Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals): Difference between revisions

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.

ELApro: It would be nice if the Log-in window would pop up automatically when the edit tab is clicked. A cancel or anonymous user button could be provided for anonymous users. I have often gotten the majority of an edit completed before noticing that I forgot to log in. If I try to log in after the edit is begun, all the edit work will be lost after logging in and returning to the page. I have also noticed that if a period of time passes after logging in, the log-in is somehow lost while the user is still in the process of editing. It would also be nice if the log-in option would be offered before dropping a logged in user that is in the process of a long edit.

I second this motion. I've had a few edits go astray because I didn't notice they were posted anonymously, and once they're posted that way I don't remember to revisit them because they're not in my edit history. Technically, I'm not sure a pop-up window is the best option - I think that fields with name and password copied from the standard log-in screen might simply be put at the bottom of the edit form. Mike Serfas 17:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could just copy the text out to your clipboard, and then paste it back in after logging in. Most modern browsers retain text in pages in the history, so it's safe to log in and go back to the edit page before clicking save, too. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like a way to prevent myself from editing anonymously. Especially from IPs that I don't want associated with my account... — Omegatron 15:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yeah, this is definitely a good idea. `/aksha is right - move this to a technical section and it'll get noticed and maybe even implemented. Good luck. Nihiltres 18:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

I keep running into huge sigs that take up four lines in the edit box and drown out the user's actual comment in a mess of formatting. Would it be reasonable to cut the size limit for sigs in half? Unless someone has a (blockably) huge username, that should still be enough for a userpage link, a talk page link, contribs, and a reasonable amount of formatting. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see that. I agree with you that sometimes you can't read the other person's comments in the edit box because of the markup from their sig. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to get rid of custom user names entirely. They aren't necessary and just waste space. --Tango 21:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would only go for that if the current sig replacement technology allowed to a link to the User's Talk page as well as their User page. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes and yes, to all above. Reduce and restrict, for clarity and simplicity in talkpages and talkpage wikicode. Please! —Quiddity 21:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support the prohibition of signature elements that serve purely decorative purposes. Extra links (talk page, contribution history, et cetera) are fine, but it is annoying to deal with several lines of HTML that merely add fancy colors and fonts. —David Levy 21:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I remember finding someone with a 1k (yes, I don't lie) signature. He used to transclude it, so you would not notice how long it was. Or force users to write at least 2x the amount of characters in their signature everytime they write in a talk page. That would make some people realize how awful a long signature is for us "common" people ;-) -- ReyBrujo 04:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting perilously close to a perennial proposal: See Wikipedia_talk:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages#Propose_banning_non-standard_.2F_raw_signatures. from just a couple of weeks ago. -- nae'blis 05:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for a total ban, just a cap on the length, like two lines in an edit box long. This will cut down on overformatting simply by not allowing space for it, and cut down on the mess they make in edit view. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support anything that cuts down on the bloat. I recently had to struggle to find the actual post of someone with nine lines of sig markup. Fortunately he had included edit comment text to mark out its beginning and end... - BanyanTree 20:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Is my sig okay? --> Yuser31415 04:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC) <-- :)) Anyway, I believe per WP:SIG there is a limit on 200 characters in a signature, and, since the edit box is by default 80 characters wide, I make that 2.5 lines allowed in a sig. Is that what you would like? (If not, stating the specific number of characters you would like to be the maximum for a sig could help.) Cheers! Yuser31415 04:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely fine! Optimal even. Short and useful.

It's 16 line long monstrosities like this fellow's sig that are the worst offenders; anything more than 2 lines of raw text (which is 200 characters at my resolution/settings) is probably unnecessary, and more than 3 lines begins to get annoying fast. I don't know if there is a hard limit, but I'd like to see a 200 character limit implemented, or even less (150? 100?), or the suggestion from Zoe above. —Quiddity 02:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giving leeway to userspace type things like sigs is a good idea, but if it gets to the point that it inconveniences other editors, we have a problem. Suggest that it should be under two lines. —Dgies^t c 05:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second the two line limit. Sounds like a good compromise, leaving enough personal freedom while keeping annoyance to a bearable level. This is not MySpace after all, and the hugest sigs tend to be just font/color HTML anyways. --Dschwen 08:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about making the sig a template in userspace? Then we could just put our sig in preference, and ~~~~ would translate to {{User:Username}} where our sig will be. It would cut the clutter down as we won't see them when editing anymore and we can update all instances of our sig just by changing the template. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 09:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See #Transclusion of templates for why we can't. —Quiddity 09:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I've seen it but I don't think it's entirely valid. How many times are you going to change your sig in a year? IMHO not many people will chnage their sig very often and thus they shouldn't consume too much resource to re-cache. And simply protect the sig so only the user him/herself and maybe admin/sysops can edit should clear the vandalism problem is well. --antilived ^{T | C | G} 09:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{User:Username}} would transclude the userpage, and like that there would be no way to permanently store the date, which is an important part of the sig. Also having a template defies the purpose of a sig as a permanent unchangable mark. Right now any sig manipulation shows up on the history page, with a template much more sneaky things could go on.--Dschwen 13:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the 5 tildes that produce the timestamp only. It could be {{User:Username}}~~~~~. NikoSilver 12:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just some random user space link I used to illustrate the point, not that I intend to embed the whole user page onto talk pages.:) And also I meant 3 tildes not four so the date would still be in the page itself, only the sig is changeable. --antilived^{T | C | G} 20:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I guess I'll be the first here with a "long" signature.... you should get Why1991 to defend himself here. I really don't feel strongly either way, but I do understand that going though lines of code due to a long signature is pretty annoying. I propose a 5 line (in the edit window) cap for signatures.S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 20:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since most of my opinion has already been said, I'll just say that I agree with the above statements. I like Yuser31415's idea of 200 characters. I don't like the idea of userspace transclusions. I don't think there should be a total removal of custom signatures, as they are one of the few ways to make yourself unique. And now I sign. --Tewy 23:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought, but what about implementing this in steps (500 character limit, 300, 250, etc.). I'm just not sure how else the users with long signatures would be warned (is there a bot that could locate them all?) I'm a little worried that there will be this angry mass of users who all just found out their signatures no longer work. With a gradual system, it wouldn't affect all of them at once. --Tewy 23:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's now a bug for this; go vote your support. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice signature. -- ReyBrujo 01:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. That's to the point where I'd edit his sig down myself if he posted it on my page. --tjstrf talk 12:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky for you then I've changed my signature now so its far shorter :) RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a 250 chars limit would filter out most monstrosities, leaving the 'grey' area sigs for case-by-case evaluation. I also liked proposal above for transcluded userspace sigs that can be edited by the user themselves and admins only. NikoSilver 12:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer just name and talk link per Zoe. A max one line sig would be good, but no more than two. Tyrenius 16:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My sig's about 180 characters in the preference box (update: I actually counted, it's 193), but shorter on the edit screen (because I type {{subst:CURRENTMINUTE}}, etc, to mess around with the date/time string). Mine's pretty short, and so I'd support the limit being something like 250 characters (or possibly 200, but I prefer 250 (three lines)). --ais523 16:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Your sig is the most perceptive sig I've ever seen, which is one more reason why our brain activity should not be limited by irrational WP:CREEP-like authoritative extreme measures. I stand by my 250 chars proposal, as the optimum solution that filters out most monstrosities, while it allows people to not feel like members of the Outer Party (and therefore inspires them to produce more)! NikoSilver 23:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exact same discussion being held at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Signature length.

I proposed that templated sigs at {{User:Username/sig}} be allowed, but treated specially to avoid the server load problems, but at least one developer doesn't like this idea. — Omegatron 15:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But to get to an agreement we need to decide what will be used as criteria for the limit. Here are some diferent options:

1. bytes (ex: the limit would be xx bytes)
2. lines taken up in a screen of a chosen size (ex: x lines in a screen of xx by xx pixels)
3. content (ex: maximum x links and x different colours)
4. a combo of 2 or 3 of these options

Once we have chosen one (two, or three) criteria, we will be able to choose the actual limits.

Chris5897 (T@£k) 13:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following from my posting a few months ago about this subject on the perennial proposals board, As it seems there have been no replies I've come to the conclusion that it may not have been quite as perennial as I had thought. The few responses it's received on the other board have been very positive, and it's apparently already available on Wikipedia Commons. I've posted it here and now to see if it might get a wider response...

...I've been wondering about this for a while now - when a user recieves a new message on his/her talk page, they get that lovely and prominent "you have new messages" banner at the top of each page. Sometimes though, users want some down time away from wikipedia - to be honest I'd be suprised if that statement didn't account for the majority of users.

Given the purpose of talk pages (ie, for the community to get in touch with a user), would it not be to the benefit of both the community and the user if (just like almost every forum out there on the web), each registered user had an option in their preferences to recieve a simple email notification of a new message. Just like every forum out there of course, it would only send a notification for the first message, and not send one again until the user has visited the talk page.

Alternatively, A weekly email could be sent out with a summary of new talk page sections from over the last week, which would be perhaps useful in cases where a user is on an extended leave from wiki. I'm sorry if this has been brought up before, but I haven't seen anything about it. Any thoughts?

{{VPP-bug}}: Please see the notice at the top of the page - when a proposal involves a change to the software, go to the bug tracker (which also does feature requests) and file a new bug there. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I missed that (twice it seems!). One of the reasons I posted about it here though, is that I also wanted to know what the community in general thought about it. Is this OK, or should this be removed? Crimsone 21:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there are a lot of intermittent editors who'd appreciate this feature (though one could question how many of them would actually learn of it). And I suppose that if it were implemented, there might be more demand for other push-type e-mails, such as notification of AfDs of articles where one had recently contributed. So, in general, I (for one) think it's a good idea, and if it didn't take a lot of programming effort, why not? John Broughton | Talk 03:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam gateway! Spam gateway! Spam gateway! Anon and newly-registered users can post to User_talk: pages. What mechanism will be put in place to prevent spammers from abusing this as a spam relay? Even if this is solely an "opt-in" feature, couldn't this also get legit Wikipedia emails flagged as collateral damage spam? —Dgies^t c 05:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If all it does is say "You got a message, come check it" then you're only going to get one email regardless of how much spam you get, and won't do the spammer any good vs. spamming talk pages now. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be trivial for a developer to enable this, but it would probably place far too much load on the servers (if this is popular, the number of emails sent might be pretty large); the number of emails being sent from Wikipedia might also lead to it being (incorrectly) detected as a spammer and blocked by email services. --ais523 15:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Both Commons and Meta have these notifications

   Dear ReyBrujo,
   
   the Wikimedia Commons page User talk:ReyBrujo has been changed on
   21:47, 14 November 2006 by JeremyA, see
   http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ReyBrujo for the current
   version.
   
