Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Broughton (talk | contribs) at 14:13, 16 July 2007 (→Watching a single section: Too bad transclusions don't work for single sections). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

• ]

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

Before posting your proposal:

• Read this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.
• If the proposal is a change to the software, file a bug at Bugzilla instead. Your proposal is unlikely to be noticed by a developer unless it is placed there.
• If the proposal is a change in policy, be sure to also post the proposal to, say, Misplaced Pages:Manual of style, and ask people to discuss it there.
• If the proposal is for a new wiki-style project outside of Misplaced Pages, please go to m:Proposals for new projects and follow the guidelines there. Please do not post it here. These are different from WikiProjects.

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.

Changes to talk page tabs

Change "+" tab to "leave a comment"

I've been informally interviewing my friends about their experiences with Misplaced Pages, and man, do we have a lot of work to do if we want more intelligent, normal people to contribute.

One newcomer couldn't even figure out how to leave a comment on a talk page, so I propose that we change the "+" tab to "leave a comment". She liked that idea.

I believe this is accomplished by editing MediaWiki:Addsection. I'd go ahead and be bold, but that's a little too bold...

What do others think? — Omegatron 16:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Not necessary. The plus tab made immediate sense to me, because it represented adding something. But that is just based on my own experience, since I do not know any other Misplaced Pages editors or serious users. On narrower viewports, it is cumbersome to have lengthy tabs because they are very close to the personal links. Adrian M. H. 20:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I worry that changing the plus icon to text that long might break screens at 800x600. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even notice + for a long time, but that's just me. On talk pages, edit this page should be given less emphasis (unbolded) than + because + is probably used a lot more often than edit this page. People should only need to click edit this page when they want to change banners at the top or to refactor the entire page. To respond to an individual section, use the section's own link. If discussion gets shortened to talk and edit this page gets shortened to edit or renamed to the more intuitive edit entire page, then + can be renamed to add section or something. 800x600 should be able to handle it. –Pomte 21:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with de-emphasizing "edit" on talk pages and emphasizing "new section" and the section edit links. — Omegatron 01:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I run 800x600 and "leave a comment" would fit fine. This, that and the other 07:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This would need a lot of testing with various browsers and font sizes at 800x600. When the tabs overflow, they tend to disappear, a very bad thing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 08:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

When the talk pages are forum-structured, there will be a "new post" button and everything will make sense. They won't have to know how to create a section header or sign their post either. Dcoetzee 08:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, when I set my font size to 40, the tabs overflow; so maybe we should just change them all to single letters.  :-) — Omegatron 15:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the shortest possibler button labels up there. 16:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There are ways to customize everything with javascript and CSS for advanced users and sysops with 15 tabs, but the default user interface should be targeted at the newest of newcomers. "+" is almost meaningless in this context. — Omegatron 19:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I recall this proposal previously got rejected due to historical reasons or some such, but if it does go through, there are some other message in Special:Allmessages that may need changing as well. –Pomte 23:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"Historical reasons"? Bah.  :-) — Omegatron 00:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If we were to change "Discussion" to "Talk" (see Proposal #39, below), there would be room to change the "+" to "New Post". Two birds in a bush or something like that . . . Bielle 01:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think "discuss" would be better if trying to save space. — Omegatron 00:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

'Edit this page' is an action that applies to the visable page. 'Discussion' and 'article' are places we go. I wonder if removing the grey line under 'edit this page' would make clear what the tab applies to? Then we could change 'edit this page' to 'edit'. That would give us room to change '+' to some friendly verb. Tom Harrison 17:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the tab until now. I fully agree with the change. It's a useful tab and there's no reason why editors must wait more than one year (the time I've been editing) to know that it exists. A.Z. 02:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If it gets changed into "leave a comment" then in light of it being very long, I suggest changing "edit this page" on talk pages into "edit". It's good to say "edit this page" on articles, but it's not a good idea on talk pages. --Steinninn 09:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons I prefer the venerable "classic" skin for Misplaced Pages. Over on the left side I see "Edit this page", "Discuss the page", etc. -- simple enough for a simple guy like me. I only wish I had the stick-to-it-iveness to learn CSS & help keep that skin up to date. -- llywrch 23:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I made the change. As I said in my edit summary, this proposal's been here for nearly a month with a slight plurality support.

This is NOT necessarily final, but should encourage much more discussion and a global consensus instead of a local consensus. If it's causing problems on pages that transclude this message (besides the tabs), feel free to revert it. Otherwise please leave it up so people can see it, decide whether they like the change or not, and reach a good consensus on whether it should be kept. — Omegatron 06:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is way too long, IMO. Call it Add if you want it to be easier to understand, but tabs are getting way too long for example for people that add other tabs to their interface. I now need to be full screen to see my last tab. -- lucasbfr 10:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's way too long to be useful. Either "Edit this page" needs to become "Edit" or this "Leave a Comment" needs to be shrunk back down to "+". I don't care which, but it's way too long right now. --Tim4christ17  13:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk Pages

Summary: change the tab title (MediaWiki:Talk label) from 'discussion' to 'talk'.

(the first few posts of this thread were moved from Misplaced Pages talk:Reference desk#Talk Pages)

When I first discovered Misplaced Pages, I spent much time looking for "talk" pages. I am a native speaker of English and I know that "talk" and "discussion" mean much the same thing, but the omnipresence of "talk page" led me to believe that something less formal was meant. Nowhere have I found a reference to a "discussion page", not then and not now. Why do we not change the tab from "discussion" to "talk" and save all the newbies some confusion? We're not likely to change the editors' text habit. Bielle 15:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It couldn't make more sense. I agree with the change. A.Z. 18:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages talk:Talk page guidelines#Discussion Page Guidelines. Calling the discussion pages "talk pages" is jargon that is specific to the English Misplaced Pages; for example, talk pages on the French Wikipédia are des pages de discussion, while the German-speaking Wikipedianer have Diskussionsseiten. For the proposal to have a chance of having an effect, you should post it at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals).  --Lambiam 19:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This probably happens because other languages have no equivalent to "talk pages". A.Z. 19:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What? Of course they have talk pages- take a look at any of the other language Wikipedias, see a list. Friday (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Friday, I didn't mean that other language Wikipedias don't have the equivalent to talk pages. I meant that other languages don't have an expression such as talk page, and therefore their only option is to use the equivalent to discussion page. Romance languages and German all have a cognate of the word discussion which means the same thing, therefore making it the most obvious translation. A.Z. 19:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The idea that other languages don't have a less formal word for talking than "discussion" is absurd. Atropos 21:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I was only referring to English Misplaced Pages in suggesting the change. I assumed that, whatever the tag in other Wikipedias(-pediae?), it is appropriate to its language, and the use of its language. Is there a need to have some congruence in the tag, as would be represented by the root orthography of "disc(k)uss"? That may be a silly question, now that I look at it, as there wouldn't be any visual connection with Chinese, for example. Thanks for the pointers to the pages where such matters are discussed, Lambiam, and to the better place for its discussion. As for having "a chance to have an effect", I have nothing invested in the suggestion or its acceptance. It merely reflects an editor's interest in (a) ease of use and (b) consistency. Bielle 19:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

As it is, the tags are inconsistent with the way that all Wikipedians call these pages, and, because of that and other things, they are harder to use. A.Z. 19:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at Lambiam's first link above. It asks the same question, but there is no discussion or decision that I could see. Perhaps I don't know how to look for follow-up. I have also looked at the Village Pump's FAQ, Perenial Proposals and current suggestions and could see no earlier similar suggestion. On Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals), #33, there is a discussion of the "+" tab. This would appear, then, to be the place to hold a discusion on "Talk" pages. If someone who is following this thread knows how to move the relevant parts of it to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals), please BE BOLD. Bielle 20:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, an user with the privilege of being able to edit protected pages needs to change this page. The change is uncontroversial and, if I were an user with such a privilege, I'd make it right now. A.Z. 21:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that we can say the proposal is uncontroversial until we have given it some time to be considered. Change is nearly always controversial for someone, and that someone (or those "someones") needs time to be able to respond. That's why there are Talk (Discussion) pages, after all. Thus, even if I had the privilege, I would wait a few days. There is nothing urgent here. Bielle 22:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand. I would wait a few days as well, then, but I feel this is rather uncontroversial. A.Z. 23:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering why we all call these pages Talk pages, the text seems to always have been discussion. Anyway, I think Talk is a better idea, the rest of the interface calls these pages talk pages (even the My talk page link) -- lucasbfr 13:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is a subtle contextual difference between the two words. "Talk" could be interpreted as endorsing "chatting", which is not what they're for; whereas "Discussion" is a synonym with more formal connotations. However, "talkpage" is in general use primarily because it's faster to type, and because it rolls off the tongue/eye better than "discussionpage". If we tried to force everyone to refer to them as "discussionpages", they'd just create an inscrutable acronym! For these reasons, I would doubt any changes to the current state are likely (though anything is possible). --Quiddity 18:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Quiddity has hit the nail on the head with his description of the 'subtle contextual difference', so I shan't say anything other than to endorse his statement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

True, there is a "subtle contextual difference". English is full of such things. However, no one is paying any attention to the diifference, as far as I can tell, which may mean it is "subtle too far". "Discussion" could equally well be "chatting"; the difference depends more upon the setting and the formality of the language of the conversation than on its content. Everyone refers to what is linked to the Discussion tab as "talk pages" or just plain "talk" and, whether we wish to encourage it or not, talk and chat do happen there, along with discussion, negotiation, argument, notification, diatribe, rant, positioning, advertising, pleading, demanding, and almost every other actvity possible on screen. The difference between "talk" and "chat" is another example of a "subtle contextual difference". "Chat" has a specific meaning on-line, however, and indeed, it is not what we wish to encourage. "Talk page", however, on English Wiki, means the "discussion page and what actually goes on there". It seems unnecessarily confusing to insist that the tab keep the "Discussion" label merely to make a point that talk isn't chat. (While the WP:POINT being made is not disruptive, neither is it helpful, especially to the newcomer.) Bielle 19:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd beg to differ or there would be no need for pages such as Misplaced Pages:WikiLawyering. I think there are users that will push the interpretation to the limit. For this reason anything that could be misconstrued as chat should be avoided. David D. (Talk) 20:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

For one thing regarding definitions, talk means to speak, as if with the mouth. Discussion can still mean writing it. The page titles are so because it is shorter. I personally am for continuing using 'discussion' for the tab. Reywas92 22:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be "miscontrued as chat", David D., for chat to happen. It is happening all over now. (I'd link to specific talk pages except that it might embarrass individuals who are no more chatty than a hundred others. For the most part, this is limited to User Talk.) I also disagree with Reywas92. On line, "talk" is understood to mean "write" unless a voice system is specifically noted. There is no doubt that there is a reason why "Discussion" was selected for the tab initially, and Misplaced Pages:WikiLawyering is a reality for the most minute points. Nonetheless, "Discussion" as a tab remains confusing, and there is a simple way to eliminate the confusion. No one has yet addressed this issue, which is the only reason for the proposing the change. And, in respect of the care and keeping of newbies, please see the opening comment in 33 above, and all the following flac about the "+" sign.Bielle 23:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the confusion. The pages are for the discussion of the article content, that seems to be quite obvious. Agreed one might call it talk but the service that the page provides is apparently quite descriptive. At least, I have never considered it to be an inappropriate name. Are most newbies really that confused? David D. (Talk) 02:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for most newbies. I can tell you that I spent considerable time looking for "Talk Pages". I found the "Discussion" tab and knew what it was for, and what went on there, but assumed, as the name "talk page" was everywhere, that it was something quite different from "Discussion". If you do an internal search for Talk Page you get to read about "Talk Pages" in all their manifestations. "Discuss" and "Discussion" are secondary meanings. The article even notes that you should look for something labelled "Talk" (or "discuss") at the top or side of a page. All I am suggesting is that we reflect the actual use, and what the "Talk Pages" article believes to be the case already, in the tab system so that there is one less hurdle for a newbie. Obviously, all of us figured it out, eventually. (Perhaps it is a secret test to see if a newbie really is Wiki editor material. Perhaps I am a slow learner.) The world will not collapse if we don't make the change. From the resisitance noted here to what I thought was a minor matter, it might be easier to try and get all the editors to refer to "Discussion Pages" instead of "Talk Pages" with the same objective, of being more newbie friendly. I wonder where I would make that proposal. :-)Bielle 02:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Bielle that "talk" can be used to mean "write", especially online. It means something as "communicate" or "communication". That's why almost all Wikipedians feel comfortable calling them talk pages. Reywas92, do you commonly refer to those pages as "discussion pages"? A.Z. 19:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I agree that it is very confusing to label the tab "discussion", but have everyone (including the help pages) constantly refer to them as talkpages. Especially so for newcomers, young editors, and ESL editors.

