicate much material in articles, which leads to rather long search results. And the reverse is true. Perhaps you just want a list of something, searching for a noun in article space may get you more results than just the 4 lists in which that noun appears.

Now I want to ask: Where's the harm? If this is done, how would it harm wikipedia, and its readers/editors? - jc37 18:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving lists into a separate namespace would take information out of the encyclopedia. Mirrors wouldn't pick it up, and searches of the main namespace would fail to pick it up. I think this disagreement comes down to differences of opinion over the point of lists: information vs. navigation. I think it's the former (like articles), while others think it's the latter (like categories). Fagstein 20:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fagstein, you made a good point. As mirrors are able to pick up images from wikipedia which do exist in namespace other than mainspace, they can do the same for the lists also. All the existing will be redirected to list space so that the former article space would not lose any kind of information. Shyam ^(T/C) 20:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am mistaken, mirrors can rather easily pick up other namespaces - Wikipedia project space, or Template space, for example. So I don't think that that is an issue. And I agree that the lists are informative, so can templates or categories be. : ) - jc37 21:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "vanity" is frequently considered derogatory by the subjects of articles, who then complain about it to the Wikimedia Foundation. This is undesirable, and it is a situation we can alleviate by trying not to use the term "vanity" in deletion debates and such (there's a host of other terms that are not offensive, such as "unencyclopedic"). To give people the right idea, I would suggest renaming the {{nothanks-vanity}}. I would like to hear suggestions and feedback about this; I've also asked the RCP and the CVU. >Radiant< 12:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - we should try to get rid of the term "vanity". How about {{nothanks-a7}}? That is cryptic but inoffensive. Kusma (討論) 12:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know... if people remember to subst the template, then the message target never sees the "vanity" and it's an easier shortcut for people leaving the message to remember. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 18:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the trick is to find another shortcut that's easy to remember - because if people think of the term 'vanity' so often, they'll also use it in deletion debates, which is what we're trying to avoid. >Radiant< 21:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When doing mass edits on these sorts of articles a number of times I have mistakenly put a template for one county on an article for a village in another. I would like to propose changing all of these from Town Name to Town Name, County. It would also help users make sure they are at the correct article. Lcarsdata (Talk) 17:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But then, there would be the question of whether to use the pre-1974 county, the 1974-1990s county, or the current modern county. Each has its own proponent. Bluap 17:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over perennial proposals, I spotted this one:

• Proposal: inactive admins should have their admin status revoked automatically after a given time period. The reasoning behind this is generally that the accounts might be compromised.
• Not a good idea because: an inactive account is less likely to be compromised than an active one (and also, if a vandal had successfully breached an admin's account, he would presumably use it for something and not let it stay inactive).
• See also: Wikipedia:Inactive administrators

Although I agree that demoting inactive admins, even on a temporary basis, is not a great idea, the reason given here is not credible. There's a reason system administrators routinely deactivate idle accounts - if a large number of inactive accounts are left lying around, it's highly probable that an attacker can perform a successful dictionary attack against at least one of them, especially in a system like Wikipedia where password quality is not enforced and login attempts are not restricted. To quote password cracking, "Repeated research over some 40 years has demonstrated that around 40% of user-chosen passwords are readily guessable by programs." Even if you assume only a 2% chance of cracking each user's password, the chance of breaking one among a pool of 100 independent users is 87%.

On the other hand, active accounts frequently transmit their password in plaintext when logging in, making it easy to capture with packet sniffers located anywhere on the route (in particular, from any machine attached to the same hub as the admin's machine). Web proxies may also easily be configured to log this information, which many admins use.

In short, all admin accounts are highly vulnerable, whether active or inactive. I think a more effective defense is to say that promoting and demoting accounts manually is a hassle, and it's easy to reverse any damage done by a compromised account. Deco 00:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd agree that all accounts are equally vulnerable with respect to dictionary attacks, and active accounts have the additional vulnerability to packet sniffing. This does imply that active accounts are more vulnerable total, does it not? >Radiant< 09:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main difference is that inactive accounts never change their password, making it possible to crack a pool of them systematically over a long period of time. Admittedly, active admins don't change their passwords either nearly as often as they should. Deco 09:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we eliminate links to executable-binary or compressed-package files (.exe, .zip, .tar.gz etc.) without an intervening page on the hosting site, for several reasons:

• If the downloads turn out to contain malware, we may get blamed by automated site safety inspectors. [7] Even if not, it would make us look unprofessional.
• I, for one, prefer to see a site before I download software from it.
• As much as possible, users should be aware of the file size, ‘official’ description and system requirements before they begin downloading.
• Not all users will recognize the file extensions, if all their computing experience has been with the wrong platform; so for all they know, these could be spreadsheets or video files.
• Wikipedia articles are supposed to be cross-platform, and AFAIK this extends to the files they directly link to.
• On school and public computers, you can't necessarily install and run decompression software, due to draconian security policies (which, in my experience, cripple legitimate use more than the small percentage of malware/abuse they stop would) and lack of hard drive access.

This is the natural extension of the existing "rich media" guidelines at Wikipedia:External link (which I think should maybe be spun off onto a separate page). We can use the above link (although it's probably not updated often enough) to find some of these links. NeonMerlin 02:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe you should ask User:Gmaxwell about this. >Radiant< 09:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• On a similar note, I'd like to see a bot that automatically adds a warning to all .pdf links that it is such. One could be made for .exe and .zip files as well, but I can't think of any reason why an article would ever need to link to an .exe file. wikipediatrix 16:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • PDFs are already identified by an icon. Previously, I identified links as PDFs manually in case someone does not know how to check links and so that they are easier to spot. I do not think that a policy for zip and exe files is needed very much. I almost never see such links and the decision to link or not link might be better decided on a case by case basis. If we are to do anything, I suggest that it simply be noted on Wikipedia:External links that there is rarely a reason to link to an exe, directly or indirectly, and that zip files should be linked to carefully. It should also say that when there is a page that can be linked to with a prominent link to the file, that should be done instead. If it would be easy to create an identifier for such files, as was done for PDFs, that would be useful, too. I am unfamiliar with tar.gz files (and not very familiar with exe files, since I have a Macintosh). If it is zip-like, then it should follow those rules and if it is exe-like, it should follow the other rules. If no automatic identifiers are created and a link is appropriate, I suggest that zip, exe, tar.gz, doc, xls, ppt, pps, dmg and other non-html files be identified by placing the file extension in parentheses. I do not think that image file formats should be linked to at all since it is considered by some to be bandwidth stealing. -- Kjkolb 06:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a link to contributions in the user talk and or user namespace section. When warning vandals its a bit of a runaround to get to their contributions. All in all the whole navigation through user talk, namespace and contributions could be a little bit more intuitive. RichMac 02:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On both user talk page and user pages there is a link to "User contributions" on the left hand side of the screen in the toolbox (at least there is in MonoBook (default)), as well as for every entry for each user edit in all history pages. Have you missed that link? If not, what is counterintuitive about it? (or am I misunderstanding the meaning of your post).--Fuhghettaboutit 02:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've completely missed that toolbox, I need to scroll down at my resolution, my bad. I'm generally looking near the top of the page. Thanks, that'll save me a lot of time in navigationRichMac 04:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of service. I suspected that you had missed the link. If it's any consolation, I have many times looked high and low for a pencil that I had tucked behind my ear.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never noticed that either! I've always visited the page history of a page I knew the person had edited to click on "contribs". That's why I put a link to my contributions in my signature; to make it easier on others. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 15:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't the first letter of every word in a title supposed to be capitalized? So why aren't the first letters of all the words in Wikipedia articles capitalized? That would mean the section headings too. And then there's the template that says, i.e.: iPod, the first letter of the article is specifically supposed to be uncapitalized. It teaches the reader how to write iPod, but then none of the articles have a lineatthetop to say [something like] how you're supposed to capitalize the word, when you should, when you shouldn't, i.e.: if it is the first word of a sentence of in a title, or if it compounded into a name, and never in all other circumstances.100110100 07:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