   See
   http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ReyBrujo&diff=0&oldid=2978670
   for all changes since your last visit.
   
   Editor's summary: Re: Album Covers
   
   Contact the editor:
   mail: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser/JeremyA
   wiki: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:JeremyA
   
   There will be no other notifications in case of further changes unless
   you visit this page. You could also reset the notification flags for
   all your watched pages on your watchlist.
   
           Your friendly Wikimedia Commons notification system

Personally, I don't like it. -- ReyBrujo 15:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally can't confirm the calculations, as I don't know the number of changes per day first hand, but in one of the number of bug reports on the issue, a couple of users are saying that the server load is actually far lower than would be at first thought. (here) Crimsone 23:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being notified of changes to articles on your watchlist and changes to your talk page are two different things. The server load would be much smaller if it only notified you of changes to your talk page. I would really like to see this enabled for talk pages only. — Omegatron 15:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. This is what I'm suggesting (and can be easily done). Enabling it for the watchlist would indeed be a silly proposal if only for the rediculous load on the server - for user talk pages it's (apparently) a different story though. I filed a bug report for this precisely (rather than the bug report I posted above which is slightly different, though it was apparently a duplicate) - here Crimsone 15:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an idea that may eliminate vandalbots/automated spam. I know that when creating an account, it is nessecary to answer a math question to protect agianst vandalbots. What if a math question had to be answered before an edit can be saved, at least for IP's? Yes, this would decrease productivity and be annoying, but it would protect agianst vandalbots very well. Or is this too big a change in Wikipedia's policy, and would not even be used because of policy problems? (This post is also in the policy section.) Seldon1 00:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, a CAPTCHA would be a better idea. Bots are probably better at simple arithmetic than 99% of us anyway. I wouldn't be opposed to a CAPTCHA but I'm not sure if Mediawiki supports it easilly. Plus it adds to server load, generating all those images. --W.marsh 03:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but would either method be worth it? --Seldon1 13:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They could just run the vandalbot anonymously. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the idea of having anonymous IPs having to answer a math or knowledge question every time they attempt to save or show preview of a page. It just might deter their edits. If they become a regular user, it becomes easier to block a vandalizing user. Ronbo76 13:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A CAPTCHA for anonymous edits would be a good idea. Maths questions would deter those who failed Maths in school (i.e. some of my classmates). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please not on show-preview (that would just discourage anons from previewing their edits). I'm inclined to disagree with this even on edits, because it would discourage casual editing of this site, and vandalbots normally get usernames anyway (because otherwise they're too easy to block). --ais523 14:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't. Anyone sincere enough to make a good edit probably won't be discouraged by a CAPTCHA. The only problem I see is the increase in sever load needed to load all the images. Seldon1 16:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They don't even need to enter a captcha to register... anyways, I don't think it is worth the problem. I noticed that some Wikipedias (in example the latin one I think) do ask you to solve a math equation if you try to add an external link to an article. I would not object that, as I am more worried about spam than vandalism. -- ReyBrujo 19:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On one of the smaller Wikimedia wikis (not sure which one), I was reverting blanking and got a simple sum to do when I saved a page containing an external link. If anything, this would slow down spammers if enabled for registered users (not sure if it was an anon only feature, as I wasn't signed in when I made the revert). Perhaps something to request at the buzilla. Martinp23 21:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would have to be a real CAPTCHA, not a silly math problem (umm, yeah, computers can do math). And it would be very inconvenient. Are vandalbots really such a large problem? I don't think the inconvenience we'd be placing on millions of edits would make it worth it. --Cyde Weys 21:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a votation?

—Nethac DIU, would never stop to talk here—
18:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have a very fast bot. I fell in edit conflict to put the sign, 5 seconds after.

I think it would be a good idea to have a "Collaboration of the Week" on the Main Page. This is a quick way to introduce visitors to collaborative editing and shows them how Wikipedia works. In addition, if there is a topic that grabs the readers' attention, we might gain a few good contributors to the project. Nominations for the Main Page could come from the various Wikiprojects which already organise CotW's amongst themselves. (side note: should I cross-post this to Talk:Main Page and send them here or should I move this there and cross-post from here?) Zunaid©® 09:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you post to Talk:Main Page, and that anyone interested follow the link to that page. John Broughton | Talk 19:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So done. Please jump in and discuss at Talk:Main Page#CotW on Main Page Zunaid©® 07:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a newbie and can't find a simple footnote button or any kind of instructions on how to create a footnoted link to a web article in plain English for the technically-challenged. Can you post some simple (as in gratingly simple for the utterly stupid) instructions for how to create citation links? Since I can't figure out how to do it, I've been putting the references in the summary of edit line for whoever would like to incorporate the info. But just can't do it myself. The instructions are all Greek to me. Help? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FirthFan1 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC). FirthFan1, 18:40, 12 January 2007[reply]

Here's a real quick example, hope it helps. —Dgies^t c 18:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 ==Some paragraph==
 Contrary to popular belief, the sky is not blue.<ref>{{cite web|title=Crackpot Journal|url=http://your.url.com/}}</ref>

 ==References==
 <references/>
 

Did you discover WP:FOOT? (SEWilco 19:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Formatting references isn't that difficult. Just enclose the reference's URL in <ref>...</ref> tags. For example, if your reference is http://google.com, you would format the reference like this: <ref>http://google.com</ref>.

Above the "External links" section (if the article has one), add a "References" section consisting solely of the following tag: <references/>

I don't know how to format references that aren't URLs, though. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITET offers links to several templates that can be used to cite references either inline or in a section at the end. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few more places to look: Wikipedia:Citations quick reference, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), and WP:CITE. I'm not sure how "plain English" they are, however. John Broughton | Talk 15:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad someone else is having trouble with "references" or "footnotes" - whatever. I have discovered:- ^[1] This should give a small superscript "[1"] which can refer to the list of refs listed near the end. BUT what do I do if the same ref is referred to more than once and therefore given more than one reference number? (Hope I can find this page again to read the answer to this question!!)Osborne 11:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to suggest this, but....

Having run into a number of problems with users over controversial subjects, particularly those where myself and other users have been trying to document pseudoscience or the paranormal, I'd like to suggest that there be some form of guideline (a policy would be too strong) over the differences between inclusion and advocacy of a notable claim. For example, something with clauses explaining the validity of including information that is unproven, pseudoscience, or which has been since been proven false, as object illustrations of the beliefs of proponents, but NOT as a claim of it as being true, and defining the difference between inclusion of such things, and advocacy of them as being true.

My primary motive for requesting such a guideline is that I've run into several user who are constantly reverting pages or arguing over content when people have been trying to record what exactly it is that pseudoscientists are saying, and what the history of a given area of pseudo science is, on the grounds that what they said "can't be proven to be true" and the belief that "stating that they said it means advocating it as being true". perfectblue 12:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia:Fringe theories helpful? or Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic? John Broughton | Talk 15:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, "Fringe" is useful to know, but not entirely helpful in this case because most of the inclusion = advocacy users that I've come across would instantly hone in on "fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review should not be included in the article". This part of a general problem that I've found with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. They are science and journal based. This is great if you want to stop somebody putting up their own pet hypothesis and making out that it is widely supported by scientists, but it is not so great if you are trying to write a history of the contactee movement.

I'll give you an example of the kind of thing that I've seen. For example:

A page about X a notable and verifiable as existing group of spiritualist. User 1 writes a history of the group, they include the events that lead each member to come to the group, the famous cases that they were involved in, and a machine that they build which they say lets them communicate with the spirit of a Native-American Chief. They include source material from a range of books dealing with the paranormal and spiritualism.

User 2 comes along, deletes any and all claims that the group members made about spiritualism, and most of the details of their cases on the grounds that their claims can't be backed up by science, and that recording their claims = advocating the truth of claims. They then delete most of sources saying (in so many words) that because the person who wrote the source believed in the paranormal the source didn't meet WP:RS (I've often seen this kind of user use WP:RS to mean must be from a mainstream scientist). Then demands a peer reviewed source detailing the groups machine from a scientific perspective.

It's a grand pain. -- perfectblue 17:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to do two things. First, WP:NPOV includes a provision for not giving something undue weight, and WP:NOT says that Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. So just as we don't include verified sightings of celebrities (as reported, say, by the New York Post in biographies of celebrities, so too is it inappropriate to go heavily in depth on minor things. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of book-length articles. Use those as a basis to shorten articles to the most important claims and facts.

Second, where information comes from a book or article from a fringe publisher or magazine, and discusses controversial matters or makes outlandish claims, then the sentences in the Wikipedia article should say "X said that A occured" or "Y wrote in Z-book that B happened" or even "A claimed that C took place", rather than "A occurred", "B happened", or "C took place". Obviously this shouldn't be done for everything - if a book says that N joined the group in 1997, there isn't any basic reason to doubt that. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof: "X said that A happened" isn't an extraordinary claim, while "A happened" is. John Broughton | Talk 19:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing this for some time, so I know the boundaries. The problem is that when we are writing about notable people/claims/incidents (Big foot, for example, is highly notable) and are hedging our words to keep perspective ("this is the way that they said it is" rather than "this is the way that it is"), the slant on policy towards science, history and Bio, still means that there are users abusing these policies to try and keep the information that we provide down to "names and faces".

"extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" That would be WP:OR in most cases, which is against wiki policy.

I guess my main argument is that wikipedia needs some policy clauses stating that demanding peer review for the paranormal is a waste of times, and that users shouldn't use it as a means of stifling pages about unscientific subjects. I mean, is it even logical to demand peer review on something that is a hoax, urban legend, or is a cult? perfectblue 07:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your reference to "peer review" - the term is used for (see Wikipedia:Peer review) for proposed featured articles. If you're saying that demanding WP:RS or WP:N for paranormal and pseduoscience and hoaxes is "stifling", I'm not sure why. If you're saying that editors object to "He said" and "she said" type sentences, and remove these, I suggest you just keep insisting that they state the Wikipedia policy that disallows these, or the policy that says that there are to be minimized, because I'm not aware of any such policy. And if they can't come up with such policies, then deleting relevant information from reliable sources is POV, in my opinion. It's fine to argue about reality (e.g., does the strength of gravity vary significantly anywhere on the earth); it's wrong to argue that Wikipedia can't cite people who (by all reasonable measures) have an incorrect view of reality, if the subject of an article is those people. That they have such views is reality. John Broughton | ♫ 15:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By peer review, I mean peer reviewed science journals. A peer reviewed journal is pretty near the peak of WP:RS. It can take a coupe of years for an article to be deemed good enough to be published in one. Except in a few very very rare cases they simply won't touch experiments involving the paranormal. Not even experiments using science to disprove phenomena.