I'm just guessing that it's a perennial proposal, though I can't see it at Misplaced Pages:Perennial proposals or at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (perennial proposals)#Proposals concerning Talk namespaces (and other discussions). However, here is the correct place to discuss(!) it, and I personally wouldn't oppose the change of MediaWiki:Talk to say "talk", barring any new persuasive evidence that the status quo needs to remain.

Any oldtimers know about any past history of this idea? (they're not exactly "unique terms" to use as search fodder..!) --Quiddity 18:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It seemed to me such a simple idea that I, too, went looking for a history at all the places you mentioned, and failed to find anything earlier on such a change. I should have said all this in the opening paragraph, and saved others the effort. Anybody find anything? Bielle 23:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

1. We should really be emphasizing accessibility to newbies above all else. We need to make the site very easy for newcomers to contribute to.
2. Would "discuss" (verb) be a better choice than "discussion" (noun)? — Omegatron 01:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"Discuss" suggests active participation better than "discussion", but the confusion about "talk pages" isn't remedied by the change. Unless we have something labelled "Talk" or "Talk Page", the confusion remains. Bielle 01:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should be emphasizing accessibility to newbies above all else. Openness is the whole idea behind Misplaced Pages! Imagine if we had suggested ten years ago "let's let everyone edit an online encyclopedia". Someone would surely come up with something like "no, people will begin to chat, it will become a social network, it will never work", and things like that. Imagine that Misplaced Pages had been created and someone suggested "let's write on the main page that anyone can edit it". Surely someone would say "no, because it will turn the encyclopedia into a huge chat room". It's just fear. Changing the name of the tag will improve Misplaced Pages by making the website more accessible to new users, as people will more quickly understand what is a core aspect of Misplaced Pages, namely the talk pages, which will diminish a bit the feeling that Misplaced Pages is such a misterious place that only a selected few can understand. Letting the links to talk pages continue to be called "discussion" will only make people confused and prevent good editors from participating in the project. A.Z. 02:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

To (inaccurately!) summarize people's positions on this:

In favor:

• Bielle: "Why do we not change the tab from 'discussion' to 'talk' and save all the newbies some confusion?"

• A.Z.: Agrees with Bielle.

• lucasbfr: "I think Talk is a better idea, the rest of the interface calls these pages talk pages."

• Omegatron:"We should really be emphasizing accessibility to newbies above all else."

• Quiddity: "I personally wouldn't oppose the change of MediaWiki:Talk to say 'talk', barring any new persuasive evidence that the status quo needs to remain."

Against:

• David D.:"Anything that could be misconstrued as chat should be avoided."

• Reywas92:"Talk means to speak, as if with the mouth. Discussion can still mean writing it."

A.Z. 17:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a terrible summary of my position! I specifically stated that I wouldn't oppose a change. I was merely pointing out why discussion was the currently used word, and why there was a disparity between the formal-name and the informal-usage. It probably should be changed, as far as I can see. --Quiddity 17:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed my post so you are in the group that supports the change. A.Z. 18:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ;) --Quiddity 19:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say I was in favor of this change, either. Lumping people into groups based on your perception of their position is usually a bad idea. If you want to see what we actually think, take a poll or something...

Sign under any options that you like. Feel free to add other options. — Omegatron 01:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

A poll may be helpful for something, but I hope it doesn't become an election. I think the discussion above and more discussion like that are useful, and a poll would be useful if it were just a part of the discussion. I thought my post was useful because we could easily know who was left to be convinced. A.Z. 02:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been ten days now. We can continue discussing, but I think it's time for an administrator to make the change. A.Z. 03:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been twenty days now. A.Z. 22:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Reywas92 wrote that "because of parallelism (grammar), 'discuss' just wouldn't work", but there is a button called "edit this page" (perhaps it should be "page edition"?). Their argument for not changing the tab to "talk" is still that "talk" means to speak with the mouth, while discussion can still mean writing it. This is simply not true: people use talk all the time to mean communicating in ways other than speaking with the mouth. They also wrote that "I really don't think something needs to be inviting". Things are supposed to be inviting because of the openness of the project: the more people, the better. A.Z. 22:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

tjstrf and Gnangarra have the same argument for opposing the change of "discussion" to "talk": they say that the word "discussion" describes what happens on talk pages better than the word "talk": in their words, "The tabs are worded quite clearly as is and 'talk' is less descriptive, therefore more confusing, not less" and "I prefer 'discussion' as it has an implied context that one should actually listen to opinions of others. Where as 'talk' doesn't relate to an expectation that one should listen to the opinions of others." David D.'s argument is also similar, although he emphasizes a concern with the particular interpretation of the word "talk" according to which the talk pages are "chat rooms".

Nevertheless, the fact is that original argument for changing the tab is that the name of the pages is "talk pages", not that the word "talk" would be a better description of the activity that happens on talk pages. In Bielle's words, "Nowhere have I found a reference to a 'discussion page', not then and not now. Why do we not change the tab from 'discussion' to 'talk' and save all the newbies some confusion?" I have been through the same problem: I didn't immediately understand what people were referring to when they said "talk pages". If the tab said "talk", I would've immediately understood it.

The names of the other tabs are not an attempt to accurately describe the content of the pages that they link to. It's hard to guess what the tab "history" refers to, but people do call those pages "history". Tha sme with "watch": you have to learn what it means somewhere else, likely by clicking on it, or reading about it somewhere. Nevertheless, people do refer to "watchlists" and they do say "I'm watching that page".

No-one calls talk pages discussion pages, anywhere, and that does cause some problems to some newbies, which is the main reason that concerns Bielle and concerns me. Other people seem not to be so worried with newbies, yet they do support the change because it's sort of ridiculous for that word to be there ("discussion"), when there's no reference to it anywhere else. A.Z. 22:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am astounded this hasn't been changed yet. Misplaced Pages usability is horrendous. 129.120.159.176 13:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I made the change to Mediawiki:Talk. As I said in my edit summary, this proposal's been here for nearly a month with a slight plurality support.

This is NOT necessarily final, but should encourage much more discussion and a global consensus instead of a local consensus. If it's causing problems on pages that transclude this message (besides the tabs), feel free to revert it. Otherwise please leave it up so people can see it, decide whether they like the change or not, and reach a good consensus on whether it should be kept. — Omegatron 05:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Another user reverted Omegatron's change, without giving any explanation here on the village pump... Now, Andre's decision is being discussed both here and here. I suggest that we centralize the discussion on the village pump, so everyone can participate and it all stays in one place. My opinion is that Andre's argument for reverting the change is wrong: he says that there should be consensus for the tab to be named "talk", but I don't see why it would be any better for it to be named "discussion" when there is no consensus that it should be named "discussion" either. I don't know what is the solution, though. A.Z. 18:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Two points: 1. I love how everyone just assumes that it's soooo simple, and seems sooooo obvious once it's actually been pointed out to them, that it MUST have been proposed before! 2. I'm also surprised no one proposed that perhaps the reason they're called talk pages is because they're in the talk namespace. Morgan Wick 06:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Poll: discussion tab

"discussion" → "talk"

1. Makes sense to me because of title prefixes like "Talk:" and "Misplaced Pages talk:". — Omegatron 01:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
2. This reflects tha language used throughout en.wiki and will be the easiest for newcomers to understand. This benefit outweighs, in my opinion, the possibility that the change will be seen as an invitation to "chat". Bielle 01:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Clearest for newcomers, ESL editors, and young editors. Used almost-consistently throughout the help pages, and consistently in normal usage. --Quiddity 01:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
4. I'm in favor of the change. I explained why on the thread above. A.Z. 03:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
5. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 03:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Moderately in favour, only to bring it in line with the namespace. And at least it is short. Adrian M. H. 15:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Strong support - this goes along with the namespace names; it seems to me that the meaning is clear, and it's shorter. Od Mishehu 08:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Strong support - As a new user (and a native English speaker), it took me a few minute to realize that talk and discussion pages were the same thing. In addition to it being clearer, it's shorter -- just as Mishehu said. Spazure 05:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
9. That's what everyone calls them. Why confuse the newbies. --Apoc2400 08:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
10. or "talk" -> "discussion", but, namespace aside, good luck getting everyone to stop calling them talk pages. --Random832 19:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
11. Because it's in the Talk: namespace, people are going to keep calling them "talk pages" no matter what they're actually called, and if you're worried that they'll become forums, just add one of the standard "This is the page for discussing article Blah." headers and warn people about what wikipedia is WP:NOT. Confusing Manifestation 03:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
12. The shorter, the better. The two meanings are "close enough for computer work". StuRat 23:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
13. I agree that it makes since for overall site consistency. LaraLove/_C 03:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
14. We already call then talk page, so... -- lucasbfr 11:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
15. Short and simple - also works with internal consistency. --Tim4christ17  14:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
16. One less piece of jargon for new contributers to learn. --Ybbor 15:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
17. We all call them talk pages. The present linkage system is to ]. And scattered throughout the project there are vast numbers of references to talk pages, including a lot within WP pages. Surely to avoid confusion the tab should say "talk"? --Anthony.bradbury 12:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"discussion" → "discuss"

1. Saves space, more inviting than "discussion". — Omegatron 01:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Not a bad alternative. I still don't like the idea of "talk", despite reading the many arguments above in favour of such a change. The title of the tab should be viewed as an invitation to discuss the page, or to a discussion. What does an invitation of talk conjure in the minds of editors? A monolog? An IRC channel? A dialog? Discuss represents so much more than these. David D. (Talk) 03:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, David D., it does that, but "discuss" does not speak to the initial reason for the proposal: that everywhere on en.wiki there are mentioned "talk" pages, and yet there are no "Talk" pages. You can't read anything on English Misplaced Pages and fail to come across a reference to a "Talk" page, and yet, they don't exist. Bielle 18:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

3. I agree with Omegatron. ~ thesublime514 • talk • sign 23:08, July 4, 2007 (UTC)

Don't change "discussion" tab

1. --Steinninn 01:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
2. I see no reason to change, however, see above for views on discuss which might be a viable alternative if people really find discussion too cryptic. David D. (Talk) 03:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
3. It is fine the way it is right now. +spebi ~ 07:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose 'Discussion' could be changed to 'talk', but because of parallelism (grammar), 'discuss' just wouldn't work. The 'article' tab would then need to be changed to 'read', perhaps. Why inviting? + may be confusing (not to me), but 'discussion' says it; I really don't think something needs to be inviting. Reywas92 14:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

   I don't agree that there is a grammar problem of any sort; "discussion", "article" and "talk" can all be nouns. Bielle 17:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

   'Discuss' can't, though. I believe my opinion is made. Reywas92 13:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

   Sorry; I misread your original sentence. Indeed, "discuss" is not a noun; "article", however, can be a verb, if you are a law student. :-) Bielle 17:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