messages about how the first letter of the article title is meant to be uncaptilized are not meant to be teaching people how to captilize things. They're a notice to outside readers who may not understand why something like iPod is being titled IPod --`/aksha 08:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capital letters give visual weight to a string of words, making it easier to pick out a title in the Middle of a Block of Text. The capital letters also take a bit more processing power to read, so you slow down when reading over them. Article and section titles do not need to be capitalized because they are several times the size of the article text. — Jonathan Kovaciny (talk|contribs) 14:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a proposed guideline about articles on local malls, parks, masts etc. It appears to be stable and already in use, but feedback would still be appreciated. >Radiant< 09:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a feature request to allow admins to block an editor, but not the associated IP address, and some associated configuration options. This is under discussion at the page mentioned. >Radiant< 15:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I wrote this proposal, I wish to clarify that this proposal will allow bureaucrats (or admins, since we don't have enough bureaucrats) to flag shared IPs. When blocking a registered user operating from a shared IP, the autoblocker will be disabled by default. In addition, the default blocking options for shared IPs will be different from those for non-shared IPs. This proposal aims to reduce collateral damage further. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that this must have been proposed before, it's such an obvious thing. There is already a <ref> tag which allows for inline citations to be cited at the end of the article. Could there not also be a <foot> or <note> tag to allow for separate footnotes to be in articles. At the moment there is no MoS way for the subheading for inline citations, i think most people agree it to be 'References' but then some think it should be 'Notes' having a separate <note> tag would prevent this as well has being able to have both citations and footnotes on one page but listed as separate things. chris_huh 15:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have run into this problem before and have used the older {{Note}} system to provide separate notes and references sections. Rmhermen 16:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's administration is becomming too strict.

If i want to write a bio about my teacher, i should be able to.

I tried, and the page got deleted because the person wasnt "noteworthy".

This is a rash injustice, and i dont see how having a page that might not be "notable" by everyone will hurt anyone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shmirlywhirl (talk • contribs)

Here's a question; what sources did you cite for the bio on your teacher? Did you cite any at all?

Notability is a controversial word, but to be honest what it really boils down to is sources and verifiability; and if we want to create a reliable reference, we must be strict on verifiability. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. If you want to write a bio about your teacher then get yourself a website and do what you want with it. We are writing an encyclopedia, not a directory of likeable human beings. Pascal.Tesson 16:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal.Tesson, some teachers are notable and deserve encyclopedia entries. See Category:Schoolteachers and Category:Educators for examples. True, not all teachers are notable, and true we are not writing "a direcory of likeable human beings"; but who knows, this person's teacher may be deserving of an article. Without seeing the page (which was speedy-deleted 3 times) you and I can't know. From what I've seen, articles are deleted because they are poorly written and unsourced at least as often as they are deleted because they don't belong. I think this is a major problem with Wikipedia's deletion system; but I don't have any ideas for how to fix it other than to tell people who complain that if their articles are sourced, they will be a lot more likely to stay. Notability and sources really do go hand in hand. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't disagree that some teachers are notable but they are very very few. In fact, if you look at the Category:Schoolteachers you'll find very few people (actually I believe none) whose sole contributions to world history is their work as a teacher. Some were renowkned pedagogues, some were notable politicians, some have a place in history for utterly unrelated reasons. I think the CSD criteria are effective in avoiding the unecessary clogging of Wikipedia by non-notable bio-subjects. Pascal.Tesson 17:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If your teacher is not notable, you should not write a Wikipedia article on her because:

• If she's not notable, there won't he enough verifiable information about her to write a good article.
• If she's not notable, no one will want to read an article about her.
• If she's not notable, she would not be happy when she sees she has a Wikipedia article.

Of course, if she's notable, the article must establish her notability.

If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, there are tons of notable topics which do not have articles, and you can write articles on them. And there are over a million articles which you can improve. Please don't get discouraged; try to become a quality contributor. All the best to you, both in real life and as a Wikipedian! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way references work is fabulous. You put <ref> and </ref> around a reference and the you add <references /> to the references section and all the references show up. More details available at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php I would like to request the same treatment for notes, i.e. <note> and </note> formatted by <notes />. People currently use the references feature for notes in some articles, and it is frustrating to not be able to have two types of footnotes, appearing in two sections. Albert Einstein is one of many examples of an article that uses the reference formatting feature for notes, so it cannot be used for the references section. — Reinyday, 21:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I like to think that the word 'data' should always be treated as a plural, but more often than not it seems to be regarded as a mass noun. I know that it is generally thought that using it in both ways is acceptable, but for an encylopedia it seems to me that it is more 'correct' to regard it is a plural. So "this data" should become "these data", "data is" should become "data are" and so on. Whichever way round people prefer, should wikipedia have a uniform approach? I'd be interested to hear your opinions. Mumby 23:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though technically correct, treating "data" as a plural sounds a bit old-fashioned and pedantic to me these days. Matt 01:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC).