Users demand peer review because they know that it won't exist, and they do it because they want to reduce articles to "He said he saw a Bigfoot, but he doesn't have proof".

Telling them about WP:RS doesn't help because they already know that they are in the wrong, but hope that you don't know that.

perfectblue 16:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Proposal for de-centralization of debates for more detailed arguments. Basically, the idea is creation of a process which puts the encyclopedia before deletion and is improve first and delete only if necessary. Additionally, discussions should be informed by the informed. --Keitei (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, no. Let's not make it harder to find discussions than it already is. --tjstrf talk 06:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concur with tjstrf, this is a bad idea for several reasons:

1.' It's important to have one centralized location for AfD discussions. An article should only get deleted if the topic itself is unverifiable or non-notable so those articles that simply need improvement don't, or at least shouldn't, get deleted anyways.

2. Wikiprojects are going to tend to cling to articles falling within their scope and are less likely to push for deletion of something even if that something should, in fact, be deleted.

3. What about articles that don't fall within the scope of a single Wikiproject? They would get less protection than articles falling within a project if this were implemented.

4. Even worse than articles falling under no Wikiproject are those falling under a number of projects. For example, renewable energy fits within the Wikiproject on energy, the Wikiproject on the Environment and the Wikiproject on International Development. A process like the one above could easily result in problems arising between projects.

5. The notion that this allows the "discussions to be informed by the informed" is not a valid one. Currently, when an article goes up for AfD a notice is placed on the page in question and anyone who normally edits that article and similar articles is likely to see it and get involved anyway; as a regular contributor to AfD discussions I'll say that those rare few AfD's that may actually require some specialized knowledge of the topic do, in fact, draw those individuals into them. And besides, AfD's are procedural and don't actually require this knowledge; the central question in and AfD discussion is whether the article in question meets the Wikipedia's guidelines/policies. It doesn't take an expert to decide whether or not something is notable or has sources. --The Way 04:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: " An article should only get deleted if the topic itself is unverifiable or non-notable so those articles that simply need improvement don't, or at least shouldn't, get deleted anyways." --
if only that was the case. Quite a few users (including admins) believe that articles are deleted when they could have just been improved. In most cases an admin will find 2 faults in an article -- like finding a paragraph that reads like a how-to guide and bad referencing -- and instead of putting up a template or two, will put the entire article up for Deletion Review. Then after a week, if it's an infrequently visited article, the problems still exist (because no template was put up) and the article is deleted. That's exactly what happened on the article for Anal Stretching -- an article that should exist but no admins bothered to put up templates.

The deletion of articles instead of amendment of articles seems to be a major issue, and any suggestions to fix such would be welcomed :) Rfwoolf 13:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that this is a widespread problem. I regularly participate in AfD discussions and very rarely does it appear that an article gets deleted when it shouldn't be, in fact the opposite seems to be the case; more articles are kept than should be. Articles are almost always deleted due to a lack of sources that serve to verify and establish notability. Indeed, I think that allowing Wikiprojects to determine what stays and what gets deleted will result in many articles being kept despite being against policy; Wikiprojects are going to naturally want to keep anything falling within their jurisdiction no matter how trivial. Furthermore, implementing something of this nature would make issues of 'jurisdiction' a major problem, as I've already mentioned. A decentralized AfD and XfD process will make sure that the official policies/guidelines are not evenly applied; some Wikiprojects will be quicker to delete than others. Many Wikiprojects aren't very big and implementing this proposal would give small groups of editors with an 'agenda' more power than they should have. Keeping AfD's and XfD's separate maintains a level of objectivity and the AfD and XfD discussions are currently fully transparent and open to everyone. Decentralizing them would make them less transparent. --The Way 06:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is the right place for asking this, but I think it would be useful if more Wikipedia related tools became available to Mac users. The majority I have found are for Windows. 152.78.254.245 15:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would be your top three? John Broughton | ♫ 14:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• An application for browsing without a web browser, i think on Windows it's called WikiBrowse, but would only be useful if it could do edits as well.
• Editing apps like AutoWikiEdit, extensions to BBEdit, that sort of thing
• Not applicable to me, but some of the anti-vandal tools would be nice.

Sorry, was slightly more vague than a top three. Littleandlarge 14:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a proposal to tweak the infoboxes that currently appear on US-State related articles, the big colorful ones with the state flag that link you to the state's largest cities, state flower, etc etc. Where is the best place to make my suggestion? How do these things even get changed? --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try first the infobox talk page. Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States is a good place. -- ReyBrujo 20:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I find this talk page? That's exactly what I was looking for in posting this question. Thanks--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could try Template talk:Infobox U.S. state. Tra (Talk) 20:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to Longmont, Colorado and look at the bottom of the page, there is a big box. That is the thing I am wondering about. I think the template referred to above is a different one.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 21:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be {{colorado}} -- ReyBrujo 21:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This went up for TfD in August 2006 with the result of keep. This result was more of a vote and not consensus. It seems that a lot of the people saying keep were of the WP:ILIKEIT variety. Since this template is a tautology and of no direct value to the project, I think it should be userfied per WP:GUS. However, before starting what I know will be a contentious discussion, I wanted to hear a little feedback here first. —Dgies^t c 05:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only it we're userfying it at User:Jimbo Wales/Userbox/User Wikipedia. Otherwise keep. --tjstrf talk 05:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed MoS guideline. Please contribute to the centralised discussion on flag icons at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Flag icons - manual of style entry?. Please add comments over there, not here. Thanks. Carcharoth 14:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to Wikipedia. One of the first things I noticed was that signatures were not automatically appended to talk pages. I knew nothing about "signing", and assumed my name would be inserted after a paragraph I wrote in a 'talk' page. I later noticed that a bot made some funny signature for me, exclaiming something to the effect of "Danger Will Robinson! Danger! Xerxesnine did not give a signature! Abort, abort! Does not compute!"

This is so completely ridiculous, I can hardly believe the practice of manual signing has gone on this long, even though it's just a few tildes. In the computer world, the term "signature" by definition means something which is automatically appended by software, so it's an abuse of the term. But this is beside the point, because there's just no justification for requiring users to do ANYTHING when software can easily do it for them.

Please don't respond with, "Oh, it's just a few tildes." Arbitrary and useless hoop-jumping is always a bad thing. These things add up. Old-timers get accustomed to such irrationality, but newcomers like me see the silliness for what it is.

The signing instructions above says it all --- obviously, such "instructions" should be entered into the software where they will be executed reliably, rather then attempting to upload them into the brains of users. --Xerxesnine 14:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot's text is ok IMO, but feel free to add a proposal.

As for automatic, there are many cases where the signature must be omitted (e.g. in WP:RfA summaries), or preceded (e.g. when placing a quote from a source), or altered (e.g. when only sig, [~~~] or only date [~~~~~] is required), or duplicated (e.g. when intermingling 2-3 responses in different parts with one edit) and the software would not know how to make a distinction. Please try to get used to it. Here goes: NikoSilver 14:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC) :-)[reply]

But the first-pass answer is obvious: automatically append a signature when there is a new unambiguous paragraph. I even forgot about my sig just now, and only noticed it during the preview. Xerxesnine 15:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the issue of having the wiki software do what the bot does - there are only a few (two?) full-time (part-time?) paid programmers, and they have a long list of features and problems to work on. If something can be implemented by a bot (that is, without changing the core wiki software), that's one fewer thing for the programmers to do. And one fewer things for the programmers to maintain. Maybe, eventually, when they run out of other things to do, they can look at the various bots and start replacing them with core code, but I wouldn't (personally) hold my breath while waiting for that to happen. John Broughton | ♫ 14:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to imply a distinction or a preference between "bot" and other software. I don't care how automatic signing is implemented. My point was that the current signing bot seems to make a big deal about it (large and distracting comment), rather than quietly performing its duty. Xerxesnine 15:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Niko Silver said, you don't always want something signed in the same way, or at all. The automatic signing bot has already added my signature to one page completely incorrectly, and I can't see any other automatic system getting it right under every circumstance. Trebor 14:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of an unambiguous new paragraph without a signature, it will always be right. There is already a distinction between pages which require a signature and pages which don't, so it's a red herring to say that you don't always want a signature.Xerxesnine 15:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would not "always be right." There are plenty of instances in which a new paragraph that shouldn't be signed (such as a summary or an advisory) is added to an ordinary talk page.

Furthermore, the {{unsigned}} message is supposed to draw attention to the fact that the user didn't sign the message, thereby encouraging him/her (and others) to do so in the future. The wording, however, actually is rather mild. There is no shame involved. —David Levy 19:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current signing bot will already sign all such paragraphs, including the ones you mention that should not be signed, so I don't see the relevance of your point --- except that I should have said "almost always" instead of "always". As for your "furthermore" part, my whole argument is that we should do away with the ridiculous manual signing in the first place. Grabbing attention is exactly what the bot should not do; it is needless noise. Did you read my initial post, above? Xerxesnine 16:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Indeed, HagermanBot has the same flaw. Personally, I'd prefer that it be retired. (It causes other problems as well.)

2. "Almost always" remains an overstatement. "Usually" is more accurate.

3. Yes, I read your initial post (which is what I alluded to). You claimed that the message "exclaim[ed] something to the effect of 'Danger Will Robinson! Danger! Xerxesnine did not give a signature! Abort, abort! Does not compute!'", which is a silly exaggeration of mild wording that serves a valid purpose under the current setup (irrespective of whether said setup should be changed). —David Levy 00:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, consider when:

• The user edited a page which requires a signature.
• The user made edits which are clear and unambiguous additional sections.
• The user did not add a signature to one or more of said sections.

When all three conditions hold, a bot should quietly add some standard signature to those sections lacking one.

By "quietly," I mean that the bot's diff comment should be very short and non-attention-grabbing, or better yet that there should be no diff at all (which probably means the code runs in the commit hook rather than a separate bot entity).