5. Pointless. The tabs are worded quite clearly as is and "talk" is less descriptive, therefore more confusing, not less. --tjstrf talk 17:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
6. — Deckiller 18:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
7. I prefer "discussion" as it has an implied context that one should actually listen to opinions of others. Where as "talk" doesnt relate to an expectation that one should listen to the opinions of others. Gnangarra 13:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
8. Leave good enough alone. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
9. No, it's fine and please advertise this better before changing it. Andre (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
10. "Talk" actually strikes me as likely to be more confusing to an unfamiliar visitor. I prefer a noun over a verb, because a verb implies participation. By contrast, a "discussion" is something a visitor can view passively if they choose. Dragons flight 18:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
11. No change is needed. "Talk" reads like an invitation to banter. However, the talk page guideline is clear that talk pages (except maybe user talk pages) are not used to be for idle chatter and random talk. Their purpose is discussion. -- Black Falcon 02:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
12. It's fine how it is. — xaosflux 03:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Poll: + tab

"+" → "leave a comment"

1. Clearer for newcomers. — Omegatron 01:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Likely the best in terms of new-user comprehension, but may take up too much space. The overall best, then, is "New Post" Bielle 01:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
3. --Steinninn 01:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Weak Support. I would prefer just "comment" or "add comment" — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 03:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Yes. This, that and the other 07:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Good idea. Not everyone is good at figuring out cryptic UIs. --Apoc2400 08:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Everything needs to be spelled out because we want normal people contributing. A.Z. 18:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
8. Probably my favourite out of the options here, but all of them are clearer than '+'. (From my Real Life interactions with non-Misplaced Pages editors, it's clear that the usability does need a lot of work; for instance, it's not at all clear that you can determine an image's copyright status by clicking on it, and the usual assumption (in my experience; this is anecdotal evidence and therefore probably wrong) seems to be that all Misplaced Pages images are public-domain. Clearer labels are one way to further this aim.) --ais523 12:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
9. I think this is a good idea, although kind of long. I didn't use this tab for months after I started using Misplaced Pages because I had no idea what it was, and I just didn't click it. Now that I know what it is, I use it frequently. LaraLove/_C 03:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
10. I also think its a good idea. Most people don't ever click the + tab because they didn't know what it does and not everybody is "curious enough" to experiment with all the buttons so making it clear what it does is a good thing. --_Hdt83 18:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
11. I loved seeing this change and I'm upset that it got changed back. This is much clearer for newcomers than the cryptic "+" which I remember being puzzled by myself. Haukur 00:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"+" → "new post"

1. This is language generally recognized on the Internet and is clearer for newcomers than just the "+" Bielle 01:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
2. The tab is useful and it's hard to figure out what it means. It's even hard to see. A.Z. 18:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
3. "Add a comment" does not imply it's a *new* comment, so with both systems you have inexperienced users adding a section every time they want to add a reply, which is inefficient and annoying. Implying that every + is a new post will help clear that up. -Wooty   18:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
4. If the + has to go, "New Section" would be clearer, since each comment is often referred to as a post. Adrian M. H. 18:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"+" → "new comment"

1. Not quite as clear as "leave a comment", but saves space. — Omegatron 01:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
2. My second choice, per discussion rationales offered above. --Quiddity 01:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"+" → "comment"

1. Not as good as the more verbose ones, but acceptable. — Omegatron 23:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"+" → "add comment"

1. Pretty clear, short. — Omegatron 23:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
2. I like this one best. Short and concise. LaraLove/_C 03:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
3. My fav. It's concise, and doesn't look awkward. the_undertow 09:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
4. --Kaypoh 15:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
5. I like this best;the implication of adding something is important. I'd been here 3 months before realizing what the + meant. --Thespian 22:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"+" → "new topic"

1. Clearer, more accurate, and shorter. — Omegatron 12:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Ditto. --Quiddity 17:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
3. While I still prefer "+", this option would be acceptable as well, as it is clear. (relatively) concise, and most importantly accurate. --Tim4christ17  20:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
4. While I personally prefer "+", I recognize that one of these options is probably simpler for newcomers. This one has the advantage of being minimally ambiguous with the idea of adding a new comment to an existing discussion (especially as compared to the other proposals). Nihiltres 01:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't change "+" tab

1. I think of it as just a shortcut for experienced editors, plus editing the whole page or just a prior section, gives newcomers an example of wikicode to glance through. --Quiddity 01:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
2. As I wrote when the "+ tab" issue was raised recently, I see no problem with it, based on my own experience of finding my way around WP. It logically equates to adding something new. Adrian M. H. 15:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
   • Please restore the + sign. The width of the tabs is too wide when all tabs are visible, leaving the Twinkle tab for SD right under the watchlist link. Having to make sure I don't click in a hurry. Adrian M. H. 15:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Leave it alone or remove it. I see no real need for the tab anyway. If people are curious they can click it and find out what it is. Does everything really need to be spelled out? David D. (Talk) 03:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Concur with David – if people are confused about the button, it is easy enough just to click on it and find out. +spebi ~ 07:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Do not remove it, as it allows a more automatic edit summary and goes directly to the bottom of the page. "Leave a comment" is too long. Not to be rude, but it is very simple to realize what + means. If I had to chose, it is the shortest, "new post". Reywas92 14:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Keep it simple + is a recognised symbol for add, as such its appropriately used. Gnangarra 13:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
7. Once again leave good enough alone. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
8. Yes, please leave it. Andre (talk) 06:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
9. Restore +. If necessary, make a tooltip. Wait, we already have one. It says 'Add a comment to this discussion'. If that isn't clear enough, change it, but leave a message is just taking up space. --ST47Talk 11:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
10. Or something very short, as "Add", but personally I think that "+" was quite clear already -- lucasbfr 11:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
11. Restore the +. It's short and concise - and simple enough to figure out. Additionally, the new version is actually more confusing because it implies that to leave a comment you have to use it, when in reality you only use it to add a new section of comments. --Tim4christ17  13:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
12. Restore the + This is a well-known mathematical sign which means Add. What could be clearer? --Anthony.bradbury 14:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
13. Restore the + - As an administrator, I have many tabs. I'm no fan of the crowding, and "+" seems very intuitive - I understood it on first sight. It's also frustrating because I seem to see a majority of users opposing any change from the original - we need a consensus here, and for site-wide, hugely visible changes like this, it is frustrating to see such a short discussion change the interface against the wishes of many. Nihiltres 14:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

    Omegatron commented on this post on my talk page, and on reflection, I don't think this comment was the best approach to the problem, or that its rationale was sound: it amounted to a well-written "NOOO CHANGE IT BACK!". While I personally prefer the "+" and find it intuitive, it'll probably be useful to new or inexperienced users to have a more descriptive tab - besides, I can customize my tab text using my personal monobook.js page, a solution I already have set up (but not entirely active) there. Nihiltres 00:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

14. Please restore +. I'm sure many people (like me) did not participate in this discussion so far simply because they expected the proposal to fail ∴ Alex Smotrov 17:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

    They might have also not participated because they expected it to pass. You can't really guess what someone's opinion is if they don't give their opinion. Tra (Talk) 17:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

    Hmm… I think it's unrealistic to silently expect something to pass when there are several new options to choose from. Anyway, my point is that most proposals seems to fail rather than the other way ∴ Alex Smotrov 19:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

    Or, as in my case, they may simply not have known the discussion was going on until they saw that the tab had changed. --Tim4christ17  17:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

    That was the whole point of changing it before the discussion was finished. I see now that his was a dumb idea, though, since people are just going to say "NOOO CHANGE IT BACK" without actually reading the discussion or alternative proposals. — Omegatron 12:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

    Actually, I did read the whole thing - and I suspect that others did as well...most of the comments have well-reasoned statements. Simply because they don't agree with the previous discussion doesn't mean they didn't read it. --Tim4christ17  20:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

15. It's a shortcut. It doesn't need to have one of the largest tabs on the list. Dragons flight 18:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
16. Takes up way too much space. Prodego 18:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
17. Like Quiddity said, it's more of a shortcut for expierenced users than new ones, and gives them a chance to see wikicode. Also, as other stated "leave a comment" would also apply to replying to an existing section, when the tab is really only for new discussion. --Ybbor 01:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
18. No change is needed (or rather, no satisfactory alternative has been suggested). In addition to being longer, "Leave a comment", "New post", "New comment", "Comment", and "Add a comment" all hold potential for confusion since each individual indented edit within a thread can be considered a distinct comment. -- Black Falcon 02:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
19. I have quite a few tabs, and after this change they run off the screen for me. And, also, I don't think there's a need for a change. I was never confused by the + tab; since it's not completely necessary anyways, there's no need to make it massive. — thesublime514 • talk • 02:46, July 14, 2007 (UTC)
20. +1 on leaving it alone. — xaosflux 03:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop voting on everything

Oh, and this change is a stupid idea. Don't fix what isn't broken – Gurch 09:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly concur. Haven't they always been like this? Reywas92 14:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Try not to call people's ideas "stupid". It's rude, especially when there are some obvious, logical, and intelligent reasons behind the discussion (As in, it's the 'talk:' namespace, lots of newcomers have expressed confusion over the years, etc).
• We're not "voting on everything"; this is the first poll I've seen at VPp in a while. They're sometimes useful. An admin started this one.
• Appeal to tradition is one perspective, but it's not an argument ender. --Quiddity 18:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Anything that decreases the chance that a new comer will stay and be comfortable here should be changed to something more welcoming or easier to use. No experienced editor will be bothered by either the "+" or the "Discussion" tabs. We don't know how many potential editors a fruitless search for a way to add a comment or a guide to finding the omnipresent (but entirly absent) "talk" pages has driven away. We do know that some new, but not entirely inexperienced, editors mentioned that they have had some problems with these matters in their early days and were confused by them. Why not just make everything a simple as possible? Bielle 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop voting on everything

This isn't a vote; it's a poll. Both polls and votes are discouraged, but can be useful in certain situations, especially for decisions like this (you have to agree that a UI change is significantly different from an editorial decision about an article.) I've intentionally structured the poll so that people write their rationales for supporting different options instead of just saying "support", and so that new suggestions can be added to take into account different rationales and narrow in on an idea that more people will agree with. It's more like a structured discussion than a vote. I've seen this style used successfully elsewhere and thought it would be appropriate here.

Don't fix what isn't broken

Several people disagree. You should sign under the "no change" section if you don't think it needs changing.

Haven't they always been like this?

Way back in the day it said "Discuss this page", actually (see http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org), but why does that matter? Tradition is completely irrelevant. The user interface should be as usable as possible.