"Data" is plural for "datum", just as "media" is plural for "medium". --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point Matt, but to me "this data" and "the data is", for example, just sound wrong! But that might beacuse I'm pedantic. If, as you say, it is technically correct, should that not be the way things are done on wikipedia?Mumby 07:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that Wikipedia should not have a uniform approach, because whether one wants to emphasise the mass-nouness or the pluralness of the data depends on the context. --83.253.36.136 18:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would help people a lot more if Wikipedia had a spell checker when you search for a word. Peopl would look for things it jsut says there is nothing to it and I personally look the spelling on Yahoo and then copy and past onto Wikipedia. So i was wondering if someone could do that...thank you

This has been suggested hundreds of times, but it looks like the developers and community are unlikely to implement this. Apparently, redirects and Google are enough. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See this thread to know in detail. Shyam ^(T/C) 08:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed on some pages, users can click a link which takes them to a clean page allowing them to add a new topic to the page without clicking on "edit this page". (e.g. this is what the RD one looks like)

I think it would be a good idea to put such a link on all talk pages by default, especially the talk pages for the main namespace.

A link that basically says "click here to add not discussion topic" isn't going to be particularly obtrusive (especially compared to the talk pages for some popular articles, where there are tons of template messages at the top of the talk page where you have to scroll down whole screens before reaching actual discussion, e.g. Talk:Charizard)

The link, however, has one advantage in that it should make adding a new discussion topic much eaiser for new users.

The thing is, even though the page is called 'discussion', i don't think it's completely obvious what to do on it when you're making your first edits on wikipedia. With an article, it's glaringly obvious - click "edit this page" and edit the article as you see it. But for a discussion page, it's not so glaringly obvious that people are supposed to edit the entire page like an article in order to post a discussion comment, or start a new topic.

Especially when the talk page doesn't exist for an article. I don't even think anons or new users will be able to start the talk page in that case.

This would mean a talk page will automatically exist when an article does - but it shouldn't be a technical problem, almost all articles have talk pages anyway (in the main space) so it's not like we're increasing the number of pages.

--`/aksha 12:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages already have such a link. Do you see the plus sign (+) next to "edit this page"? (The plus sign does not appear for non-talk pages.) --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but as is often pointed out, the little + is not very prominent. Newbies don't see it, and if they do they don't know what it's for. It would be better to change the + to an "add new topic" button. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 14:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It will make the top of the talk page little messy. I would suggest to have edit summary box for this action. They do not have edit summary box. Shyam ^(T/C) 14:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft is a huge problem on Wikipedia, particularly with articles about games and media. Most who contribute fancruft are anonymous editors acting in good faith. We should not bite them, as they could become quality contributors if they sign up and learn the ropes, but we must keep our articles fancruft-free and encyclopediac.

Therefore, I suggest we create a fancruft template and place this template at the top of articles which contain excessive fancruft. This template should discourage anonymous editors from adding fancruft, while helping registered contributors co-ordinate their efforts to fight fancruft by identifying fancruft-filled articles in a category.

In addition, we should create a series of fancruft warning templates, to warn anonymous editors who add fancruft to articles. Here's how they could be worded:

{{fancruft1}}: Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Unfortunately, your contributions have been reverted because they are fancruft, which is information that would only be of interest to fans of the article's subject. We encourage you to sign up for an account and make further contributions, as long as they are not fancruft. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

{{fancruft2}}: Please do not add fancruft to Wikipedia. Fancruft does not belong in an encyclopedia, and readers who are less familiar with the article subject will not find such information useful. You are welcome to sign up for an account and create further contributions, as long as they are not fancruft.

{{fancruft3}}: This is your last warning. If you continue to add fancruft to Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

{{fancruft4}}: You have been temporarily blocked from editing for adding fancruft to articles. After your block expires, you are welcome to make further contributions, as long as they are not fancruft.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, when did adding fancruft become a blockable offense? When did we decide adding fancruft to articles is "not allowed"? We have no policy regarding it. Among other problems, the term is poorly-defined and impossible to identify objectively; many serious articles contain information "only of interest to fans of the article's subject", including articles on 17th century painters and mathematicians. Blocking anyone for good-faith edits would be highly controversial. I would object to the use of any of the above templates. Deco 21:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback is welcome on this guideline on academic biographies, based in part on the old "average professor test". >Radiant< 17:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]