What do you think? Xerxesnine 15:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur about automatic signatures. It would be a nice feature to have the Wiki automatically sign my username whenever it is required. I detest seeing the Bot messages which I just to delete. My recommendation would be for the Bot to put the unsigned message on the talkpage written upon and not put a message on the user's talkpage. Ronbo76 16:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if it doesn't change, I think it might wait 20 seconds before editing. I realized in one talk I didn't sign, then I returned, and I had an edit conflict with HengermanBot, I think it's called.

—Nethac DIU, would never stop to talk here—
18:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This time I noticed.

Add yourself at User:HagermanBot/OptOut. I like the bot, but I wish it could move new talks to the bottom (new users usually post at the top instead of the bottom). -- ReyBrujo 23:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People whining about Hagermanbot is getting really lame really fast. If you don't like the bot, learn to sign manually. It's that simple. If Hagerman bot didn't exist, then the only thing different is that one of us would have to sign your posts for you using {{unsigned}} if it was causing confusion in a topic. --tjstrf talk 22:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this is simply the authoritarian stance on the status quo. "Love it or leave it." It does not address the underlying problem which I stated in my original post; indeed, I anticipated this argument and explained why it is flawed. Xerxesnine 12:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, because you think there's a problem, anyone who disagrees with you is "authoritarian"? Could it not just be that most of us do not think there's a problem? -- Necrothesp 14:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The response is authoritarian, yes. To say "It is right, deal with it" without even addressing the point is called an authoritarian response. To simply respond with "'Tisn't!" is equally weak. You have to make a rational argument to the point. Xerxesnine 16:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to the original comment, Xerxesnine said, "In the computer world, the term "signature" by definition means something which is automatically appended by software,..." and says that the Wiki code ~~~~ signature sistem does not fit that definition. However, I must disagree, because, through not having to type out the entire [[User:Nineteenninetyfour|<font color=green>Ninety</font... thingy, and being able to simply type ~~~~, you have an automatic signing mechanism. Ninety^wazup? 00:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are at liberty to disagree by presenting rational counter-arguments, but you are not at liberty to change definitions and pretend that's a counter-argument. "Automatic" as I have used it clearly means "without user intervention", and this includes typing tildes as is clearly stated in my original post. It also appears as though you missed the clause in my original post which states "But this is beside the point". Xerxesnine 12:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a nice feature if it were simple, or even possible, for software to determine when an addition needs to be signed, but I don't know that it is. The rules you propose above would inappropriately place signatures when people add templates, etc. that do not need to be signed. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify even further, software should NEVER require needless work on the user's part, and should minimize manual labor wherever it can. It has been argued that sometimes you don't want a signature. Alright. If 99.9% of the time the user DOES want a signature, and 0.1% the user DOES NOT want a signature, then what should the software do? Clearly, there should be a "no signature" tag (say, "!~") instead of a signature tag (tildes). Furthermore, there can be special exceptions where no signature will be added, for example paragraphs which consist solely of certain templates, thereby pushing manual use of "!~" down to 0.0001%. --Xerxesnine 17:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Your figures are greatly exaggerated.

2. I wouldn't oppose such a setup, but only as an optional, non-default setting. Otherwise, mass confusion would ensue. —David Levy 00:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. The use of obvious hypotheticals ("If 99.9% of the time...") in conjunction with obvious hyperbole ("Danger Will Robinson!") are techniques which are meant to illustrate a point. They serve the same purpose as homework problems involving trains moving at 3/5 the speed of light which are given to first-year students in Special Relativity. A train moving at 3/5 the speed of light? Your figures are greatly exaggerated!

2. Right, of course it wouldn't be appropriate to completely change the behavior of the current signing bot. Users would explicitly opt-in to such behavior. Xerxesnine 15:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As this thread comes to a close, I will just express my general lament that poor user interfaces can persist (here and everywhere) due to users perpetuating them out of habit and/or arbitrary attachment to the status quo. I believe my arguments concerning the four tildes, and the reactions to those arguments here, demonstrate this problem well. Xerxesnine 15:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good thing that Wikipedians are making good quality scientific articles with detailed reference lists. Unfortunately, actually setting up those references seems like a lot of trouble. Forgive me if I've missed something, but it seems like at the moment there is no automatic way to transfer title, authors, and literature citation to a new reference. Yet all of that data exists in the public PubMed servers of several nations, available in a variety of standardized formats, with special machine-readable formats used by reference management software such as EndNote. So in theory it should be possible to type something like "ref PubMed 948762", and have all the other data appended automatically on submission. PubMed is the most important database for biological abstract searches. 948762 is the unique PubMed identifier (PMID) of the article - an identifier stable enough to use in interlibrary loan requests, for example. That should be enough information for a complete reference to be generated automatically. Alternatively, I and others have already committed the sin of entering references like so [1], trusting that this is sufficient for people to actually find the content. However, such a link can and probably will go dead eventually - although it ends in the PMID, which should always be possible to look up by some means.

It would be very nice to have both the template system for entering new references easily yet correctly and some kind of bot going through Wikipedia entries and substituting properly detailed references for the quick Web links to NCBI wherever they appear, and either one would be an immense help. Mike Serfas 18:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I discovered while querying something at WikiProject Clinical medicine, if you type PMID followed by the unique id, it is automatically converted into a URL to PubMed, in example, PMID 948762 becomes PMID 948762. Is this what you were asking for? -- ReyBrujo 18:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also note that just "importing" all the information from a page would not work for Wikipedia because of several reasons, including a) licensing and copyright issues; b) formatting; and c) inappropriate content. Note that an almost copy of a PubMed article was sent to deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PMID 8474513) because it is considered not appropriate for Wikipedia. -- ReyBrujo 18:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nifty feature I wasn't aware of! Until I you pointed this out I hadn't realized that such references weren't just URL links. They should be useful in that a single change to whatever code is interpreting the string could fix a future change in the URL of a PubMed server. Even so, the effect is a bit disappointing - the article still doesn't accumulate an impressive-looking list of references at the end, and more to the point, you can't read through the titles and authors to quickly recognize familiar papers or the most relevant topics. I can't believe there are any copyright problems involved in rifling through the U.S. government PubMed server for a list of titles and authors, journal names, volume and issue numbers, and dates of publication! I understand the abstracts would be on shakier ground, but they wouldn't look right in the references anyway.  :) Mike Serfas 19:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this helpful? It coverts a PubMed ID into cite info that can be pasted into an article. John Broughton | ♫ 17:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered if it would be possible to introduce some whizzy tec that'll make it possible to remove pages from the Watchlist from the main "my watchlist" page, rather than the alpha order full list?

I do RC patrol and consequently my Watchlist rapidly fills, making it more difficult to really watch the pages I want to keep an eye on. I'd find it easier to prune the list using the recency element of "my watchlist" than the alpha list.

Opinions welcomed. --Dweller 10:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use the "unwatch" feature of popups to unwatch pages directly from my watchlist by opening "unwatch" in a new tab. If your watchlist is getting too long, you might also consider typing up a list of pages you really want to watch and check changes to them with Special:Recentchangeslinked. Hope that helps, Kusma (討論) 10:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I finally installed popups as a result of your suggestion (something I've been meaning to do for yonks). It does work, but if I'm curmudgeonly about it, it's still quite clumsy, as for each unwatch click, I get taken to a new page telling me I've removed the page from the watchlist, rather than leaving me able to select a bunch of pages simultaneously. I, erm, didn't understand your other suggestion, but it sounds pretty laborious. --Dweller 10:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I open the new unwatch pages in background tabs, where they don't annoy me. For the other thing, see User:Kusma/Contributions and Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Kusma/Contributions for what I mean. Best, Kusma (討論) 11:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When warning a vandal, you may wish to temporarily "watch" them for further vandalism. Similarly, after reverting vandalism, you may wish to temporarily "watch" the article for further vandalism. You may also wish to "watch" a request for adminship, or a nomination of an article for deletion (such discussions usually last 7 days). Once it's clear that vandalism has stopped, or the discussion has ended, there's no further need to watch the page, and it simply clutters your watchlist.

How about a "temporary watch" feature, which allows you to watch a page for a specified period of time, after which it is removed from your watchlist? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered if it would be possible to introduce some whizzy tec that'll make it possible to remove pages from the Watchlist from the main "my watchlist" page

Yep. The one I am using is here, though Quarl had a better version that used AJAX. See User_talk:Ilmari_Karonen#Unwatch_link and Bugzilla:424.

How about a "temporary watch" feature, which allows you to watch a page for a specified period of time, after which it is removed from your watchlist?

I would love this. In the bug report, someone suggested it a little differently:

Perhaps a user could set a "max number of watched items" parameter in his preferences. If he then adds a new watched item that takes him over his limit, the software would drop the oldest watched item from his list.

— Omegatron 14:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to be notified about which link was dropped, and there must be some way of sorting by date and not only alphabetical, otherwise you may lose watch links you don't want to. It would be much better if you could "categorize" your watch items in different categories. -- ReyBrujo 12:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a site created for the sue of submiting lyrics for songs! This woule be a great addition to the Wikipedia creators!