Also, everyone needs to realize that this poll is not very meaningful in the grand scheme of things. There seems to be a consensus that the interface should be changed, so it probably will be. But as soon as we make that change, everyone will become aware of the issue and there will suddenly be hordes of people with opinions on the subject. There will be much more discussion after the change is made, and an even better solution will most likely emerge. Relax. — Omegatron 23:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't change without a consensus -- a plurality is insufficient. Andre (talk) 06:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This whole thing is mountaineering a molehill, but "leave a comment" has to be the worst change possible. Its far too long, and its not very clear. Its very easy to leave a comment in a previous section, as I am doing now. New comment is far clearer and more aesthetic. Atropos 21:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

And thank god talk was changed back to discussion, I felt so unprofessional clicking it. The idea that the word "discussion" is "jargon" is a little frightening to me. Atropos 21:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed them both back, as I don't think there's a consensus for "talk" and "leave a comment" here. Andre (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. "Add a comment" is not only too long, it is incorrect, as the action of that button is to start a new section and add a comment to it; most comments can't use that button. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There are several other proposals. You wouldn't be happy with any of them? You wouldn't be happy with something different, like "New topic"? — Omegatron 11:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I see now that changing it in order to generate more discussion was a bad idea. People are just saying things like "Please change it back, this takes up too much space!", completely ignoring the discussion and several other proposals that do not take up as much space. — Omegatron 12:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Adopt Wikinews as a namespace of Misplaced Pages

Despite the hard work of the volunteers at Wikinews, it seems to be taking a bunch of hits on the chin. I'd like to suggest discussion about something that might help Wikinews and Misplaced Pages at the same time. It seems there are two big problems:

1. Wikinews could use more people.
2. Misplaced Pages is overrun with articles that are essentially "news reports".

My suggestion, create a new namespace on Misplaced Pages for News and establish a simple procedure for moving News: articles into the encyclopedia namespace when they're no longer a "current event", or to an inactive status/archive for when it's not something for the encyclopedia. Advantages: It would dramatically increase the "horsepower" behind the news reporting engine, would provide a place for non-encyclopedic articles that are covering breaking news, and would solve the licensing difficulties that currently exist with adapting Wikinews content into Misplaced Pages. This suggestion could be dumb, but on the off chance it isn't, I'm suggesting it here to see if any huge flaws can be identified before taking it to a larger audience. PS, please don't kill my family and pets because I suggested this, it's just an idea. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this in the strongest terms. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a news service. It is true that they often overlap - Misplaced Pages will regularly have articles on things that are in the news. However, the style of writing is completely different - we are writing encyclopedia articles about current events, whereas Wikinews is writing news stories about them. The two are not one and the same. Rebecca 04:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is worth looking in to. Wikinews is desperately in need of a larger userbase, and many Wikipedians are no doubt capable of writing newspaper style rather than encyclopedia style. Wikinews is too great an idea to let it putter along with less than 30,000 users and 8-10 articles per day. And as the recent New York Times Magazine article suggests, Misplaced Pages may be strangling Wikinews in the current arrangement.--ragesoss 04:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said to you both on IRC, this proposal is fundamentally misguided due to Chairboy's apparent misunderstandings about the purpose of Wikinews. Any material moved from Misplaced Pages to Wikinews would be useless for the latter; as it would be written in encyclopedia rather than news style, it would at the very least have to be completely rewritten by Wikinews editors, and may still be of no use, since the Misplaced Pages article would still take the overarching view of one event, rather than the collection of single news stories approach necessary for Wikinews. This makes one of the major goals of this proposal: using Wikinews as a dumping ground for content on current events wanted off Misplaced Pages, completely unhelpful for all concerned.

As for the second stated intention of promoting Wikinews - did anyone think of talking to the Wikinews people about this first? I fail to see removing the independence of the Wikinews project would aid in getting it any editors. A more helpful approach would be to actually do a bit of useful coordination between the two projects, such as encouraging WikiProjects (particularly those of a geographic nature) to chip in and help at Wikinews from time to time.

Both Misplaced Pages and Wikinews are profoundly different projects, with a very different way of writing articles, and different editorial policies accordingly. I see no evidence that merging them in this way would benefit either project in the least, and indeed, I would argue that it would do serious damage to Wikinews. Rebecca 04:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not suggesting moving Misplaced Pages content to Wikinews, I think there might be some confusion there. Also, as I mentioned in my initial post, I'm running it up the flagpole here first before bringing it to a wider audience. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The same issue would then apply in reverse. Any Wikinews material would be nigh-on useless for Misplaced Pages, since it would have to be completely rewritten into encyclopedia format. The practical effect would be that people would have to start from scratch whenever Chairboy deemed the topic to be notable to get an article on Misplaced Pages. There is also the serious problem of license compatibility between the two. Rebecca 04:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are you making this personal? C'mon now, that's not called for. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If nothing else, we should be much stricter on saying "News gets immediate coverage on Wikinews. It then gets later coverage, if and only if it becomes clear that the event is of lasting and historic significance, on Wikipedia. Don't write "breaking news" articles here, not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Write them there. If one does get written, soft-redirect it to Wikinews until it's clear there's an encyclopedia article appropriate. Don't try to predict when that will happen, wait until it unambiguously has." I actually got the chance to see Wikinews in action today, and it works brilliantly. I don't want to roll it into Misplaced Pages, but I don't want Misplaced Pages to choke off its air either—and in this case, its air and the thing that will draw people to it is reporting breaking news. And they're set up to do that much better than we are. So let's let them, we'll write the encyclopedia article a day, or a week, or a year later, if and when it becomes clear there's one to be written. Seraphimblade 05:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ragesoss, would you like to know what I consider Wikinews's primary failing? "Published" articles are no longer editable. Without that, you are just another news source. There is no reason one can't write in news style and focus on current events without wanting to lock everything that goes on the front page. By contrast, as Misplaced Pages covers items "in the news" the coverage continually improves. Even the AP will submit many rounds of updated stories during the course of major events and other publishers have various correction processes. Once upon a time someone at Wikinews wrote an article about my own real life research, but the article contained many fundemental errors in the basic science and I was told there was nothing I could do because it was "published". If you want to be more than a third tier news service, then I would encourage you to eliminate the concept of publication entirely. In the mean time, us Wikipedians will enjoy crushing you with vastly superior, continually updating coverage of current events. Dragons flight 05:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews has an incompatible license with Misplaced Pages. Corvus cornix 04:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. The Free Software Foundation lists version 2.0 of the Creative Commons Attribution license as incompatible with the GFDL; while the compatibility of 2.5 is not listed, if I recall correctly it's incompatible, in which case this entire discussion is moot. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 05:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Chairboy suggested that his proposal "would solve the licensing difficulties that currently exist with adapting Wikinews content into Misplaced Pages". Could you clarify that statement, Chairboy? I'm not sure how that problem's solved at all. Even under a separate namespace, every contribution to Misplaced Pages must be licensed under the GFDL. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 05:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! I should have clarified what I meant. Merging the Wikinews activities into Misplaced Pages would, as a side effect, put it under the same GFDL that Misplaced Pages uses because it would just be a different namespace of the same project. Past articles would not be affected, there would probably need to be a clean-break point where new stories were created in the News: namespace on Misplaced Pages while the live stories on the legacy Wikinews would be finished and published and, eventually, would become a static archive. Going forward, the Wikinews: or News: namespace on Misplaced Pages would be license-identical to the rest of the project. There are probably other viable alternatives if this is unpalatable, this is just the one I thought of initially. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Combining the projects is a good idea. I'm not sure a separate namespace is needed. I can imagine that there could be different standards for "news" articles than for other articles, if necessary. It is true that there is quite a bit of duplication of effort. Since Misplaced Pages has the bigger audience, articles about breaking news seem to be better at Misplaced Pages. I hardly ever look at the Wikinews articles because I find out more at Wikpedia.

There is a tendency for many people at Misplaced Pages to use the word "encyclopedic" to mean "like an encyclopedia" which usually means "like the Encyclopedia Britannica". The other definition, "having a comprehensive scope, especially of information or knowledge (either in general or on a specific topic)" is much better suited to what we are doing. Why do we want to have these artificial constraints on the scope of the project? Misplaced Pages should be a comprehensive source of information and knowledge, be it old, new, serious, superficial, what-ever. Combining these different forks would strengthen the whole. News articles could have their own portals, wikiprojects, categories, etc... Frankly, I don't see how the policies and guidelines would need to change much. The biggest change is that Misplaced Pages would have to loosen up on what it calls encyclopedic.

While we're on the subject, there are other projects that should also be incorporated. First that comes to mind is Wiktionary. What is the OED if not an encyclopedia about words. Combined, there would be many less AFDs to argue about. Create a namespace for definitions -- "Word:" and it would so much easier to look up words (there could even be another button "word search" in the search box.) Yet another project to integrate is Wikispecies, with the addition of categorized redirects, we could create category pages at Wikpedia to replace the entire project. For an example of what it might look like, see Category:Genus Panthera. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by this idea, Chairboy. On one hand, it would attract more users there, on the other the two projects are different enough that integrating would be difficult. As far as the issue of published articles, unlike Misplaced Pages, a Published Article is the same as a local newspaper publishing a reporters piece. Once it's printed, it's done. I absolutely love this feature because I wouldn't want my articles completely messed up by someone who thinks they know something about the subject, although in your case I would have tried to contact you if it was apparent that you were linked to the topic. Rider of the Storm|_Thunder 13:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Sam, perhaps people are defining "encyclopedic" to mean "like an encyclopedia" because there are so many places that say "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia", not to mention that whole "The Free Encyclopedia" slogan on the logo, and because we have that pesky little page WP:NOT which says Misplaced Pages is not a news site, dictionary, directory of species, or collection of every little scrap of information that could ever exist or has existed. Oh, and good luck trying to change that page, it's one of the oldest, most beloved pages on Misplaced Pages. Morgan Wick 17:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a bad idea. If we are here to form an encyclopedia then we are here to form an encyclopedia. If we're a "general information hub" or a "comprehensive source of information and knowledge", then we might as well allow Joe Bob to write an article about his new car and offer driving directions like MapQuest. WP != Google, WP != a dictionary, WP != a news source. I also have misgivings about how WikiNews is operated but that's not really my main concern. The fact they're all Wikimedia projects is enough. -Wooty   05:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dragons flight that, as is, there are bi-i-i-ig problems with the publishing system of Wikinews that hampers its usefullness. I think that: 1) getting put on a main page should not automatically publish; and 2) publishing should only occur when the facts are known, with 3) room to correct any erroneous info later. I'd just be up for 3 and it would be a tremendous improvement.

I'm kicking around a potential template to stick on an article that's getting a bit too news-y in my user space, User:Morgan Wick/newsarticle. Morgan Wick 07:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If anything should be adopted into Misplaced Pages as a namespace, I think it should be Wikispecies. — thesublime514 • talk • 20:19, July 13, 2007 (UTC)

Web references

This isn't a proposal - more of a question seeking a proposal. Has anyone addressed the problem that in fifty years' time, when Misplaced Pages will of course be "complete", probably 95% of all of the (extremely numerous) references that link to web pages will be dead and hence unverifiable? Should we be doing something about this now? Matt 01:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC).

No need. We can always go to archive.org --Steinninn 01:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What about when archive.org becomes dead?! Ahhh! ~ thesublime514 • talk • sign 02:24, July 3, 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Misplaced Pages should start keeping copies of web pages we cite? I have no idea how archive.org gets around the obvious copyright problems. — The Storm Surfer 03:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly there is something we do. Provide a full description for each source. Title, author, publisher, etc. See WP:CITE. (SEWilco 02:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC))

That won't help if the web page was the only place that the original text was recorded, and the web page has now gone! Matt 20:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC).

Archive.org, while containing billions of pages, is hardly complete; you can read more about it at Internet Archive; for its use, see Misplaced Pages:Using the Wayback Machine. An alternative place for copies of pages - user-placed copies - is WebCite. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I sometimes update refs to AP and Reuters articles to poijnt to contracostatimes.org, or boston.com, or abcnews.com, or other sites which i find do not expire. Can anyone contact these and find out which of them plan to keep their sites up for the next 100 years, or at least until nano-robots are working and ready to rout archives to people's personal satellite uplinks via their wristwatch uplinks :-)? Seriously, can anyone find out which sites are deliberately hoping to keep links active for a long period of time?

regarding archive.org, if it has links to archives of at least significant sources, such as the AP and reuters as I mentioned, perhaps we should start letting editors to use this more frequently. --Sm8900 16:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal towards permanently semi-protecting January 1 to December 31

I would like to propose permanently semi-protecting all 366 articles about calendar days. Now I suppose that'll draw some opposition so I figured it would be best to discuss in the widest possible forum and of course there's no rush to do this. Let me first try to carefully state my case.

• These pages are all fairly stable. If one overlooks the vandalism and ensuing reverts, there are really very few meaningful edits on these pages.
• These pages are heavy vandalism targets. As anyone who has ever done recent changes patrol knows, the "1989 Cute guy John Doe is born" is very common.
• The ratio of vandalism-related edits to meaningful edits is about as low as it can get. Speaking recently to Riana, I used January 22 as a random example: out of the last 50 edits, more than 40 have been vandalism-related. The rest of the edits have been mostly cosmetic fixes implemented by accounts which would not be affected by semi-protection (I think this edit is the sole exception).
• These pages are heavily watched so any request for edits by IPs or new users would presumably be quickly implemented. They would also be quite rare since, as mentioned earlier these pages are quite stable.

Now the policy on semi-protection says that indefinite semi-protection should be used for "Articles subject to heavy and continued vandalism such as George W. Bush". There's no question that the calendar days are the subject of continued vandalism but I'll concede that it's not heavy if one compares it to the hardcore hailstorm that affects the beloved GW Bush article. Still, from a cost/benefit point of view, semi-protection would seem reasonable. If I can get consensus here, I'd like to experiment by protecting a dozen of them for say a week or two. We could see how that goes and make a more educated decision afterwards. Pascal.Tesson 04:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as there woun't be a ugly tag on top of them all, then I'm all for this suggestion. They are a indeed a target for vandals. --Steinninn 04:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No need for that, the template {{Sprotected2}} just puts a discrete little lock in the top right corner. Pascal.Tesson 05:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Interesting idea. Semi-protection of these pages isn't WP:BITEy in the way that protecting mainpage articles is. I'd support a test. How about semi-protecting alternating days (July 5,7,9,11 for example) and comparing after a set amount of time (say a week) how those look compared to the before-and-after of the adjacent days (say, July 6,8,10,12). The idea here is that whatever the current day is seems to get a fair amount of vandalism. Also try the same with two heavier traffic pages (such as December 25 and January 1). Flyguy649_contribs 05:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me, those are basically just index pages to begin with. --tjstrf talk 05:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Most IP-edits made to "days of the year articles" are indeed vandalism or nonsense, but I'm not sure it has reached a level that permanent semi-protection is needed. Each article on it's own is not heavily vandalised at all, all the 366 pages combined are easily watched (this link gives you all the recent edits), and the standard arguments for why pages should stay open applies. But I'm not strongly against it either. I've grown more and more tired of reverting prank edits myself like those these pages attract, and as articles become better and better, and we have more and more people who bother to sign up an account, I feel we now can afford to be more selective than we used to with who we let edit these articles. So, I guess I'm undecided here. Shanes 05:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I oppose semi-protecting these articles. Almost all the vandalism, as has been pointed out above, is of people adding their own name or their friends' names. This is relatively harmless vandalism - if someone reads the article in this state, it doesn't significantly detract from their experience of Misplaced Pages. In effect, these are harmless test edits, and while we would prefer that people use the sandbox, semi-protecting these articles won't move them in that direction. Some people who cannot edit their birthday article will make similar edits on less heavily watched pages, and others will never try editing at all.-gadfium 06:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

While I respect that stand I must disagree. Vandals are for the most part harmless kids. They go to the page of their birthday and think "he he, I'll be funny and add my own name" but I assume that a vast majority of them would, in the event that they can't make that edit, just forget about it. You, on the other hand seem to think they'll say "oh, I can't edit this so let me add my birthday to the article elephant." The problem of course is that we'll never know which of us is right about this. In any case, I believe that vandalism is a significant problem on Misplaced Pages not because of its malicious nature (by and large they are rather harmless edits) but because of the sheer volume of vandal edits. In any case, I'm certainly well aware that there are drawbacks to semi-protecting any page but in this case I think the advantages outweigh the concerns. Pascal.Tesson 06:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think, if the next article they read is "elephant", they are more likely to add a comparison to their sister than their birthday, but in any case I think for someone to make their first edit to any page is important, even if it's not a productive edit and gets reverted very quickly. This has always been a part of the Misplaced Pages philosophy; it's why we use templates like {{uw-test1}} rather than cracking down hard on inappropriate edits. Test edits are mostly made by teenagers, and once they realise that they really can edit and have those edits appear to the general public, some proportion of them might decide to edit productively.-gadfium 23:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

But isn't that a bit too idealistic? I've always felt that the philosophy behind WP:BITE is not that "vandals become editors so let's be nice to vandals" but rather "incompetent newbies become good editors" so let's show patience with newbies even those who think their sister looks like an elephant. But all in all, a certain level of reasonable restrictions to IP edits (such as the inability to create new pages) does lighten the load on vandal fighters and I'm not convinced that it so dramatically scares away potential contributors. Pascal.Tesson 23:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Misplaced Pages is an idealistic project. So far, it's worked well that way.

Elephant is not actually a good example, partly because it's already semi-protected, and is probably watched by a substantial number of people. I think it's more likely someone would click on another name from their birthday page, and then add to that quite likely obscure article that 90 years later Tommy Smith was born to carry on their work.

If these pages are semi-protected, then the various year pages from say 1985 to 2000 should probably be semi-protected as well for the same reasons.-gadfium 00:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Misplaced Pages has done well because it stuck to its idealism for the most part but also because it was able to make pragmatic choices and turn away from idealism for the sake of idealism. Pascal.Tesson 03:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a difficult choice. The conflict as I see it is that we're weighing the labour involved in constant useless reversions against the potential benefit achievable through anonymous edits, and second order effects where test edits might lead to successful recruitment. Because these pages naturally evolve very slowly, it's difficult to find useful anonymous edits. To me, it suspiciously resembles past arguments where some would encourage semiprotection of "finished" or "stable" articles, which I certainly don't support (we should never send the message that "this is done - don't screw with it"). It's for this last reason that I lean towards oppose: we don't want to send that message. Dcoetzee 09:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I support the semi-protection. I watch October 4, my birthday, and nearly all of its edits are of this sort. The good edits are nearly always by established users. Because I'm often the first to see it, I'll be the one to take the time to check the article to be sure it's a redlink and then revert it. I also agree that these articles are very static. In my opinion, these test edits will rarely result in recruitment. As said above, most are made by bored school kids adding themselves, unlikely to ever make a constructive edit. I know that I didn't make annoying tests. Regarding Dcoetzee's last statement, I hadn't really thought of it that way before, but for days of the year, it seems they are done, and that we don't want them screwing with it where we then have to revert it. Anyway, if the person has a constructive edit to make, a request on the talk page is encouraged. Reywas92 14:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm conflicted about this... I'm not usually a big fan of preemptive page protection, and certainly there are few enough of them that a concerted effort to make sure a few people are watching each one is probably sufficient to keep them clean. That said, however, of the ones I watch/see on RC patrol, by far the majority of the changes are new users or IPs adding themselves or other redlinks. I haven't seen any sign that people I've warned about this have turned into serious contributors afterwards, even when I've tried a more personal message welcoming and explaining why their birthday is non-notable by Misplaced Pages standards. So I guess I'd describe my position as slightly weak support -- I think it would be OK not to protect, but it would save us time to protect without causing much harm. Pinball22 16:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I also support the semi-protection per Reywas92's comment above. ~ thesublime514 • talk • sign 18:25, July 3, 2007 (UTC)

I also support. Almost no IP edits are not reverted and not being able to add yourself to a date isn't going to turn a useful contributor away. Atropos 22:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I support this proposal, as well. The cost/benefit analysis here is strongly in favor of semi-protection for these pages. -Chunky Rice 22:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I too support this proposal. — The Storm Surfer 03:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is well thought out Pascal, and eloquently worded, howver I'm afraid I oppose. I am in favour of anonymous editing in all cases, except where sprotection is totally necessary. The point here is, I don't think sprotection is necessary at all. On the flip side, I am perfectly willing to add every single one of these pages to my watchlist to increase their visibility to me, if this helps. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 04:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh I'm sure they're all heavily watched. And I really don't feel so strongly about it: it seems like a reasonable idea to me but I'm perfectly ready to accept that there's no consensus to do this. I just hope that enough people will take part in that debate to gauge the support for it. Pascal.Tesson 04:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

why not make an option on the front page just for birthdays that ppl can post. maybe a separate column, in yellow or light blue frame or something. this will solve part of the problem. and the semi protection does seem reasonable nonetheless. But if the birthday thing is created then there is no need to make semi protection. :DVitalyshmelkin 10:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. The ratio of anon edits that are vandalism vs. constructive edits in these articles is persuasive. One benefit to semi-protection not yet mentioned is that RC patrollers spend time dealing with these edits that would be better spent addressing other needs on Misplaced Pages. Accurizer 11:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, create 366 templates, with the meaningful data. Transclude the templates on the main article for each day. Casual vandals will just try to edit the day page, and not know/care about how to change the template. But, the main article for each day should be protected (the templates remain unprotected). End of problem?? Neier 11:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - 99.99% of edits by new/unregistered users to these pages are vandalism. WATP • _(contribs) 12:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong support - I've reverted lots of anon. IP edits on these pages, many of which had stayed there - never noticed - for weeks or longer. I too have thought of proposing generic semi-protection for these pages -- so I'm glad Pascal.Tesson finally took the inititative on this issue. Thanks! Cgingold 14:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong support - As a regular RC patroller, I can vouch for the fact that these are test edit/vandalism magnets. Semi-prot won't harm em, and anyone who really wants to improve them can do so easily. Excellent proposal.xC | ☎ 14:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. Taken as a group, these 365 articles have a very high proportion of IP vandal edits to constructive IP edits (any at all?). Let's free up editors to work on things beside reverting vandalism of these articles. (And, by the way, my brief look at one article seemed to show that it wasn't move-protected - why in the world not?) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see the need to semiprotect something which is (supposedly) heavily watched anyway, but I think it boils down to the wikiphilosophy you're adhering to. Let's say it like this: There is not enough vandalism to warrant semiprotection right now; just wachlist and revert. And just as a little caveat: if you start with dealing out semiprotection because the edits to an article are more than 90% vandalism, you will have more articles to be semiprotected. Lectonar 15:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I don't think that vandalism level is heavy enough to warrant protection. Vandalism that appears in these pages also tends to be the least malicious kind. I don't think the benefits obtained from this proposal is enough to further compromise our principles of open editing. Borisblue 09:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose philosophical approach, I agree with WP:PPOL Semi-protection should not be used With the sole purpose of prohibiting editing by anonymous users. Protection should be used only to prevent continuing disruption. Ultimately we should be striving to uphold the principal of "anyone can edit" Gnangarra 11:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, semi-protection in perpetuity is not done. Corvus cornix 18:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is. For instance, pages like Auschwitz are semi-protected indefinitely and the last time someone tried to unprotect George W. Bush it was reprotected immediately with the summary "are you insane?!". There are good arguments against indefinite semi-protection but "it's never done" is not one of them. Pascal.Tesson 18:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see the results of this, as a supporter of the proposal. What happened to it? --User:Krator (t c) 23:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Support a test. As Flyguy649 suggested, a test of this would be interesting, and should be agreeable to most. Maybe July-December, as that is the period we're entering, and provides a clear end date for the test. --Quiddity 00:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally oppose this. We can just revert vandalism, and those pages have the potential to attract new editors that begin as "vandals" and can eventually become helpful editors. A.Z. 00:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Yeah, it's a pain in the butt, but I'd be surprised if we don't have at least one or two "reliable" editors to watch each of the dates. I'll add my birthday to my watchlist now, in fact. Cmprince 03:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Weak Support - The concept is good in principal, but if you will notice certain dates tend to get more vandalism than others. Why not instead of semiprotecting all the dates, just semiprotect well known dates. Such as July 4, December 25, February 29, etc. Just a thought. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Support I've had many of these pages on my watchlist for a while and they are a target for vandals and a "my daughter was born on this day"-target for newb editors. It's a pain for the editors that maintain and vandal and vanity edits routinely remain unnoticed for long periods (i've seen 4 months). --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - I agree with the previous statement that RC patrollers can focus on other needs. I also like the idea to create templates for each day. Vandals wouldn't care enough to take the time to figure out how to edit the template. Although some may still post nonsense, it may deter many. LaraLove/_C 04:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - Im reaslly torn here. Ever since I started on Misplaced Pages I've been an RC pattroller, and after seeing how much vandalisim these articles got, I now watch about 5 pages (my birthday, my congressman's birthday, and a few friends' birthdays — this also has the benefit of not making my birthday so obvious if anyone's trying to root out my identity for some reason). Is there a lot of vandalisim? definitly. Would semi-protection stop it? There's little doubt in my mind. At the same time however, semi-protection isn't the only way to deal with this. These pages can be and are closely watched. Semi-protection seems like trying to pound in a nail with a sledgehammer. It's overkill, but not by much. I just think using a regular hammer works fine as-is. I won't be dissapointed if they are s-protected (it'd be less work for me), but at the same time, I don't think it's necessary. (If we still wanted to do something, perhaps a bot could check "births" for each day for redlinks?) --Ybbor 01:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Reduce allowed length for signatures and usernames

The current length limit for signatures is 255 characters. However, it is considered bad form to have long signatures because they take up a lot of space on the source page and can be confusing to navigate through. Also, many users have been warned for having a very long signature that can be simplified. Why not just limit the total length a signature can be?