The vast majority of lyrics are copyrighted so the site would either have almost no content or get shut down. A lot of lyrics sites are being shut down or at least being ordered to remove a lot of their lyrics as it is. Koweja 20:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite that, there are still some in existence. Trebor 20:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sites host copyrighted videos still in existence, but that doesn't mean Youtube should allow people to upload protected works. Koweja 16:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We also have some on Wikisource. But yes, they tend to be copyvios. The internet is full of copyvios and most of them don't get shut down or anything, but that doesn't mean we should join them; note that we are rather more high-profile than just about anything else on the 'net. >Radiant< 12:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely this is not in the list of perennial proposals, although it seems obvious, and I would guess someone suggested it already. The proposal is to limit articles with many associated specialised articles (of interest to fans only). There would be only one article on The Simpsons, Star Trek, Big Brother (TV series), individual computer games, professional wrestling, and so on. All derived articles, on individual episodes, sequels, characters, tournaments/competitions, scores, league tables, competitors, and so on would be moved to an entirely new project. This is both a policy proposal and a new project proposal, and the policy could only be implemented when such a project starts up.Paul111 12:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with it. You don't see it unless you're looking for it. — Omegatron 14:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Various fan wikis exist at Wikia and other Wiki hosting services, for example Wookieepedia. Kusma (討論) 14:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's not paper; we don't need to remove information because it's only of interest to fans. As an (imperfect) analog, imagine getting rid of General relativity because it's only of interest to scientists. That said, various projects do exist generally for fictional universes, and cover the story in more detail (but tend to include less out-of-universe information). Trebor 15:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ever seen Memory Alpha? User:Zoe|(talk) 18:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wookieepedia is exactly what I had in mind, but for all fan-interest-only articles. Even if they are not visible without looking for them, they are still a distortion of content. Look at the new page creations, and you will see how many articles fall into this category. The best analogy is with recipes: policy excludes them all, ending all disputes on notability.Paul111 11:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV rears its ugly head. You'll be arguing to kingdom come over many of the articles as to whether or not they're fan-related. --Dweller 11:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Up to a point. I have seen a number of well-written articles which fail core verifiability policy taken to Memory Alpha or Wookiepedia. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would be all in favor of a guideline asking that when too much unsourced in-universe fancruft, a wikia be created to cope with all the fan protestations during the AFD. Anyone seen the WP:GUNDAM mass deletion dispute recently? It's true we need a solution for these cases.--SidiLemine 13:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is feasible, but it might help editors on Vandal Patrol if all articles could temporarily be automatically semi-protected when the WP:WDEFCON reaches two. It would take an admin to invoke that level. This could help cut down on anonymous IPs attacking articles and enabling the VP to catch with article reversals if need be. Ronbo76 01:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Withdrawn. It looks like WP:SNOW. Ronbo76 05:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, just no. WikiDefcon is an unofficial number set by people who see vandalfighting as a pseudomilitary operation. The last thing we need is giving a person who assumes bad faith and thinks all IPs are vandals the power to block them from editing at will. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I'm concerned that this would just give the vandals a target to aim at and thus lead to more vandalism, rather than less. Newyorkbrad 02:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hey, that would be interesting, like a giant plug of anonymous edits. But that would go against the spirit of Wikipedia. There are enough patrollers and admins around to handle most attacks. -- ReyBrujo 02:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This is possible, but I oppose it definately. It totally takes away the idea of a wiki and is, as Night Gyr said, an unofficial number. It would be totally unfeasible for this to happen whenever we reach "Defcon2". If we somehow reached "Defcon1", a developer would lock the database (something we experienced while I was trying to save the page :)) to try and sort it all out. (as if someone accidentally put something bad in one of the MediaWiki pages, a definite no-no! So, no, I do not agree with it. Cbrown1023 02:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed, not all IPs are bad, it's "unwiki", and there are even some IPs who actually revert vandalism. What is Defcon1 anyway? Willy on Wheels just got a 'cratship and started changing everyone's names to "Username ON WHEELS!!!"? --tjstrf talk 02:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalbot is real and rises up from the deep like r'lyeh from beneath the sea, its tendrils touching thousands of machines across the internet calling them to "SPAM! SPAM! SPAM WIKIPEDIA WITH DISRUPTION!" and lo, the evil washed across the land. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It only feels like that sometimes....... Newyorkbrad 03:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is preemptive semi-protection, a violation of policy (and for good reasons). Superm401 - Talk 04:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion: to take all pages in the Wikipedia namespace (policies, essays, guidelines, etc.) and enclose them in the <noinclude> tag. What this will do is prevent transclusion or substitution of pages like WP:MOS, which in nearly no circumstances would require transclusion ({{Wikipedia:Manual of Style}} or substitution ({{subst:Wikipedia:Manual of Style}}) While this need not occur on short essays, or on Wikipedia pages that are meant to behave like templates, it seems good to me, and it will prevent abuse that could cause inconvenience for the page viewer and possibly Wikimedian servers. (Yes, there is WP:PERF for good faith editors, but purposely trying to slow down servers is different.)

Suppose that I write an essay and call it Wikipedia:Drunk driving, and the content is

Don't edit Wikipedia when you're drunk. [...] End of story.

...and suppose that the essay is (somehow) a couple of kilobytes long. There is no reason to transclude or substitute that (just link to it), so make the page content:

<noinclude>Don't edit Wikipedia when you're drunk. [...] End of story.</noinclude>

Or even better,

<noinclude>Don't edit Wikipedia when you're drunk. [...] End of story.</noinclude><includeonly>[[{{subst:NAMESPACE}}:{{subst:PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly>

This seems like a good idea due to recent vandalism to User talk:68.39.174.238, which was met with this course of action, which I suggested to Tuxide on IRC. (The user that did this may need checkuser, but that's my passive opinion.) Doing this for all pages in the Wikipedia namespace (except for, as listed above, pages meant to behave like templates, and maybe short essays) can't hurt; and if it can, please tell me why. Thanks. Gracenotes^T § 04:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This could be extended to user pages. Several come to mind. 04:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S. Hm, how about User:Tuxide/Sandbox/Do not subst my user talk page? :p 04:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I decided to stuff some WP:BEANS up my nose. check my userpage. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This won't solve anything. Vandals will just find some way to vandalize wikipedia, including using subst to copy everything over as someone did to my talk page recently. Besides, we don't need to change thousands of pages just because of one instance of vandalism. That would just give the vandal a lot of attention, which we shouldn't be doing. Koweja 13:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point of this proposal is to counter server/client thrashing (and impersonation in the case of user pages), not necessarily vandalism. This particular user tried to impersonate me by substing my talk page onto his own, and repeatedly added 1.5 megabytes of text to someone else's talk page by transcluding WP:MOS. This resulted in a talk page that took forever to load/generate. Tuxide 22:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit: I know there is WP:PERF but the client can also be thrashed as well, as in this case. WP:PERF only addresses possible server concerns and has no regards to the user client. Tuxide 23:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people complain that AfD is in some way "broken". Others disagree but acknowledge serious flaws. One common problem is bad articles on good subjects; people often !vote "keep and clean up", which often results in the article being kept but not cleaned up. So I have an idea:

• Rename to Articles for discussion (consistent with some other meta discussions)
• Have three outcomes, not two: keep, expedited cleanup, delete
• Articles sent to expedited cleanup are tagged as such and dated, and after say 14 days if not cleaned up can be speedily deleted

I believe this will reduce the chances of crap articles on good subjects being deleted by those whose mission is to improve the quality of the encyclopaedia. And crap articles which are not remedied will be deleted, which is also good for the encyclopaedia. Finally, closing admins will have a middle ground between keep and delete in marginal cases, giving those who advocate keep a deadline to remedy the faults identified by others. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. The German Wikipedia has something like that in de:Wikipedia:Qualitätssicherung (Quality assurance). Articles at AfD can be sent to quality assurance if they are bad (too stubby or poorly written) articles on notable subjects, and will only be deleted after that attempt to improve them has failed. I don't know how well that works, though. Kusma (討論) 14:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I've always argued that "keep and rewrite" should be counted as delete !votes on the grounds that if an article needs a major reworking then it is not useful to keep the crap version hanging around anyway. There are FAR too many articles that survive AfD on this basis. Delete without prejudice to recreation should far and away be the most common closure of these AfD's. Sadly they aren't. Your solution offers a good middle ground. Zunaid©® 14:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad, but I would shorten the period to 7 days. Users would have 14 in total since the article is sent to AFD until they can be speedy deleted. Note that some AFDs end with "conditional keep", however nobody ever cares about the "conditional" part, since nobody verifies if the condition is fulfilled. -- ReyBrujo 14:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A possibly very valuable change, but I have three concerns:

• I think the present name, albeit not consistent with other XfDs, should be kept. I'm concerned that AfDs could come pouring in from folks saying "well, it's a dicussion, not a delete, so what's the harm of having this article reviewed". AfDs should really be limited (in my opinion) to articles that someone seriously doubts meet WP:V and WP:NOR criteria, and the name does affect how the process is interpreted.
• Similarly, the instructions need to make perfectly clear that articles that are stubs, need expanding, not major cleanup, etc., are not to be sent to AfD as a way of forcing a quality improvement. Instead, again, only articles with WP:V or WP:NOR qualify for AfDs. (We have way, way, too many stubs to send even a small percentage through AfD.)
• Third, the most serious concern: How much discretion does this proposal shift to admins? I'd bet that under the three-tiered system, only really bad cruft (almost speedy-delete material) would get a "delete" consensus; after all, why not put anything marginal into the QA (middle) tier and see what happens? What will happen at the end of the 14 days is that an admin will say either "Nope, those references aren't good enough" or "Well, I suppose that's okay", without any further input by anyone. Is that what we want?

So maybe (at the risk of instruction creep), if the decision is "expedited cleanup", then the admin decision at the end of 14 days, if someone disagrees, it goes back to AfD, and this time the expedited cleanup option is not available? John Broughton | ♫♫ 15:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two Questions... 1) Is WP:NPOV not a criteria for deletion? and 2) You talk about crap articles on good subjects, what about well written articles on crap subjects? 38.112.47.92 16:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does Coprophilia count? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you why this is a problem - the deletion discussions more often than not revolve around the worth of the article as a subject for inclusion. I can see it now: a poorly written article on an important, but little known, historical event gets tagged for "expidited cleanup." Nothing happens because few editors know enough about said event, article gets deleted. Then, major problems and hand-wringing about the resubmission of said article, the quality of the resubmitted article, and on and on and on. Instruction creep is not an issue here, but the amount of changes that will have to be put in place to deal with the fallout are somewhat staggering to me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of my pet peeves at AfD are people who vote for "Keep, but clean up" because they think the article's topic sounds "intresting" or "cool", even when the article may be a mess and they know little or nothing about the subject. I wish there was a way to stop this, but I don't think there is.

That said, I don't have a problem with creating a "Keep, but clean up" decision option. I would, however, put the onus on the editors to enforce this and not the admins. If an article is not cleaned up in a reasonable time, it can always be renominated for a 2nd AfD, and the proposer can point to the previous AfD discussion and comment that no "clean up" was done. The admin who is determining the 2nd AfD will then know that "keep and clean" does not seem to be a realistic option and delete.

I would, however, not support the idea of an "expedited" clean up... it may take more than 14 days for an editor (one who honestly wants to clean the article up) to read up on the subject, research citations, etc. We don't want to undercut an honest good faith effort to clean a poor article up just because an arbitrary deadline has passed.

Finally, the idea of "Delete without prejudice" is the flip side of "Keep, but clean up" - ie, an indication that the topic has potential, but the current article itself is so bad that it needs to be deleted. I would favor adding that to the options as well. Blueboar 18:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Is WP:NPOV not a criteria for deletion? No, it's not - see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.

BDJ has a point - if there are impassioned defenders of an article, the expedited cleanup basically gives them 14 days to put up or shut up. But for other articles, it's unclear whether there would be a "cleanup corps" that would really work articles to prevent them from being deleted at the end of their 14 days, or if it would be a "someone else will take care of that" sort of falling between the cracks. In some sense, AfD now spurs people to fix articles they think are repairable (I've certainly done that myself a couple of times), because that's the best argument they can make to prevent deletion. John Broughton | ♫♫ 18:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if we trial the idea? It doesn't nessecarily have to seriously affect XfD for the moment. Instead, if it works, it could be an organic process of change. All we would have to do is set up WikiProject Quality Control (ok, I know control may not be the best word, but that's what you get at the end of a factory line where quality of a "product" is checked.) or WikiProject Quality Assurance. I have no doubt that a fair number of people would join such a project, and it's sole aims would be twofold - Admins closing XfD's that have an indication that a cleanup is needed could a link to the article/AfD discussion on an "XfD cleanup list" at his/her discretion, and members of the project could add articles to a seperate "cleanup list" if something was felt to need real attention from the project (or some such. the latter is just an idea). The concentration of course would be on the XfD list.

As I say - it wouldn't need to be fully integrated into the XfD process. In fact, to start with it would be better not being integrated to start with and just having a closing admin doing it on a discretionary basis as part of a trial. It wouldn't need to be every XfD article that would apply - just a few would see if it works well or not to start with...

...Just an idea. Crimsone 18:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether this is a good idea or not seems to boil down to whether people think we should keep articles we will want in the long run, or delete them until they are of sufficient quality. Provided it passes notability and WP:NOT then we can have an article on it. But should we remove that article until it meets the other content policies, or leave it in a poorly-written state. I would be inclined towards the latter; I don't think deletion should be a reflection on the current state of the article, merely whether one could be written (I'm an eventualist, not an immediatist). Trebor 19:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The actual problem is that our cleanup processes are terminally backlogged. >Radiant< 09:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We have a cleanup process? I thought we just tag articles with {{cleanup}} and then forget about them. Kusma (討論) 12:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe so, but I don't see how deleting the articles will help. I find it more effort to start a new article than work from an existing base, even if the base isn't very good. Similarly, if I'm searching, I prefer to find limited information than no information at all. I feel this would attack the symptom (a large number of poorly-written articles) than the cause (people's tendency to slap clean-up tags on articles rather than actually clean them up). Trebor 16:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The reality however is that poorly-written articles reflect badly on the 'pedia and tend to stay in that state for a very very long time as Radiant mentions. I am of an exclusionist bent, and classify myself as a "3-monthist" (any and every article should be pulled up to Wikipedia standards within 3 months of creation). Now that I think of it, I'd prefer the three options be keep, delete without prejudice and delete with prejudice. If an article can't even be turned into a useful stub (at the very least!) in the five days it takes AfD to run, then clearly there is no material worth saving for a "keep and clean up". The extra days and extra process are unnecessary. Zunaid©® 14:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Several good suggestions above. I proposed a while back changing AfD so new entries went to the top (so that they get seen and discussed - last of the day tends to get virtually no discussion). That was thought by some to be a good idea as well. But nothing has yet been done. How do we progress this stuff? Guy (Help!) 08:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold? As far as I can see, adding the new suggestions to the top is a no-brainer. Ideally, there'd also be a page that logs the 150-200 additions too, to avoid the cut-off at midnight. But with a large community it seems very hard to get anything done. Trebor 12:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea that not only should be applied to keep/cleanup votes but also to the No Consensus. As for the short time period common sense should be applied where an article has been unedited (excluding bots, vandals etc) for the 14+ days then send it back to AfD and then the editors who say Keep and Cleanup should required to make some effort during the AfD, then when closing if nothings happened to the article then these comments should be discounted/ignored. Gnangarra 13:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a fan of both Google and Wikipedia and I use the wikipedia widget for my google homepage. Since google homepage doesn't allow to have more then one instance of the same widget, I'd gladly see a new version of the wiki widget allowing to me to have more then one query field for different languages. I use both it.wikipedia and en.wikipedia for different searches and I'd be very happy to have both query fields in the same homepage. Now, there is only the option to select a language. I'd be happy with one "add one more language" option, that allow to me to chose one more language for another query field. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.208.83.231 (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The best name out there, hands down

A fantastic feature would be a tool bar that would enable me to highlight an article (not for public display and not for editing purposes) but for display in the articles that I view within my own account when I have logged in.

Then when I am reading about something, I wouldn't feel I have to print the article and then highlight it, but just mouse highlight things. Then it would be great to save this highlighting to show up only in my account.

This suggestion outlines the only drawback to online learning as opposed to paper (and therefore mark-up-able) learning--wikipedia would be a pioneer!

What do you think?

Troy Russon

I like the idea, but it would be pretty tricky to do; it would be hard technically to keep the highlighting when the page was edited. --ais523 18:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that, if possible, a "printer-friendly" version of Wikipedia articles be made available. As the web pages are constructed now, it is a very tedious process to copy and paste the rich information that is provided on any given subject.

James Gabe Oklahoma City January 18, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesgabe (talk • contribs) 18:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

We already have one. Click on 'printable version' in the toolbox (which is below the search box). --ais523 18:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There have been long discussions in WP Films on the length of synopsis sections in film articles. I would risk to state that some consensus has been reached on a 500-600 word length. Yet there are members in WP Films and other users who think the synopsis should be as concize as possible. But not every contributor has the talent to put in a few lines the whole plot of a film. There have been reverts in long synopsis to short versions and the other way round, but no big edits wars (that I know of) yet. My preference is a full plot that doesn't indulge on trivial matters, but I do respect those who don't want to have to go through a long section, even with spoilers, in the length of the article. We have discussed even creating separate pages for long synopsis of films, but we found out they don't stand a chance in Wikipedia. So I have encouraged a knowlegeable member to create collapsed-collapsible sections and here is a display of the result: User:Hoverfish/Notebook#Testing collapsible long synopsis. I am aware that under accessibility and older browsers, the section shows anyway. So I wanted to ask Village pump, if we could use this CSS technique as an attempt to satisfy both sides. Hoverfish Talk 17:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, collapsing does not work in every skin. -- ReyBrujo 17:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a minor objection to me. I like the proposal.

El Ingles 17:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the code for collapsing is in MediaWiki:Common.js so it will work in any skin. However, it won't work for browsers that don't support javascript. Tra (Talk) 18:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed so. It works in every skin but not for some browsers. However in the rare cases it won't work, no information remains hidden, so it doesn't violate Wikipedia:Accessibility Don't use techniques that require physical action to provide information. The only inconvenience is that some few users will see the long synopsis anyway. Hoverfish Talk 20:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, if the summary becomes so long that it needs its own articles or a collapsible section, it is excessive. However, if there is consensus to hide the unnecessary stuff leaving the article as bare as possible, I am not against it. -- ReyBrujo 20:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 500-600 word limit will apply to the Long synopsis as per current consensus. We have some articles where a well written short synopsis exists and users wanting to add to it spoil the quality of it. In other cases we have a well written longer synopsis and users trying to trim it down, also spoil its quality. This is the main reason for this proposal and not to encourage overly long summaries. Hoverfish Talk 21:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will it be complicated to use, for relative newcomers like myself? Shawn in Montreal 21:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very easy to use. If you want to read the short synopsis than you can. If you want the entire plot or more elaboration you click on the "show" button to reveal the full synopsis. That way it is your choice which you want to read. --Nehrams2020 21:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant that, as someone who does create and edit articles on film, how much more code would I have to learn? Is there a tutorial already on how to create a collapsible section? Shawn in Montreal 21:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I know it is the same as editing a section of an article. Once you "show" the section, then there is an edit button to allow you to modify the text. Once you're done, you can save it as a normal edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nehrams2020 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No, that's not quite correct. There is a template called {{LongSynopsis}}. You use it like {{LongSynopsis|This is a quite long synopsis that few people will want to read in it entirety, etc....foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, foobar, }} in the wikitext. Then it shows like:

Template:LongSynopsis

To modify the synopsis, you would just modify the text between the '|' and '}}'. A full example is at User:Hoverfish/Notebook#Testing_collapsible_long_synopsis. To me this seems like a bad idea for articles, but I'm not sure. --Superm401 - Talk 22:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer having a begin synopsis and end synopsis templates, like the spoiler one. It seems cleaner than having a lot of text inside a template. -- ReyBrujo 22:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section is actually to be a subsection of the main "Synopsis" section. The spoiler templates are to be given in both cases. Hoverfish Talk 22:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very much opposed to this idea. The current guidelines state, "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words (about 600 words), but should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reasons such as a complicated plot." These are only guidelines, so we can be flexible. The plot summary for Pulp Fiction is 1,303 words, which is above the guidelines but is justified because of the film's chronology. This summary stands in stark contrast to the unwieldy 2,592 words it used to be. Another example is Psycho. The plot changed from 1,469 words to 687 words. I invite you to compare the two versions; here is the earlier one, and here is the current. Is there anything essential missing in the much shorter version?