The same goes for usernames. I'm not sure exactly what its max length is, but it is too long. It is already been disallowed to have very long, repetitive, and/or confusing usernames. Users have even been blocked for having long names. The limit must be shortened. Any comments? Thanks! Reywas92 15:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to start making more rules, I'd add to the preceding suggestion a related one to eliminate oversized (i.e. font size greater than the normal text size) and coloured user signatures. Creativity is a wondrous thing, but, at the moment any given non-article space seems to be more about editors and less about the subject at hand. Perhaps we could make exceptions for what appears on a User's Name or Talk page. Bielle 16:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Avoid instruction creep by allowing the community to decide which usernames are allowable when cases come up, rather than attempting to forge a controversial general policy. Λυδαcιτγ 16:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

All I know is, some usernames are a pain when using the Undo function, because it leaves almost no room in the Edit summary for an actual edit summary. - Kesh 16:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks to Λυδαcιτγ , I see that in Misplaced Pages:Signatures, section 4.1, there are guidelines about colour and size of signatures. It would appear, then, that the ones that bother me don't bother anyone else. Bielle 19:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

See User:Athaenara/Gallery for the most blatantly annoying. They really irritate me.

I'd very much like to see colour, size, and typeface changes made technically impossible (including sub/superscript). Userpages are suitable for individual creativity, not signatures. --Quiddity 20:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

They really irritate me too. -- Hoary 21:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, there's nothing worse than a frivolous signature that uses a different font. Who ever heard of a serious document being signed with a signature in a different font? --AnonEMouse 13:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that changing the current technical restrictions will do anything to solve the signature problems. — The Storm Surfer 20:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Help by rendering problem signatures impossible (other than by copy and paste, etc.)? -- Hoary 21:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

On signatures, I don't want to stop customizing of them, only shorten them so they aren't rediculouly long. Reywas92 13:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm someone who you might say likes fun signatures. I don't see any real problem with them. I know you will all accuse me of having a overtly large and repulsive signature, but I'm okay with that. Granted writing an encyclopedia is serious, but some people will start to leave if there is no joy and fun invovled. By the way my signature is only two lines long. Only a few symbols longer than Reywas92. Just a thought. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No reason for further guidelines on this...what we currently have is enough. (Also - with respect to sub/superscript, more people should use them - it makes it easier to find the user's talk page). --Tim4christ17  14:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think what we have is enough - I know that I designed my signature to be simple and unobtrusive with a few useful links. When I changed it recently, however, I was forced to remove a link to my contributions page because the system would not allow me enough characters for the formatting (which isn't anything ridiculous, as you can see). Further, many users design unique signatures so that they and others can find their comments easily on a crowded talk page. While I think that some signatures may be a bit more garish than others (yes, The Random Editor, yours is a little on the big side ;) ) it's a matter of what's reasonable. If users are asked to change their signatures by the community, it is often enforced to some degree. As long as signatures aren't flashing, using a ridiculous amount of space, et cetera, I don't see the problem with allowing a certain amount of originality. Nihiltres 14:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with eye-catching signatures, is the counterpoint to the statement that people "can find their comments easily on a crowded talk page".

They obscure or overwhelm a thread visually, much like gratuitous text-formatting does. They make it harder to pick out the signal (any relevant links), when scanning down a crowded talkpage.

They also make it harder to pick out default-style-signatures, from the mess of bright-custom-signatures.

They're like the WikiProject Stargate banner (see Talk:Stargate) that refuses to adopt the standard color scheme, and thereby screws up part of the intended-simplicity of the talkpage banner system, wherever they are placed.

They're lacking in empathy.

Instead, I'd suggest using Javascipt to highlight your own sig, privately. (just add that code to your monobook.js page, and replace the 2 instances of "ais523" with your own username)

And then be as creative as you desire within your own userpages. --Quiddity 19:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

To hammer the point home, it's not the aesthetics that are usually the problem (I quite like the letters/font Audacity and The Random Editor are using, and colour choices from editors like Radiant!, etc) it's that they are Distracting, both visually and mentally. --Quiddity 20:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a "Look at me! Look at me!" quality to signatures that are larger, brighter and more complicated than the default standard used by most editors. I am tempted to conclude that, if Jimbo Wales doesn't shout, perhaps the rest of us should be equally reticent. Bielle 21:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Change "History" tab to "Past Revisions"

I don't think it is clear to newbies what the history tab does. I'm pretty sure, say more than a few new users browsing the Poland page have thought that the history tab would bring them to history of Poland. I think this is a simple, uncontroversial change that will help ease the wikipedia learning curve a little (and easier access to the history tab will emphasize to new users that there is *some* accountability to Misplaced Pages edits, so the articles they are reading might not be completely untrustworthy)

The German wikipedia uses "Versionen/Authoren" (versions/authors) which is also good, especially because it highlights that this is the place where authorship is recorded. Borisblue 09:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose there might be some new users who will be confused by the tab name... but after they click on it for the first time they will quickly figure out what it means. It's called "learning by doing". Blueboar 15:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be true assuming they come back. Hopefully that "moment of discovery" will happen before the anon writes a blog post or news article proclaiming that WP is unreliable because there is no way to track changes. Anyway, given it will be almost completely painless to implement this change, I think there is a lot of benefit that can be gained from this. 16:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Painless, hah! Look up a the discussion of the + button, a button which actually IS potentially confusing unlike the history button. No, I think history is as short, sweet and useful as it can get. GDallimore (Talk) 16:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: It would make the tab too long, and I don't really think it's confusing. ~ thesublime514 • talk • sign 18:59, July 5, 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't want such a change HERE, but I think that this should be proposed on the Simple English Misplaced Pages. FunPika 22:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have run across this problem, 'history' might obviously mean to us that it will show all the past versions, but to passers by I think it's generally confusing. Although a name change would be a somewhat dramatic change, sometimes change is good. --W.marsh 17:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe "Versions" (or "Revisions") would strike the best balance between clarity and succintness. The curious will eventually click on the "history" tab and find out what it is, but not everyone is going to explore, especially not right away. "Page history" or "article history" or "revision history" might also make the tab's function clearer, but not as briefly. --Groggy Dice T | C 01:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support any change suggested above. I have always held some reservations about the title of the tab, and I'm glad someone is bringing the suggestion forward. --best, kevin 04:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

A key consideration is that users with small screens and large fonts already run out on room on the tab bar. So the new text shouldn't be significantly longer than the current text. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

~ Wikihermit 02:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk Header

{{talkheader}} seems like an excellent bit of code to be added to EVERY single talk page on wikipedia..why isint it standard? Why isint there a bot that automatically adds a talk header on to every wiki article (at least add one on every talk page which has already been created).. sorry if this has been discussed before as surely something as trivial as this shouldnt be occuring? I mean is the talk header only for problem articles?Cuz i think the info on it and its links are very adequate in a newbie finding out basics about wikipedia (no original research, if u got questions click here instead of posting on the talk page etc etc).. Later.petze 07:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please no, not another template put semi automaticly on talk pages. :) It's already full of wikiprojects templates. When you used to click on an discussion page and the link waa blue, you knew almost for sure there was actual discussion on the discussion page. Now when the link is blue it doesn't matter often, it usually is only full with templates. The template you mentioned should only be put on talk pages when there is a need to. In George W. Bush the template makes sense, but in Cecil Township, Pennsylvania (random article) for instance there is no need. Garion96 (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Lol so its been discussed before, sorry to bring it up again as i had no idea...Anyhow yeah as i said, it can be added to every talk page which already has content on it(so talk pages with nothing on them wont get a talk page automatically added)? But yeah i guess ur right ur response makes sense..Thanks for the quick reply.petze 08:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the primary use for this template is for talk pages where discussion tends to go off-topic. If I'm wrong about this, let me know, then edit "is" to "should be". — The Storm Surfer 09:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Petze, Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT a random chat forum. Please use proper English. Reywas92 14:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Using such a template such as that is entirely up to the discretion of the user - if an editor is constant contact with new users of Misplaced Pages, it is extremely beneficial for them then when posting to that editor's talk page to have a handy reference. Not all editors are as in touch with new users (not to say they are hermits! or that such a template exists solely for new users (it is sometimes a reminder even for seasoned editors)), but how a user's talk page is (to some extent) up to their choice for its layout. They may wish to create their own template similar as to such but with their own flair or finesse. Having that auto-tagged to their talk page would undermine that effort for them. --Ozgod 00:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• We could perhaps add something like that to the MediaWiki talk page header (preferably with a css class so that people could turn it off). I've never found the talkheader template all that useful, it simply restates the obvious. >Radiant< 12:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Use of talk page transclusion?

I've run across the same fragmented conversation talk page problem as most people. This usually is resolved with something like

"If you initiate a discussion on my talk page, I will reply on my talk page, but, I will notify you on your talk page via a short statement (ex. ==RE: Subject== See reply on my talk page) and will do this every time a post a reply. This way, not only are conversations not fragmented, but you will know if I've acknowledged your comment."

I think it would be a nice to have something like a transclusion option located next to "This is a minor edit" and "Watch this page" just above the button where you "Save Page". For example, if the "Transclude this thread" option is checked and "Save page" is pressed, this thread also would appear on my talk page via transclusion and my pressing the thread "edit" link on my talk page for that transcluded thread would bring me back here to post. Any responses posted here, of course, would appear here and on my talk page. I think this will solve the user talk page fragmented conversation problem. Could/would someone create such a "Transclude this thread" option? -- Jreferee 19:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Transclusion may eat up to much resource. How about a bot that goes back and forth between two talk pages using subst: command to substitute thread posts into the otherwise fragmented discussion? -- Jreferee 19:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Why can editors not watchlist any talk pages on which they leave comments?? Adrian M. H. 19:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There are a few problems with that approach. If one's watchlist has a lot of active pages in it, it can be easy to lose the talk page in the shuffle. More importantly, the talk page only shows the most recent change, so there's no way to know from the watchlist if someone has responded to your comment unless it is the most recent change; it's only possible to see that someone changed it. Again, on a busy talk page, you can miss the reply if a bunch of other people have posted after your response. I'm not sure a technical solution is a bad idea here. Something easy would be to make the + button create a new transcluded subpage instead of just a section, but I'm guessing that would be an unpopular idea. — The Storm Surfer 22:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

But it is not too hard to take a brief moment to check the page if there might have been other revisions that you missed. It is not a bad suggestion, as suggestions go, but I really think that this is a solution in search of a problem. Adrian M. H. 14:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this idea has merit. Because of the projects I'm involved in, I utilize talk pages frequently. Often times I forget to check the watch tab and end up forgetting about my message until something triggers an "Oh, yea!" Then, sometimes, it's too late. I tired the posting to both pages; the full response and the "I've replied here" post. That seemed like a waste, so then I tired the "If you post here, I'll reply here. If I post there, reply there" concept. It didn't work for me. Now it just kind of depends on my mood, I suppose. Not considering how much Misplaced Pages resource this would take, I support this idea. However, if it would be taxing on WP, then I'd oppose. LaraLove/_C 04:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Make "Upload file" more like on commons

There are a few things that I would like to propose for en: when uploading files. Most of these are not original ideas. I could provide a link to where they were first proposed but I don't think it's that important. I think they can be done with js of some kind.