We should also always think of the end user as well. The user who does not want to know the plot can skip it by clicking in the table of contents. One click and he skips the long plot, without the need of javascript that creates worrisome compatibility issues. If he wants a brief summary of the plot, we can create a new guideline saying that there should be a brief spoiler free summary before the main plot. Such sections can be found scattered about, such as the one here. My final objection is that it clutters the page.--Supernumerary 22:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree. But the point is that some users are trying to bring plots down to a few sentences, or a couple of paragraphs at the most. Hoverfish Talk 22:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These users are wrong, and we should discourage their practice by reverting their edits. If they protest, then we can work our way through discussions, third opinions, request for comment, and so forth.--Supernumerary 00:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here, by the way, is the last big discussion we had in WP Films: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/archive8#Long synopses -- again + a few sections after it: #Extended plot sub articles. I like your point of view and your excellent work on plots, but does it look like the matter was settled? Hoverfish Talk 22:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it's not settled, or we wouldn't be still talking about it.--Supernumerary 00:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An example of what I had in mind happened lately in Night at the Museum, where a whole plot has dissapeared and now a few lines are "enough said". Hoverfish Talk 22:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Talk about an ugly plot. Not only is it stub, but now it's not even in prose. I'm going to go revert it back to a decent plot, which is what we can do in any case where someone does something bad like this.--Supernumerary 00:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something has to be done to reduce the size of plot synopses. Editors produce huge, unparagraphed synopses that are completely unreadable and defend their sodden prose with ferocity. This is a common reaction for bad writers (I've seen it in several online fiction critique groups) and it's why they're bad writers: they won't ask themselves "Would anyone want to read this?" and any feedback from readers produces only defensive blustering. All the published writers I know (a fair number of science fiction and fantasy writers) send their work to test readers before they send it to the publisher -- and they listen when someone says, "This doesn't work." The long synopsis cutout isn't particularly elegant, IMHO, but it does provide a way to divert the long-synopsis writers into a cul-de-sac where they can ramble endlessly and no one needs to scroll past the boredom. Ideally we'd just have a rule, enforced, saying that nothing can be longer than 600 words without a papal indulgence from Jimbo, purchasable for a mere $1000, but ... I'm not sure I could get this one passed :) Zora 23:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really want to encourage bad writers to ramble on? I say we beat the habit out of them by reverting their poor edits. Another thing is that this condones adding material that is not truly encyclopedic. Who wants WP:Films to become known for having terrifically long plot "summaries" even if they don't have to be read? This just occurred to me, but are bad writers good for wikipedia? I guess they are when they add to an article, but they must learn at some time that they should leave the proper grammar and syntax to those better than them at it.--Supernumerary 00:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more that you hound and revert bad writers, the more that they will be convinced that you are wiki-snobs trying to mold Wikipedia into what you want it to be. Regardless of how bad you think they are, if you attack them they will just stick to their guns even harder. Mentor bad writers into being good writer, don't slam them simply for being inexperienced and over keen.

perfectblue 11:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I realized about a half-day after I posted this that I had overlooked the fact that bad writers can become good ones.--Supernumerary 00:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've read though the arguments, I must say I agree with those opposed, particularly the last two. I'm lucky or cursed to write film synopses for a living and distilling a story down to a reasonable length is not rocket science. It takes some talent and editing, either self editing or the kind that Wikipedia uniquely provides, sooner or later. Shawn in Montreal 03:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there are relatively few of us working on film articles who seem to CARE about readable synopses. We're far outnumbered by the self-indulgent bores. Attempts to prune a synopsis often result in a long and excruciating edit war -- which the summarizer may well lose. The problem is that there is no enforcement mechanism for the 400-600 word guideline developed by the film project and no way to inform new editors that this is a rule. People seem to pick up on 3RR and suchlike, if they've been warned or blocked, but there's no such enforcement for synopsis length.

I know how we can inform them of this rule. We can add it to the welcome template, or in the film template we could add it to the editing guidelines. Then a reminder would be on every film article.--Supernumerary 15:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it would help if all synopses (even non-film synopses, such as for novels) had a short no-wiki warning right after the Plot or Synopsis header, saying something like "Summaries should be at most 600 words long. Longer summaries will be edited ruthlessly." Probably not the best wording. Suggestions invited. I've noticed that stern no-wiki warnings deter some (but not all) editors intent on linkspam. Zora 04:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to have a short synopsis that can be expanded into a longer synopsis if the user clicks on "show"? This would seem to be the ideal, a button that would toggle between short and long synopses.Fistful of Questions 23:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that often barstars are given out too easily and don't fully reflect what the recipient has done. A nomination process (possibly similar to Rfa) would result in far more credibility to the award. It could also be simplified so there are only a few different ones awarded (off the top of my head; vandalism barnstar, editing barnstar, signifcant contribution barnstar and Minor edits barnstar (for the tireless tasks). I just gave my 1st one which I feel is deserved, but this is not shown because anyone can give them RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think all that would do is drag people away from editing the encyclopaedia, and into more bureaucratic !voting. Can't a barnstar remain as a symbol of one user's appreciation of another user's contributions? Trebor 23:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely oppose this, and can't think of a more misleading title for your post. You don't want to simply them, but rather to create instruction creep; you're missing the point. Superm401 - Talk 23:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But surely it would spur people on to edit, and their contributions could be rewarded with a meaningful 'wikipedia award' RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too bureaucratic, plus barnstars are not that important. Right now every barnstar is deserved because one editor thinks that another editor deserves one. Good enough for me. Garion96 (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the barnstar is that it has meaning only as a symbol of one editor's appreciation of another. It's a very personal and informal thing, not a consensus-based meritocratic reward. See Meatball:BarnStar. Ideally, people don't edit seeking barnstars. They are meant to be a honor, not an incentive. Superm401 - Talk 04:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose having options in the user preferences for changing the color of the background/text/links/etc. on all pages. Sounds kinda frivolous, I know, but it would really be nice to be able to browse the site in a dark room without having my retinas burned by the light contrast — especially since I spend more time here than on all other websites combined. Personally, I'd set my color scheme to something friendly like:

The release of Pink Floyd's massively successful 1973 album, The Dark Side of the Moon, was a watershed moment in the band's popularity. Pink Floyd had stopped issuing singles after 1968's "Point Me at the Sky" and was never a hit-single-driven group, but The Dark Side of the Moon featured a U.S. Top 20 single ("Money"). The album became the band's first #1 on U.S. charts and, as of December 2006, is one of the biggest-selling albums in U.S. history, with more than 15 million units sold.

What say my fellow Wikipedia denizens to this idea? --G Rose (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably do this by making the appropriate edits to your Monobook (don't ask me how to do that but I'm sure someone will know). However, a limited set of preset colour options in user prefs could well be beneficial, best solution would be a new skin for this accessibility purpose.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say "yuck" to those colors, but that's just me. You can edit your own personal stylesheet for Wikipedia, at Special:Mypage/monobook.css, and just add something like:

body { background:black; color:green; }

...or whatever else you'd like. Tutorials here. —Down10 ^TACO 11:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess that'll keep me pacified. It would still be a lot more convenient to have it in the prefs, though. --G Rose (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why limit yourself to a few set preferences when you can use any colour you like through coding? The monobook method is far more versatile. --tjstrf talk 13:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from WP:RT Proposed Medical Disclaimer Template

I think that articles on medical conditions and treatments should bear a disclaimer. Particularly if it is deemed that people might use the information provided in lieu of seeking proper medical care. I made a template in my user space that I think addresses this concern: Jerry lavoie 01:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{User:JerryLavoie/Templates/med}}

Which looks like:

The replies I got at templates proposals were:

This is a bad idea. See WP:NDT, but in essence, the problem is that we already have a Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer, and tagging specific articles will cause problems with articles that are not tagged. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rationale in WP:NDT for medical disclaimers is a bit weaker, but still applies. If out of "common sense" or whatever you think we should start adding medical disclaimers, gather some support at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and see if you can convince people. —Dgies^t c 07:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to generate a huge list of articles here, because I do not think that people would appreciate it. Suffice it to say that if you wikisearch for "treatment" "home remedy" "cure" "diet" "prevention" "drug" "non-prescription" etc, you will find numerous wikipedia articles that do tell people to do something at home without their doctor's consent to help with a medical condition. Some even suggest that people can diagnose themselves using other wikipedia article content.

IMHO This is dangerous, irresponsible, and threatens the project from a legal standpoint. Our General Disclaimers found through clicking on the single word disclaimers at the bottom of each article is in no way adequate enough to reasonably preclude people using our content in a manner that could cause them great harm.

Here is a snippet from Herbalism which I arrived at by entering Herbal remedy:

Mixing Herbs. To counteract the various complications and side-effects of an ailment, or to produce a more rounded taste, a number of herbs may be mixed, and formulas are the preferred method of giving herbs by professional herbalists. A well-known mixture used against a cold includes eucalyptus leaf, mint leaf (which contains Menthol) and juniper berry. Another is the age-old favourite "dandelion and burdock", from which the popular fizzy drink was derived.

Fresh or Dried? Many flower and leaf herbs lose volatile compounds within a few hours, as the juices and oils evaporate, the scent leaks away, and the chemicals change their form. Drying concentrates other compounds as water is removed. Most herbal traditions use dried material and the reported effects for each herb tend to be based upon dried herbs unless otherwise specified.

If you are using fresh herbs, you will need more of them, and the tea will have a somewhat different effect. Finely chop the leaf immediately before using it.

Does this article not tell people to treat themselves a certain way after self-diagnosis?

I think that my Medical Disclaimer template proposal should be considered seriously, and the fact that WP:NDT exists should not be used as the sole basis for the discussion. Jerry lavoie 14:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree with you, per WP:NDT. The example you bring is no different than any article that may be improperly sourced or not neutral. If an article is properly sourced and neutral, i.e. follows WP:V and WP:NPOV, plus perhaps a modicum of notability (per WP:NN), we would cover all bases. The omnibus clause at Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer is already there, and should cover us, the same as no legal advice, no financial advice, no personal relations advice, etc. If we present things properly, no problem exists by definition, IMO. Crum375 14:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that somebody considers this necessary is a sad statement on the litigious nature of our society. I propose that we include a template instead

perfectblue 14:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to me that much of an issue to have a small template at the top of some pages, one that wouldn't mar the reader's experience, but would be more direct than the tiny "disclaimer" at the bottom of the page that leads to the medical disclaimer only after passing through the general disclaimer. Something like this, perhaps:

That said, while I hate to suggest that this discussion be moved again, if you want to change the policy at WP:NDT, the place to discuss that is really Wikipedia talk:No disclaimer templates. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 15:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I will consider moving this discussion, but for now I feel it is getting good feedback here, so I'd like to leave it here for the moment. I will not comment on the sardonic reply from Perfectblue97. I agree that the template I proposed is perhaps too obtrusive, and I like the idea of a shortened version as sugested by John Broughton. Jerry lavoie 16:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and for the other comment that I did not mention: As far as citing the existence of existing policies in a discussion about the merits of said policies and proposed changes thereto; I find that a little too illogical to really participate. (I know that's a split infinitive.) To me, it's like saying "There should be a law against speeding, because under the law there is a speed limit". I do not understand this approach. Jerry lavoie 16:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should not be giving advice of any kind, let alone medical advce. We're WP:NOT a howto (treat yourself). Don't tag it with a disclaimer, remove it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although that sounds nice, what do you do in this situation: medical condition X has symptoms Y, and a recommended treatment Z. All sources (let's say) unanimously agree on X, Y and Z. Many people could construe this unanimity as 'advice' of using treatment Z if you have symptoms Y for condition X. Do you suggest removing the article? under what grounds? Crum375 22:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say use attribution to make it clear where the treatment recommendation comes from. Medical articles need to be especially well-cited. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we can attribute it from here till next year[1][2][3]...[1000], but you still end up with what could be seen as advice by some, especially if there is apparent consensus among the sources. Hence the main point raised is valid; the solution IMO is as I noted above to rely on the overall WP disclaimers, which as you noted would also apply to anything else that could be construed as advice in any topic. Crum375 22:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My definition of advice, which I believe is his, is something which says "Do X", or any conjugation thereof. Wikipedia should not be saying "do X", although we can still say "People Y and Z say to do X". -Amark moo! 02:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the WP wording would be: "Medical condition A occurs when the body's ability to produce B is diminished[1]. Common symptoms are C and D[2]. The prefered treatment is E[3][4]." or some such. We would not normally use the words: "people do A for B". We try to make it sound encyclopedic when there is consensus we just say what it is and cite the sources. Crum375 03:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion is going great. Lots of valid points out there. Let's see if we can get some other people involved (not to stack the vote either way, but to seek consensus from a broader group). I'd be surprised if this was the first time this has come up. Anyone know of any archived discussions we can review? Here are some questions for use to think about:

• What do we do to existing articles that seem to give advice or seem to 'promote' a particular product, device, therapy, or provider?
• How do we keep such content from getting back in?
• Should there be a category for articles with this potential so someone could easily browse them periodically?
• Of course the obvious: To have or not to have a disclaimer template.
• Is anyone interested in forming a wikipedia project to standardize and patrol articles for no medical advise
• Shoule we have a specific policy that addresses this? eg. WP:NMA
• Where do we go from here? Do we take the discussion somewhere else with a goal in mind?

Thanks, Jerry lavoie 03:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that NMA would follow from the basic WP tenets. I personally have not seen any example that shows that any change or addition is needed - but I am open minded. Crum375 04:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no firm opinion either way about this topic, if it is decided that it is necessary the disclaimer should be much smaller then the one presented at the beginning of this discussion. Maybe two sentences. --The Way 07:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a medically-qualified person, I feel that any article which gives medical advice should ideally, in theory, carry a disclaimer template of some kind. The debate on the exact form of the template pales into insignificance, it seems to me, in the face of the question as to who will apply templates and who will police articles to ensure their presence. But leaving that aside for the moment, and speaking in medico-legal terms, my understanding is that in the event of legal action being taken on the basis of an article contained in Wikipedia, the liability rests with the author and not with the encyclopedia. Am I wrong?--Anthony.bradbury 16:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does EB carry a separate disclaimer template on each entry that relates to medicine? How about entries for legal issues? investment related? Flying? Diving? Skiing? Crum375 17:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't add the warning in the WikiProject box? Oh, I remember when articles about hurricanes had a big disclaimer there. -- ReyBrujo 17:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the difference between taking medical advice and taking investment advice is that if the medical advice is wrong you might die. But skiing too, I guess. And diving. My point remains - if an article proffers advice the legal liability rests with the author, not with the encyclopedia. Possibly more people might turn to Wiki for medical advice than would for legal or investment advice, but I have no data.--Anthony.bradbury 17:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. "medico-legal terms"? What does that mean? Are you initiating an attorney-client/physician-patient relationship based on your post? If so with whom, everyone who reads it? Where's your disclaimer? Are you admitting malpractice by asking whether you are correct (didn't you research the matter yourself)? Are you authorized to practice both medicine and law in my jurisdiction? Are you going to compensate me if I detrimentally rely on your advice? (etc. etc. etc.) ...

Hopefully you see the point here. This is a slippery slope, you can't put infinite disclaimers on every molecule of thought that someone may unreasonably misinterpret. Besides, the matter is already addressed by the link that appears at the bottom of every WP article. dr.ef.tymac 17:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are starting to see the picture: any encyclopedia is going to include a lot of information, some of which some people will construe as 'advice', no matter what you say. And risks exist in many areas: even bad investments can lead to suicides, and of course there are lots of risks out there in life in almost every area. I think it's clear that if we were to add a warning template for one topic (e.g. medicine), we would be remiss if we avoid it on other risk-related topics. And 'risk-related' would cover a large proportion of our articles. Again, use EB as a reference (no pun intended), they've been around for a while. Crum375 17:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"the legal liability rests with the author, not with the encyclopedia" ... If you are offering this as legal advice, I hope you have your malpractice insurance paid up. If you are not, then you might want to check the validity of your statement; especially since the very definition of author is not a trivial question that laypersons can be expected to resolve while munching on a bagel at the internet cafe. dr.ef.tymac 17:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since medical articles are prohibited from containing WP:OR, wouldn't it be the person who gave the advice in the first place (eg the WP:V sources from which any medical page is constructed) who are liable?

perfectblue 17:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I do not give medical advice in Wikipedia, my malpractice insurance is not an issue. Though it is paid up, and I thank you for your concern! My statement is based on legal advice received, but I am not legally qualified and do not really wish to get into an argument on this point. User:Perfectblue97 may be right, but I suspect that in his scenario it might depend on whether attribution was quoted.--Anthony.bradbury 18:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making my point. You and I both recognize that your post was not intended as professional advice. Sure, perhaps *someone* might have, in which case all those questions would have been relevant, and a disclaimer would have been necessary. Fortunately, for the astoundingly credulous people out there, the disclaimer is already there. dr.ef.tymac 18:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the inacuracies in the wikipedia search engin (WSE) [2] and the better results you could get with Google [3], I think the WSE should be replaced by Google (done here at www.tip.it/runescape) This would help searchers find what they want, faster, more efficiently (and google puts redirects WAY down on the line). I don't know what the technicalitys are, but I'm sure they could be easly sorted out with Google. Chris5897 (T@£k) 14:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That search within Wikipedia is poor is well known - that's why there is are alternatives such as this: Wikipedia:WikEh?.

More to the point: either the Wikimedia Foundation pays for an internal Google search appliance, to avoid ads, or they subject readers and editors to ads on Google when doing a search (and can be accused of favoring Google over its competitors). I'd like to see the Foundation do the first, but I've been told that it tries to use free software for everything, and certainly a Google search applicance would cost money, which the Foundation doesn't have much of. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 15:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never found any problems with the Wikipedia search engine when it's working. The main problem is the number of times it chooses not to work. -- Necrothesp 15:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So don't use it. Use Google. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not had a feed back button to say that I appreciate this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.219.255.154 (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Short answer: why? While I'm sure people are happy to hear you appreciated an article, a button to say so wouldn't help improve the encyclopaedia. We don't rank pages according to popularity or usefulness. Trebor 19:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use the "discussion" button 82.36.120.68 07:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please address the proposal of having multiple pages for Antal, i.e., "as noted near the bottom of the page for Anthony, Antal is the Hungarian version of the Latin name Antonius. Being a "brother" of Anthony, Antonio, etc., it is a rather common name in Europe and various parts of the world. As such, this meaning of the word requires treatment, perhaps via a disambiguous page."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antal)

Thanks.

Occasionally articles are submitted which are demonstrably, obviously and verifiably untrue. Perhaps intentionally, maybe sometimes accidentally. Assuming that such articles do not earn a {{speedy}} tag, they will, I assume, find their way to {{AfD}}. At this point I would like to afix, as a reason for AfD failure, the label WP:UNTRUE. But this tag does not appear to exist. (The tag WP:TRUTH does, but only as a humorous essay, which I feel should not be in Wikipedia. Different topic). I know it's possible; would it be reasonable to create this tag? Clearly, articles which can be shown beyond doubt to be factually untrue should not be retained. I appreciate that other tags will usually apply, but this one would be very convenient. And wholly apposite. --Anthony.bradbury 17:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would you deal with a page about something where the subject matter is known to be untrue, and is the reason for the entry in the first place. For example, a hoax?

perfectblue 17:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite unclear as to what this proposed template would contain and how it would be a departure from what already exists. If an article is untrue in the sense it is a hoax, {{hoax}} already exists and the article, if it doesn't meet a criteria for speedy deletion, can be prodded and/or taken to afd. How would this new tag add anything to this? If you are proposing that we have a new speedy deletion basis, that can be proposed on WT:CSD. But note prior discussions here, here and others going back a ways. The short answer to that where an article's truthfulness is questioned, the appeal to that (un)truth must perforce rely on research to substantiate which is correct: the claimed truth in the article and the claimed untruth of the objectant—not matters that are well-suited to deletion without discussion.

If you are talking about articles in which the subject is not questioned, just the treatment of that subject in the article, I, and I think most editors, believe deletion is not the correct route. Our policies already require reliable sources, verifiability, and prohibit original research, and any unsourced statements in dispute may be removed from articles. So if an editor is not willing or situated to edit the article to make it truthful, article tags such as {{fact}}, {{unreferenced}}, {{disputed}}, {{totallydisputed}} etc., as well as the ability to delete such claimed untruthful matters, already covers this territory.

So if you are at afd saying an article is untrue as in a hoax, the deletion basis is that it is a hoax, that it is original research or unverifiable or even not notable by virtue of being not written about in the wider world, regardless of truth. And if you're there saying "as presently written, the text it's untrue on this real subject," you're going to be told that deletion is not the proper response. So what would this tag actually say?--Fuhghettaboutit 18:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement which prompted my question was contained in an article, since deleted, about a tennis player in which it was claimed that in the year 2002 he was ranked in the top 100 in the world rankings, which was demonstrably false by searching existing data bases, without any suggestion of WP:OR. As I see it, there is a difference between a hoax, which is however misguidedly intended as a joke, and a deliberate untruth told with intent to deceive or mislead.

To answer the question asked by User:Fuhghettaboutit, the tag would say "This article contains statements which are demonstrably factually untrue". the editor would still have the usual recourses available with any other delete tag or prod. I was only asking - please don't bite me!--Anthony.bradbury 19:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A hoax is "an act intended to deceive or trick" so is pretty much synonymous with "a deliberate untruth told with intent to deceive or mislead". I'm not seeing the difference. Trebor 19:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as a difference in motivation. A hoax is designed to annoy or confuse people, or to make them behave in a way that they would not otherwise have done. A lie is designed to advantage in some way the person making the statement. But it really is not a big deal and I think I wish now that I had never suggested it. Thank you for your time and your patience.--Anthony.bradbury 19:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience, a lot of new users expect the images next to articles on the home page to link to the article themselves. This is understandable since so many sites (Google News for one) use images in this manner to link to news stories or articles. I think it throws people off when they click on the image and get the image page, especially since the home page is a place for so many Wikipedia beginners. It might be more user friendly to make these images direct links to the article. Or to find some compromise. Pdubya88 03:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]