1. Remove the "Upload file" link in the "toolbox" and move the "File upload wizard" into the "toolbox". I believe this has been done on zh: and can probably be done here with js.
2. Have the {{information}} preloaded into the editbox, again, much like at commons, and much of the info filled out. It has been suggested rather to have a link that will fill it in if needed, but personally I don't like the later idea. Having it automatically in the editbox will give people a better idea of what info is needed. I have located how it was done on commons, it is a simple js here.
3. A small thing is to have the editbox 50% larger, or more.

This same message went trough the Village Pump (Make "Upload file" more like on Commons) without anyone noticing and again at MediaWiki:Commons.js. I've been asked for a consensus from the comunity so I'm putting it up again for a vote to take place --Steinninn 20:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding anything that would get people to upload at commons instead would be good too, like a page 'The file you are uploading appears to be free content - please consider uploading at Commons instead (upload at Commons/ignore). Richard001 05:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. I'd like to see more people commenting wether they like these ideas or not. No admin want's to do these changes unless people say it's good. --Steinninn 02:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Area codes in the United States

This page gets the most traffic, so I'm posting this here. The above category is ridiculous. Look at some of the articles in it and then Category:Area codes in the United States by state and List of North American area codes. Very few of those articles have any useful/unique information at all. I suggest that they be merged into state articles, such as Area codes in Ohio. Oh, upon further looking, there is List of Texas area codes and two others. These are actually very short lists and I'm sure the information in the area code articles can easily be merged there with room to spare. Every North American area code surely doesn't need its own article; lists must be made.

The sprawl of somewhat notable, though very small, unlikely to grow articles is becoming a huge problem. There are also articles on seemingly every train station and subway stop. See here for a recent thread, which was agreed on and an anti-sprawl guideline is being drafted. I'm here looking for even more input. Reywas92 22:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

While you might consider those articles unneeded, I've recently been using them very regularly at work. What is useless trivia for one person, is in many cases valuable information for someone else. - SimonP 13:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

They will probably be deleted. — The Storm Surfer 00:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? --Golbez 02:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is what happened to our lists of ZIP codes at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lists of ZIP Codes in the United States by state. — The Storm Surfer 03:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If you think the pages are unnecessary/should be deleted, I'd recommend taking it to AfD. --Tim4christ17  14:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"becoming a huge problem"? Do tell. How? Misplaced Pages is not paper, there aren't any size constraints, so we don't need to worry. Besides, in some cases there are interesting bits of information about the history of the area code, or about its upcoming overlays, etc. --Ybbor 14:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Separate Login name and screen name

I got this idea from a forum that I visit. I am not 100% sure, but this could help make accounts more secure (as in prevent more compromises). In order for someone to log in, rather than typing in the name that appears in places such as recent changes and page histories (a screen name), they have to type in their login name which is different then their screen name. If a person wanted to compromise an account, they would have NO IDEA what the target's login name is, so even if they were able to get into someone's account, there is no guarantee that they got the right one (in fact it seems more likely that they would end up in an account with 0 edits or a blocked account). Login names could be changed via Special:Preferences without any bcrat assistance (but screen names (such as mine is "FunPika") would still need to be changed via WP:CHU). FunPika 23:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Confusing to new editors though, seems better suited for a game then an encyclopedia. Prodego 05:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• That wouldn't actually help; that's what passwords are for. >Radiant< 12:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• In effect, this sounds like having two passwords rather than one. Gracenotes § 04:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• To confusing for newbies. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, Gracenotes has it right (it's like having two secret passwords). For the "confusing" concern, it doesn't have to be so! We can default screen-names to be identical to login-names. Users wanting extra security could follow instructions to change their login-name in the prefs. That would help increase the security in older more dangerous if hacked accounts (i.e. when the user has already gained the experience to change the default same login-name). Not that bad of an idea, but not sure if the security gained is worth the trouble of tweaking the code and/or certain problems I may not have spotted yet. Thoughts? NikoSilver 23:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  The 'secret' login name would actually be less secure than a separate password because people are more likely to reveal it (since they are used to the idea of having public usernames and private passwords), the login name is more likely to be based on a screen name or something personal to the user that can be discovered by getting to know them, the HTML form field would not be a password field (allowing people to look over shoulders) and since it would not be possible to have two duplicate login names, when setting a login name people may discover that their choice of name has already been taken, therefore discovering one half of the secret information required to access an account. I think to make accounts as secure as what is being suggested, people should just double the length of their passwords. Tra (Talk) 23:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Watching a single section

Surely there have been many occasions where you have wanted to watch a section on a busy page that you don't usually frequent without having all the noise clog up your watchlist. If there was a way to watch only a single section the problem would be solved. It should surely be possible, right? I've mentioned this elsewhere, but I thought I'd get some feedback here. Richard001 05:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't possible, and can't be done easily. Prodego 05:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible and difficult or impossible? Richard001 05:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Right now it can't be done, and to add such a functionality would probably crash the servers from the load. To make this work you would have to completely rework how edits are recorded and pages are watched. Prodego 05:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, thanks for letting me know anyway. Richard001 06:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

... so do it. Seriously though, I think this feature is a great idea, would the problems caused by making such a change be insurmountable? — The Storm Surfer 00:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

At least for discussion pages, this is one of the multitude of issues that will be addressed by implementing a proper forum/thread system such as the proposed LiquidThreads. Dcoetzee 08:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's possible to do it externally through PHP, I can think of a couple of ways. Actually looking at it, it would be easier if you didn't want to include a section, but damn excluding all sections except one would take a long time to code.++aviper2k7++ 18:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

First, "sections" are fragile - titles get changed, sections get merged, subsections get created, sections get moved around (so what was section 4 is now section 3). Second, it's possible to edit a section via editing the entire page - newbies do this all the time; so now the software has to examine every whole-page edit and identify which section(s) were edited. Given how badly the diff software actually performs sometimes, there could be a lot of false positives. Third, if subsections exist, then even the obvious strategy of looking at edit summaries to see if there was either a whole-article edit or a specific section edit will fail, because the subsection name, not the section name, will be in the edit summary. (Yes, this can be gotten around by coding to look for all subsection titles as well, but ...). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds too difficult to implement, but still it would be useful, especially for huge pages like AN and AN/I. For the others, I've rarely met the occasion where I wish we had that feature. Possibly an automatic change in those two pages format could help? (e.g. like RfA per incident/section -but automatically) Which reminds me that I always thought that pages such as AfD and FAC, RfA etc had too complicated instructions for new users, and that I'd very much like the procedure of inserting {{whichever new editable section to be listed}} to be automated via a bot or something. NikoSilver 23:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Different approach. Have an external program compare diff every X hours and disregard sections other than the one we're interested in. If watched section does not exist anymore (section title changed or deleted), also mark it as changed (but no link to section id as thats changeable). Personally, I dont think this can be made to work satisfactorily. If you want to keep track of specific section on a busy page, just bookmark the section title (the part with the #Section_title) and check that page every so often. — Shinhan < talk > 09:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's too bad that transclusions can't be specified for just a section of an article. If they could be, then an editor could set up a page of (say) ten or twenty transcluded sections that he/she wants to monitor, and could simply read over the sections, once a day (or whatever), looking for major changes, without having to go to the articles themselves. (Yes, transclusions of parts of articles can be done with include/noinclude tags, but that's a no-no for articles if the purpose is simply to monitor changes; multiple people trying to do the same thing to a single article would have irreconcilable conflicts.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Retaining a copy of "what links here" of AfD'd articles at moment of deletion

I'll be brief. Mostly because I'm at work. I need a sanity check done on this idea before I go bother developers with it: links to deleted articles are often purged afterwards. If the articles are then DRV'd, rewritten or otherwise returned to business, restoring the web of links to the level it was can be an arduous and often infeasible task, since there's no way to tell what *once* linked to an article. This causes some damage to usability and thus to WP:BTW, moreso as DRVs have become more common. Saving a list of inbound links would allow restorers to build the web with no more than a little fuss instead of the current method, which can slip into "needle-in-a-haystack". --10:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• I suspect this will be a database hit for little benefit. If it's really important you can always use the "save this page" button of your browser to store a local copy. >Radiant< 10:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how it's such a major database hit - it can presumably be stored as a list in the deletion log along with everything else. Whether it's a great idea in terms of usefulness or not, I can't really say, as I've never been involved in the described situation. SamBC 13:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'll support the idea from the other side ... when an article is deleted (in this case we will assume that it isn't likely to be DRVed or recreated), it would be helpful to have a "what used to link here" list, so that editors could easily clean up the redlinks. Blueboar 14:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

But should you clean up red-links? If the deleted article topic actually provided useful context to some other article, then the red-links should remain as a reminder that an article should be created at some future time when there is sufficient notability or whatever other reason their was for deleting the article has been overcome. If the article topic was not useful to the context of the article, then the red-links should be removed anyway by regular editors without any one person having to do it. If someone spattered vandal-esque links to their new article around Misplaced Pages, they'll be removed like any other vandalism. Again, one person need not (and normally cannot) take responsibility for everything.

Biographies are probably a good example. An article on person X might be linked to from some other article that mentions person X. If X does not achieve notability or if their article is deleted for violating WP:BLP that doesn't mean that the red-links should be removed. That person may achieve notability later, or a more balanced article may be possible once more sources are avaiable.

No, I fail to see the point of saving a copy of the "what links here?" GDallimore (Talk) 15:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A sensible and useful idea. The "what links here" list is routinely available at the left, for every page, and given how often that function is probably used, a saving of that for each delete probably isn't a major burden. A "what used to link here at the point of deletion" would be good. I haven't needed it yet myself (not hit that circumstance yet), but this is the one thing that isn't recreated easily and whose previous state can't be looked up, when an article is deleted, so it's probably helpful when it does come up.

I'll add one more related idea. When one tries to access a link to a non-existant page, the software should check if it used to exist, and if so display the deletion information on it, rather than treat it completely as a new page:

"You tried to access (page). This page was deleted by (admin) on (date) with the comment (narrative). If you want to know more about the deleted page, please contact (info). For information on recreating or accessing deleted pages see (policypage). Otherwise, if you have come to this page in error, (usual messages etc)"

FT2 21:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It does. When you go to such a page, it shows the deletion log for the page. Harryboyles 07:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this sounds like a good idea for both pages that will be undeleted and pages that won't. Sometimes it's good to leave the redlinks, sometimes it isn't, but this would be there when we need it. — The Storm Surfer 22:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Migration of images to commons

I have a suggestion. I think we should transclude {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} into every free image licensing template. Since "Misplaced Pages is not a collection of photographs or media files" - — Jack · talk · 16:53, Tuesday, 10 July 2007

We are an English encyclopedia, they are a multi-lingual image repository. Our needs for image description, categorization and monitoring are not necessarily the same as theirs. As a result, it will always make sense to keep local copies of some images even if the same image (but potentially a different description) appears on Commons. Dragons flight 17:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The English Misplaced Pages hosts a large number of images adapted to our specific needs. For instance, I've previously saved an exquisitely detailed drawing of a burning girl (bear with me here) locally, even though it's only a part of an image that's available on the Commons in its entirety. The girl is from Der Struwwelpeter, a book of cautionary tales for children, and the full image is a scanned page with a lot of 19th-century German that's completely unnecessary for illustrating fire education. --Kizor 21:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Logs link in toolbox

I am always frustrated by the lack of 'logs for this page' link. A logs button in the user (talk) space underneath the user contributions link, or under the 'what links here' link in all spaces could be very useful for quickly identifying blocked vandals or seeing whether a page has previously been deleted. ck lostsword•T•C 23:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be useful. In the meanwhile, a workaround in Firefox is to add a quick search "log" for http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=%s. Λυδαcιτγ 20:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats what user scripts are for. Checkout Misplaced Pages:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Logs link. — Shinhan < talk > 09:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that link :). However, I feel that this isn't a low-interest link - perhaps its something that could be useful system wide for all users, rather than only those who wish to install a user script? ck lostsword•T•C 17:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Google page rank

• http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2005/12/wikipedia_will.htm

December 05, 2005

Misplaced Pages Will Fail Within 5 Years

By Eric Goldman

Over the weekend I had dinner with Mike Godwin, one ...

I am afraid he could be right. The Google Page Rank gives us two problems:

• people want to be on wikipedia to be noticed
• editors are over-zelously fighting external links and articles alike, to avoid hijacking of wikipedia.

Let's request google to not include us any more in their Algorithm for establishing Page Rank. Image:Smile-tpvgames.gif &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Since that article was written, Misplaced Pages has used rel="nofollow" for external links, so there is no longer any value for a site's PageRank if they spam Misplaced Pages. People do still spam for other reasons, however. They might wish that humans will click their links or they may be unaware that the rel="nofollow" attribute is used. Tra (Talk) 12:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe be more vocal about it, i.e. in the edit menu? Image:Smile-tpvgames.gif &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

(are you sure this affects google's algorithm as well? Loading a link and adding to a counter are not necessarily connected actions Image:Smile-tpvgames.gif &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

Since Mike Godwin now works for the Wikimedia Foundation, it appears he disagrees with that assessment.  :) Corvus cornix 20:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It also appeared so when the page said, "I was surprised when Mike disagreed with my assertion. Mike’s view is that Misplaced Pages has shown remarkable resilience to attacks to date, and this is evidence that the system is more stable than I think it is." Atropos 05:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Marketers will insert links in Misplaced Pages despite the nofollow tag. See http://www.searchengineguide.com/searchbrief/senews/010298.html. Eric. 13 July 2007

Link addition to Misplaced Pages will be reverted by users and administrators despite marketers. We still have a huge userbase which removes this crap - unless you have a thousand marketers inserting links at all hours of the day, it's unlikely to let spam through. The thesis that Misplaced Pages will fail within a few years assumes that our userbase will eventually degrade - a critical flaw, in my opinion. Nihiltres 13:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Advanced welcome template

Is there any sort of template that provides information to Wikipedians who understand the basics but are interested in the more advanced aspects of Misplaced Pages? This sort of thing might be useful if one doesn't already exist. I'd like to see what people think about something like this. It might give links to pages on JavaScript add-ons, advanced template syntax, MediaWiki bug requests, meta-wiki, and things like that. Pyrospirit Shiny! 15:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is an index, not to mention pages like Misplaced Pages:Department directory and Misplaced Pages:Quick directory. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Random page

I'm not sure if this exists, but if it does I have not found it. I am a fan of the "random article" link and use it when I have no inspiration of what else to read about. I do however find that there topics (e.g. sport) that keep coming up and are of no interest to me. I suggest that a random article within each portal would be good as it would direct me to, say, a random science article. Answers on a wikipostcard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.92.40.49 (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2007

There is a method that Portals can use – see Portal:Motorsport for example – that allows the reader to refresh the page and see a new set of featured content. Adrian M. H. 16:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Middle-earth has a random article link on the side of the page. Sebi  23:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Introduction

I've moved the relevant threads to Template talk:Intro, to keep things simple/consistent in the long-run. And so that we can watchlist the discussion without also watching the intro itself get test-edited continually. --Quiddity 23:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies if this has been brought up before, but I did not see it. Several editors have commented on the talk page for Misplaced Pages:Introduction that it is strange and ill-advised to allow new editors to edit that page. New editors often remove the intro header (presumably usually by mistake) and thus sometimes we get an introduction page that looks like this. This seems highly undesirable to me (it gives an impression that Misplaced Pages is easily vandalized--I think the page sat like that for awhile), as the introduction could be one of the first places people new to Misplaced Pages will go (though I'm not sure how they typically end up there). We already have a sandbox, and the intro page should direct new editors to experiment there, rather than on the introduction page itself. The intro page should probably be semi or fully protected to avoid vandalism (I can't imagine we would ever need to edit it that often). I'm not the only user to bring this up, see Misplaced Pages talk:Introduction for other comments. I was shocked to see that new editors were encouraged to edit that page, but maybe I'm missing something. If not, let's redirect the new folks to the sandbox and protect Misplaced Pages:Introduction.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea: I'd suggest transcluding a sandbox into it (once protected) with an edit link so that users can still try out editing from that page, without damaging the page itself. Nihiltres 15:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the need to separate sandbox edits from the introduction, certainly. Not quite so sure about s-protection: I don't mind it at all, but a lot of editors will feel that it might give a negative signal. We sometimes get comments from new editors along the lines of "hey, why can't I edit page X? Misplaced Pages sucks". Adrian M. H. 15:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's too much of a problem if we have a bot regularly checking the page to restore the "Please leave this line alone" template. If we already have one, crank up its check frequency, and if need be, separate its template-restoring and test-edit-section-clearing powers. Adding a separate sandbox page defeats the purpose of having sandbox space on the Introduction page and its misleading nature might give a bad first impression to new editors. Morgan Wick 17:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Except we already have a sandbox. Atropos 20:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, I don't see why we cannot simply direct new users to the already existing sandbox at Misplaced Pages:Sandbox from the intro page--it seems the easiest solution.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The intro was previously protected by User:AntiVandalBot until April, when User:MartinBotIV had taken over the duties (See this thread), but Martinp23 appears to be inactive now too. (It's action was to reset the sandbox whenever the template/header text was changed, and every 30 minutes too. It stopped on June 26.)

User:MartinBot is still active, but I don't know who is running/managing it currently? I'm trying to figure these things out now. --Quiddity 21:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: Martinp23's back, and will have it fixed soon :) --Quiddity 01:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal, and thank you for proposing it on my behalf :) Chrisch 16:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Double Proposal

I propose two things: A second 'contributions' watchlist, where one can monitor the contributions of the users watchlisted. This would allow much easier monitoring of vandal contributions. I also make the proposal that the pipe | be implemented into the edit toolbar. The pipe proves to be one of the most used wikitexts, and yet it appears only in the edit toolbox below. I think it needs to be placed among the most important wikitexts, in the edit toolbar, to make access easier. What do people think of this? -- Anonymous Dissident 02:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I like both of them. How difficult would it be to implement the secondary watchlist? — thesublime514 • talk • 03:04, July 15, 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it to the devs to answer that 1. -- Anonymous Dissident 14:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that we would need an on-screen button for the pipe. When typing, it is always easier to press Shift and Backslash rather than lift your eyes to the screen and a hand to the mouse for one character, then carry on typing. Special characters are only useful on-screen if they are not readily available from the keyboard. Adrian M. H. 14:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You can easily type ==, but thats still in the menu. -- Anonymous Dissident 15:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the secondary watchlist idea - I have often wanted to use a tol like that when monitoring recent changes. However, it could encourage vandals to increase their claims of users 'targeting' them or discriminating against them - TINC, but there is a group of editors watching your every move :P. It also reminds me of the blacklist functions on various anti-vandal tools. Not so sure about the need for a pipe symbol though - although I can see that it might encourage newer users, I think the keyboard shortcut and the wikimarkup symbols section are sufficient. ck lostsword•T•C 15:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest. I didnt actually know of the shortcut for the pipe before this. Somehow, i must have missed the shortcut. So that idea can go to the trash, and thats fine. But I think 2nd watchlist is good. -- Anonymous Dissident 15:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

On Windows, use Alt+124 to make a pipe (Windows Alt keycodes), and there is already a way to track contributions: Copy {{subst:js|User:Tra/userwatchlist.js}} onto User:Anonymous Dissident/monobook.js. (User:Tra#User_watchlist). Reywas92 16:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

1. thats only for IE 2. its not something in the very topbar; knowledge about it isnt widespread 3. It shares with normal watchlist and 4. I cant even make it work in my IE. -- Anonymous Dissident 16:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not perfect and it often doesn't work for people. Having a tool like this in the MediaWiki source code or as an extension would probably be better so this is more of a temporary solution. Tra (Talk) 16:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Post feature requests on Bugzilla. >Radiant< 13:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Studio wrestling pages

I was informed to place my suggestions here, so here goes...

I feel that Misplaced Pages has way too many pages relating to studio wrestling, and heard that Star Wars has it's own "Wookiepedia", so maybe all of the studio wrestling stuff should be moved into it's own "WWEpedia" or something of that nature. Valid cultural icons, such as Hulk Hogan, or Jesse "The Body" Ventura should be acceptable, however, detailed listings of all of studio wrestling's minor "feuds" and Pay-Per-View events is just so overboard and has no valid historical purpose.

Try http://prowrestling.wikia.com. Morgan Wick 02:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Lists versus categories: a very particular case

I have been watching the following:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Companies in Bangladesh
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Greek companies
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese companies
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lists of companies (2nd nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lists of companies

All three proposed a mass deletion of the articles listed under Category:Lists of companies by country. The debate is not getting anywhere - one keep verdict is leading to another delete-all proposal. I have been asked to go to DRV with this, instead of a second nomination. But, since it seems to be a bigger issue than a simple-minded DRV I think it should be discussed here first. It is highly possible that an editor with diligence and enough understanding of the policies can go article by article to get them deleted through the proper process. But, it is always better to have broader consensus on a class of articles that keeps harassing the intelligence of many editors.

The appropriate reasons for keeping the articles in this category as well as deleting them have already been, mostly, discussed on the pages I provided the links to. Therefore, I am not repeating them again (WP doesn't have infinite server space and we all can make time for the few seconds it takes to go the linked pages). My proposition is simple - either have policy on inclusion criterion or delete them all. Help Misplaced Pages from turning into the yellow pages. Aditya Kabir 09:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The current format doesnt have any significant difference from the categories, the question is how a list should be displayed IMHO list should really include basic information, like name,ownership,turnover/revenues/profits,primary/core business, head office. Even red links should be required to have this basic to remain on the list. Gnangarra 10:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• In this case I concur with the suggestion to take it to DRV, in particular per the difference between this outcome and this one. >Radiant< 13:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

referance desk and help desk search

first off, i'd like to clarify that i have problems. quiet a few actually. From time to time, i get this unexplainable urge to ask for help with my problems. so i walk over to my computer, and log into wikipedia(the source of all knowledge), and ask over at the reference desk. as much as i love their help, i can't help but wonder if they have already answered my questions a bazillion and one times before, and as such i find myself searching through the archives of old answered questions. if someone could write a script for searching through those pages only ( i have already searched through wikipedia) the help would be greatly appreciated.and even more so if it could just be added into the reference desks template.Xiaden 14:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Here you go, use google and type site:http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives (what you are trying to find). No script necessary. 68.231.151.161 00:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• To Village Pump (assistance)
• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot