Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

The proposals section of the village pump is used to discuss new ideas and proposal that are not policy related (see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) for that).

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

Please sign and date your post (by typing "~~~~" or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar).

Please add new topics at the bottom of the page.

« Archives, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216

Before posting your proposal:

• 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, Wikipedia:Manual of style, and ask people to discuss it there.
• If the proposal is for a new wiki project outside of Wikipedia, please go to m:Proposals for new projects and follow the guidelines there. Please do not post it here.

Proposals archive

Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. 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.

locking pictures in articles

I have raised this issue before but I have to again. One or more users have been using some Wikipedia images, which are otherwise used validly in articles, as a means of vandalising other articles. Sexual images, particularly two images of penises, are being used to vandalise user pages. While the vandals have been blocked over and over again, because of their IP numbers they can only be blocked for short times.

Is there any way that potentially controverial images could have their usage restricted, so that they can only be used of relevant articles? Perhaps this could be done by means of a form of protection on the image, which would mean that, once protected, it could not be added to, or removed from, a page except by an admin? So for example, a protection could be placed in the penis images, meaning that no changes could take place on their file, so preventing the images from being linked to any page not already linked. A lot of time is being wasted reverting the vandal's insertion of the image over and over again on people's pages. Already some minor (but valid) images have had to be deleted because they were being used non-stop on other pages to vandalise them. There is a real danger that the likes of the penis images may end up having VfDs proposed because users see their deletion as the only way to stop the vandalism. Given that they are genuine and useful images when used in context, it would be a great pity to have to delete them. But unless some way can be found to stop their usage for vandalism purposes users may well go the deletion route having exhausted all other possibilities to stop the vandalism. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

File:Potentially questionable foo.png

Another perennial proposal; still well intentioned, still ineffective. I created this potentially questionable graphic in precisely 5 minutes and 38 seconds. (I don't doubt someone else could have done similar work in less time, but then, I'm a perfectionist and currently in thrall to PNG transparency.) Now, you may or may not find this especially offensive -- but would you want it on your user page? Unasked-for?

There is nothing whatever to stop anybody from uploading a potentially questionable graphic or photo -- homemade or swiped from the great sea of images surging about the net. Why, if I were in an exhibitionist frame of mind, I might have taken my camera and -- (but you don't even want to think about that, do you? Sorry.) Indeed, with a little care, I can produce a graphic that appears perfectly innocent and find a plausible justification for its display in article mainspace and stick it on your user page with accompanying text that will have you hopping mad. That wouldn't be very nice, though.

We have a number of disruptive editors and we do need to improve our methods of defending ourselves against these intrusions; we've left the door wide open far too long. But if we remove this method of self-expression from possibility, vandals will just take another way around.

The especially stupid vandal may simply wish to control-click an amusing photo of naughty bits, save it to his own store, and re-upload it under a different name. That's what I did in the case of the notorious Image:Autofellatio.jpg -- which was locked up, though not quite as you desire. (And the old one was better, dammit.)

There is a realm within which technical solutions may operate. This is not it. Besides, try to remember that application of a graffito is a fairly harmless way for fools to declare themselves. Let's leave them that outlet.— Xiong熊talk* 06:55, 2005 August 13 (UTC)

There is nothing whatever to stop anybody from uploading a potentially questionable graphic ... well no, that's not really true. A user has to have an account to upload an image. In cases where a user uploads an offensive image for the purposes of vandalism, we can both delete the image and block the user. This has generally proved effective. Which is why we now have the lesser problem that Jtdirl is refering to, that of anonymous users vandalising using less offensive images that we don't want to delete because they have legitimate uses. -- Solipsist 06:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but having 40 users pages targeted for penises continually, having a penis put on a featured article, having a Wikipedia article that has been sourced internationally in publications changed to replace all its images with pictures of penises and star wars images, is not a minor matter. If it was only a once off, done occasionally we might laugh it off. But we cannot lock up to 50 articles and user pages constantly to stop that asshole. But it has got so serious that people will delete those images off Wikipedia entirely and/or place a long term block on the AOL IPs he uses, even though that would inconvenience hundreds of people. Already one teacher has privately indicated that he can no longer let his students look at our articles in class because he never knows whether a particular article about a historic figure or news event has a penis or a vagina placed in it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the children would be scarred for life... — David Remahl 06:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

You can make fun, David, or Chmod, or whatever your name is. Imagine if you worked behind the counter in a store. A woman with a young child complains about some porn magazines prominantly displayed behind the counter. You casually slur, "Yeah, the kid'll be scarred for life." -- Now, you know that that woman will never return to this store. Maybe you don't care, you just work here. But the owner of the store, your boss, will certainly care. He doesn't want to lose a potential customer. He will, in this order: 1) Fire you, and then 2) Remove the magazines. You protest: "Hey! That woman was wrong!" and he'll say, "Maybe. But her money just walked out the door. Right or wrong, I'm going to do what she wants." -- Now apply that to Wikipedia. The "money" in this case is actually prestige and respect. If Wikipedia doesn't get that then we're all wasting our time working on it. Now, Wikipedia is either a serious research tool or several thousand pages of graffiti. I'd like to think that it's the former. Your attitude, however, suggests that it's the latter. -- Ravenswood 07:27, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, and to elaborate, note what Jtdirl / FearÉIREANN was saying: "... one teacher has privately indicated that he can no longer let his students look at our articles in class ...." I don't think there is much of anything on Wikipedia that would scar children (and I have young children), but I do think there are often things that could get schoolteachers fired. Modern society has placed many educators, particularly at the primary school level, in a very precarious position. But these are among the most important people in introducing children to the world of knowledge and research, etc. We need to respect these people's situation and needs, and, from a strictly pragmatic point of view, we need them on our side. — Nowhither 06:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jtdirl's proposal. Hardly a day passes that there isn't some penis vandalism, and although it's usually reverted very quickly there's always a chance that someone will stumble upon the page before that happens, perhaps a child perhaps not. Either way there's a good chance that that someone's opinion of Wikipedia will plummit. As Solipsist says, it is much easier to monitor the uploading of questionable images than it is to monitor the use of the images already on the site. --Canderson7 01:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I would support having a temporary means to restrict an image to particular page(s). It would have to be limited to say, a week. Even during that time, legitimate requests to cross-post the image must be granted. After that week, another means to control the problem must be found. This would probably consist of blocking certain users. In some cases, a range block might be necessary. Obviously, those range blocks must always be very short.--Superm401 | Talk 18:28, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think the restrictions should be permanent, at least until an admin moves/modifies them. We already get these images spammed almost daily, so it's safe to assume that someone will spam them again within 24 hours of the restriction running out, resulting in another immediate restriction. That being the case, a "temporary incident-based restriction" would really end up amounting to a permanent restriction anyway, with the added fun of weekly porno spam and a requirement for constant editor/admin maintenance to spot the weekly vandalism and re-implement the expired restriction. With regards to permanent restrictions, on the other hand, the situations where people need to cross-post one of the nasty images on wikipedia arise so rarely that it doesn't really add much of a burden to anyone to insist that such cross-posting go through an admin; certainly it happens far less frequently than our hypothetical weekly vandalism, and would cause far less disruption. Aquillion 02:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I could accept this if we explain carefully that this ability must not be used only for "obscene" images in the case of extreme vandalism. Other controversial images could not be locked, and images could not be locked simply because they are obscene. There also must be a well-documented place to ask for cross-posting permission. Superm401 | Talk 02:16, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Everyone is missing the point. I can create and upload potentially questionable images as fast as you put weird restrictions on their use. {chuckle} at the idea that anyone is currently deterred from uploading. Anyway, it's almost as disruptive to stick a fully-clothed Princess Leia on the George Bush page as it would be to put there an illustration of mooning.

Some content needs to be flagged -- you may not like that, but it's a rational compromise. See Toby. As far as uploads and vandalism in general is concerned, it is far past time for us to stop leaving all doors wide open to every passerby. We ought to have learned long ago that doing so means that the first several hundred rooms will have pee in all the corners.

I don't want to charge readers $24.95 a month to be Wikipedian Editors. I support openness in general; I even support limited anon editing. But the keyword is limited. We need to throttle anons and new users; we need to put liberal, but realistic limits on what they can do and how fast they can do it. By "realistic", I mean that we must control vandalism down to the point at which we can keep up with it. Obviously -- when complaints of this nature surface and drag on for days -- the problem is out of control.

Just as materialistic concerns cannot be allowed to destroy our ideals, idealism cannot be allowed to destroy our real value to the larger world. — Xiong熊talk* 22:54, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

But there are already many other limits and safeguards in place for uploading images, things that are not there for linking to already-existing ones. Uploading an image involves more time and work overall, and to upload an image, you have to be logged in. More importantly, there is a page that lists newly-uploaded images, and many people who watch it for copyvios and such. If we really wanted to stop image vandalism and damn the price, we could take it a step further and impose a short (say, half-hour) delay on all uploaded images before they can be linked to from any article; that would not only help with vandalism, but would let us catch obvious copyvios before they appear in Wikipedia. It would be a bother to many people, so I don't think it's necessary ATM; but it might be worth keeping in mind if things get really bad. Possibly it could just be used to restrict accounts that are 'newer' somehow (in line with what you said above about limiting newer users), though that is generally open to abuse. Aquillion 20:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the real point is that we don't have the ability to watchlist the addition of images to pages from the image end. By watching an Image, we should be alerted not only to changes in the description page, but changes in which pages the image is included in. That is the software change we need to implement, not locking images.

However, in regards to locking specific filenames to specific pages, I think that would be fine(if, as Xiong explained, not particularly effective) specifically because it would be easily circumventable by uploading new copies. JesseW 01:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Why not lock image uploads to official users (logged in) then? Or have a dynamic user evaluation, where users can vote for articles and the respective writers get a reputation to gain rights (i.e modify images)? This could also be achieved by looking a the activity profile of a user. --BoP 09:15:49, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

I vote that all new image submissions should be flagged. Then, an admin could 'okay' it to be used. In the case of potentially offensive images, they should be permanently flagged and only show up on pages admins have okayed them to be on. That is, under my proposal, you could upload and use images exactly like you do now, but for A. new images, and B. potentially offensive images, an admin (or perhaps a certain number of votes by regular users) would have to 'unlock' them before they would show up. That way, if you visited an article on say George Bush, and it had a penis picture linked to it, you could have it just display a white background or some message until the pic was cleared.the1physicist 19:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Appearance of links

I happened to be on the German version of Wikipedia; their links are in blue, like the English version, but without underlining (unless the pointer is placed directly over them). I have long thought that with all of the links present (in blue and with underlines) the text in English articles is often not very readable. The text in the German version, with links simply in blue, is much easier to read, as well as having a much better look to it. Can the English-version links be made to look like those in the German one?

I posted this previously in the General Complaints page, but got only a short reply to the effect that the particular editor liked it that way, and that links on the Internet have underlines. That still doesn't answer the question of why the German Wikipedians chose to do things differently. S. Neuman 15:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Go to your your preferences and look at the first item under "Misc". I have underlining turned off, but I think that the default should be to have underlining, as it's what web-users are accustomned to. Bovlb 17:46:25, 2005-08-28 (UTC)

I second the proposal, and propose a new item under the mics -- selective underlining.

If I choose selective underlining, All EXTERNAL links (links to resources outside of Wikipedia), as well as EXTRA-BODY links (links in the Category section, table of contents, left and top menus, boxes, etc should keep their underlining, since in those places underlines do not interfere with reading. But all internal links within the main body of the article should be deunderlined.

This will both keep recognizing and browsing important items easy, and make reading large amounts of text easier, without constant underlines.Elvarg 06:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Math equations to plain english

Is there a template message to tag a page of equations to be translated from math formula to plain english?

Such as: Math2english (example template)

This article's formula needs to be translated to the English language.

A simple case would be:

1+1=2 one plus one equals two;

a more complex one would be:

$f_{c}={1 \over 2\pi {\sqrt {LC}}}$

the resonant frequency euqals one over the product of two pi and the square root of inducatance and capacitance.

This wouldn't replace the formula, but be in addition to it. It may be helpful to people not skilled in mathematics. Thanks. JDR 16:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

copied from Wikipedia talk:MediaWiki namespace text. Thryduulf 10:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this idea, but I'd like to point out that people who are not skilled in mathematics are hardly going to get any benefit from the English version. — Nowhither 22:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Think of it in the converse, some people are vastly more adept in words, than they are with all the choices in primers of equation representation. Especially as notations vary, or wholly change meaning when moving between mathematical disciplines, or even from one conversation group to the next.

One more comment, and then I'll shut up: On the contrary, mathematical notation is standardized all over the world. And being adept at words and not math means you probably don't have a clue what "the resonant frequency equals one over the product ..." means. But, again, this is a fine idea, and I don't want to get into a long argument, so I'll go away now. :-) — Nowhither 08:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

No argument at all with your comments. In fact, by the inclusion of the word description after/under or linked, I now have a vastly improved understanding of the mathematics being discussed on resonant frequency. This is supremely valuable to someone like me (I'm sure there are more), who didn't have the benefit of learning the world-wide standard method as you must have. Even with the growing pains experienced by this wiki, some day I suspect many people, again myself included, will enjoy wiki all the more as a place to learn. Learning works best when someone can explore a topic they are interested in, and the ability of wiki to imbed links right in the middle of a formula would be of great value. So certainly no argument, I agree with you, this is a fine idea. (no need to go away Nowhither). TTLR

Towards elevating confusion, (of course only when a mathematician wants to, they are always free to remain private with their primer), I think this wikisuggestion has merit. I particularly like the demands it places upon someone advancing an impressive formula, wherein they are forced to confess exactly which representation list they have chosen from. Not to throw out a 'skepticism of bad faith' or anything, but when it comes to numeracy, some people are tempted to take advantage of wiggle room. Yes/No?

One way to do this, would be hot linking all the individual notation component to the formulators' chosen definition. The english language (or any language for that matter) sentence would be bot-able at the click of a button. Or hit the reverse process button. Isn't cool what we can (I mean could) do with computers? See Pharos comment below. TTLightningRod 23:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

An interesting idea. Of course, some very complex equations can't easily be converted to plain English, like those with lots of nested parens. StuRat 10:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, wouldn't it be possible to convert mathematical formulae to plain English automatically by extending the Math syntax on the English Wikipedia (and separately on the other Wikipedias)?--Pharos 12:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

This would be nice, but would only work for the simplest kinds of formulae — the resonant frequency one given above is about as complex as would viably be intelligible in words. I would envisage particular difficulty in producing a clear way of 'speaking' functions with complicated arguments. -Splash 16:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe this idea has some merit in some very special cases for rather simple formulas. However, if this template starts popping up in odd places or being used too much, I would object. Oleg Alexandrov 19:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Oleg. — Paul August ☎ 20:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Note that the benefit from using sentences in the example provided was that it defined the variables. You don't need sentences for that:

$f_{c}=ResonantFrequency$

$L=Inductance$

$C=Capacitance$

$\pi =pi=3.1415926...$

$f_{c}={1 \over 2\pi {\sqrt {LC}}}$

The definitions could even include links, to make them as useful as possible. Perhaps we need a template meaning "please define the variables used in this formula". StuRat 19:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Oleg. For simple formulae this is great; but I wouldn't be too impressed if the template turned up on Abstract analytic number theory. The whole point of mathematical notation is that it conveys certain types of meaning that are very difficult to convey in words.

May I also point out that if/when MathML becomes implemented in wikipedia (which is being worked on as we speak), it will be possible to wikify individual elements of an equation. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 20:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The template is a poor solution to a real problem. The editing guidelines already suggest avoiding unnecessary symbols, and contributors to mathematics articles regularly discuss criteria for best practice. An article that uses a resonant frequency formula without explaining its terms almost certainly needs more than a formula "translation"; using undefined symbols is bad practice in every context I know. (Obvious exceptions include π, arithmetic operators, and the like.) Suggestions of links inside formulae are scary; they can cause confusion and unreadability with default formatting of links. MathML, now half a decade old, has formal mechanisms (in its content markup) for adding meaning to symbols. Even when that becomes available, it will be no substitute for good writing. To request that, we already have templates. For anything else, I'd like to see concrete examples of articles where this kind of template might be used now. Notation serves a purpose; we would not want to tackle complicated mathematics writing without notation any more than we would want to build a house without blueprints. However, a smart architect does not expect the client to "see" a building from its plans; nor should a smart mathematics explanation omit the intuition behind the equations. --KSmrq^T 23:05, 2005 August 30 (UTC)

To clarify, I wasn't proposing links within formulae, but rather in the definition of the variables, like so:

$f_{c}=$Resonant Frequency

$L=$Inductance

$C=$Capacitance

$\pi =$pi = 3.1415926...

$f_{c}={1 \over 2\pi {\sqrt {LC}}}$

StuRat 03:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea. WP has a lot of formulae, and they're potentially useful, but they can't stand alone. I know I could probably make sense of them if I knew what each symbol is supposed to stand for, but don't, because I never went beyond high school physics or chem. The above would be a big step towards making WP a useful resource for people who aren't already well-versed in the fields where they're looking up info. (And really, if you're looking for something in a field where you're already knowledgeable, you're probably going to be looking somewhere other than an encyclopedia.... We need to write for the layperson!) -- Avocado 01:20, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Oleg, Paul, StuRat, KSmrq. If an article is poorly written, poorly structured, or hard to understand, that problem should be addressed. Converting formulas to words will help only in the rarest cases. linas 23:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Complaints about poorly written articles can be made on the article talk page; a cleanup tag added, and if need be, a breif complaint made on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. linas 23:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Translated formulas are useful for blind users, whose text-reading software can't make sense of images or text formatted with tables and superscripts. Non-user 11:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Is accessibility a Wikipedia value? Is conformance to W3C recommendations? Dream on. (But it's a lovely dream.) If WP developers were willing to support valid XHTML 1.1 output then it would be a simple matter to present mathematics using MathML, which has support for voice synthesis as an explicit design goal. Users with poor eyesight could also use large font sizes without concern for pixellated images. In fact, images themselves could be made more accessible using the triple XHTML+MathML+SVG profile, because SVG is also designed with such goals, and is built on XML (like XHTML and MathML). In 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. recalled the ideals of the founding documents of the United States of America, saying: "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'" In 2005, that's still a distant dream even for a utopian effort like Wikipedia, which claims to invite the world to read and contribute. (But it is a lovely dream.) --KSmrq^T 01:31, 2005 September 5 (UTC)

This proposal echoes a larger proposal that I had thought of making. I've been trying to learn a little bit about set theory and computer system modeling lately. But when I read many of these articles, they are clearly written for Computer Science 301 and higher students at your higher learning institution of choice. That would be great for me if I were such a student. I'm not. I'm just trying to understand a new idea, which I thought was the raison d'être of Wikipedia. Instead, I'm finding that in order to even understand the article (not the topic of the article, just the article itself), I'm following page after page of links. To a point, this is expected for new topics, and I oblige.

I propose a policy that suggests to editors that any articles that are not readily understandable by the layperson or unedumicated[sic] professional such as myself (perhaps because the topic itself is not easily understood) be prefaced with some sort of indication of the educational prerequisites that will be demanded of the reader in order to proceed. I'm sure that there's some kind of WikiSpeak to explain what I'm suggesting, but hopefully I made myself clear.

With such a Reader Prerequisite template, the articles that contain Math markup will probably not need so much translation to English. Upon stumbling across the formal definition of Petri Nets, (I can read most of the math markup, I think) I would first see that I am expected to have first understood advanced set theory and what class I'm going to need to take at the local college before I should try to finish the article. --RedCrystal 23:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

You have to understand though that Wikipedia is not a textbook. It is an encyclopedia, a loose collection of essays. Think of it as a quick reference. The best way of learning a totally new thing is from a book. A book is written from beginning to end by one person (or group of people). It is addressed to a specific level. Its sections proceed in logical fashion and are integrated. The pupose of Wikipedia is not to write a book. Oleg Alexandrov 23:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with RedCrystal that some of our articles are written at a level beyond the comprehension of casual readers. I prefer to solve this with rather basic introductions, leading to complex theory later. Diagrams and illustrations can also be enormously helpful to those who are visual learners. If the advanced readers want to skip the basic into, it's just a click on the table of contents to get to the "good stuff". For example, if we were discussing electon shells of atoms, we could start with the planar, circular shell model with each electron as a discrete sphere. This isn't technically correct, but this simplification makes it much easier to understand than the probability functions actually needed to understand electron configuration at the advanced level. Of course, there are some topics that really do require understanding a range of prerequisites. In this case, your suggestion about a warning of the prerequisites would be good to implement. StuRat 23:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible, which addresses exactly what you describe. A standard prerequisites template would be quite helpful. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 00:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Oleg, I do understand that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a textboox. I do use it as a quick reference frequently. I don't actually have any problem with the advanced topic articles, and I don't propose that every advanced topic should be rewritten so as to be understandable by laypeople -- there would be far too much redundancy, as fundamentals necessary for understanding the advanced topic would have to be included with every topic that builds from those fundamentals.

Nevertheless, I often find I don't even know where to begin! True, many of the articles contain references to textbooks (thank you!), but I am sometimes at a loss as to which references also assume advanced readers, and which are more like primers. There certainly are articles in Wikipedia that provide a more textbook-like approach to introducing a subject. Sometimes, but not dependably enough, IMHO, there are links to such introductory subjects. It's stlil hard to know which links within an advanced article take you to an introductory subject article, and which proceed to other advanced articles. I feel like a puppy chasing my own tail, and I'm not a slow learner.

--Alan (aka RedCrystal) 00:51:42, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

Here are my two cents. The use of TeX-generated graphics exclusively to show mathematical statements is just plain out-of-date... We should be using nested <object> elements with MathML. Let a PNG/GIF be displayed as alternate content, with an alt attribute in plain English if at all possible. WP should allow for input in Tex (using an automated conversion to MathML) or in straight-up MathML. The plain English is very important for users who utilize screen readers. Also, plain English expressions should describe the statement, not its representation, preferably using a stack expression methodology. For example, the quadratic formula would be expressed:

"The standard form of a rational quadratic polynomial is the equation of the sum of the sum of the product of A and the square of x and the product of B and x and C and 0, where A, B and C are integer constants and x is a rational variable. Z is a root of a rational quadratic polynomial if and only if Z is equal to the quotient of the sum or difference of the opposite of B and the square root of the difference of the square of B and the product of the product of 4 and A and C and the product of 2 and A."

Since this English expression refers only to operations and not to symbols of operators, there is no possible ambiguity. Everyone should be able to reconstruct what I just said in their favorite notation. If not, please go talk to your high school algebra teacher :-). --Mm35173 18:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for new copyright notice

I do a lot of new page patrol, and I don't see any evidence that new users (or some established users) pay any attention to our notices about restrictions on adding copyright material. Assuming good faith, I believe that this is because of ignorance and a genuine desire to help build an encyclopedia. I propose that we revise the notices on the edit screens and file uploads so that they give a very simple, clear, and direct message at the top of the page. Something like:

I realise that this sounds more restrictive than the current policy, but new contributors don't seem to stop and read all that copyright stuff. This is short and sweet and should at least give them pause. Hopefully it will cut down on the WP:CP backlog. The notice should have a distinguishing class/id so that experienced users can suppress it. Comments? Bovlb 02:10:50, 2005-09-02 (UTC) Modified per Superm401. Bovlb 05:43:20, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

Could you rephrase it so it distinguishes based on knowledge, rather than experience? Something like this:

Only in certain limited circumstances is it possible to reuse existing material; unless you are sure you have permission, do not copy the work of others'. If you do not undertand the copyright issues involved, contribute only your own work .

--Superm401 | Talk 02:47, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Bovlb 05:43:20, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Copyright FAQ#Proposed improvement for making the document linked to in the message more helpful. Bovlb 06:34:46, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

• This looks good, I think it should be put on the "Upload file" page ASAP. I added "or from newspapers, books or magazines" and also bolded "your own work". Is that OK? --Janke | Talk 07:46:10, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

THANK YOU

This is a badly needed warning/notice. Our anonymous helpers starting articles simply do not understand this. Some may just ignore our current warning but surely many just don't see it. The "do not submit..." warning is at the bottom of many crowded lines of instructions. A random contributer could easily miss it. support 08:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned this message box on Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal/Patent_copyvio_material, where they're talking about copyvios, too. I also shortened the header a bit, to "printed sources". --Janke | Talk 13:52:45, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

I have very mixed feelings about this. Yes, the insertion of copyrighted material into Wikpedia is a pain but (1) I really don't want this thing staring me in the face every time I edit, 2) it is an extreme oversimplification of the copyright issues involved, (3) "contribute only your own work" seems like an invitation for original research. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:45, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, especially on point 1. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 22:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Automatically Generating Category-Lists from Categories

Extended categorys:

 From a conversation on User_talk:Grutness#Category:British_Hills_by_Height.
 A potential example is: Category:British_Hills_by_Height

Can I suggest a change the way a category is handled

• from only: [[:Category:Mountains_by_Elevation_(km)|3000m]]
• to optionally include: [[:Category:Mountains_by_Elevation_(km)|Name={{{PAGENAME}}}| elevation=150m| country=NZ| type=volcano| First Ascent=2005/07/31]] then this could easiliy be incorporated into wiki to generate a category that looks list a list/table: eg.

Name	Elevation	Country	Type	First Ascent
Mount Victoria	150m	New Zealand	Volcano	2005/07/30
Mount Wellington	151m	New Zealand	Volcano	2005/07/31
Mount Albert	152m	New Zealand	Volcano	2005/07/32

AND (but no so easily) a better idea still would be to embed some java script so that this table can be sorted ANYWAY that a user desired by clicking on any one cell in the heading:

Name	Elevation	Country	Type	First Ascent

Frankly, this change would involve recoding part of the PHP engine. I could do this if required.

Any takers?

¢ NevilleDNZ 03:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC) ¢

Here is a wonderful example of what I am thinking. Ironically it is for another planet.

http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/jsp/FeatureTypesData2.jsp?systemID=5&bodyID=7&typeID=27&system=Jupiter&body=Io&type=Mons,%20montes&sort=AName&show=All

¢ NevilleDNZ 04:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC) ¢

That looks very similar to the following proposal:

Semantics: Categories, properties and navigation

It seems that the problem of categories, lists, series boxes, navigation bars etc. could be resolved in a structured way, just by building a basic semantic system. Here the proposal:

1. add properties of lemmata within a category: (i.e. Lemma:Missisippi, category:river with properties: length:..., continent:..., country:..., ..., etc.) Properties might be images as well. (i.e. image of Missisippi)
2. replace/enhance category by template for category: including display of properties and a "sort by" option. This makes lists within articles obsolete and nicely structured
3. replace lists by category templates: lists should only be a part of a category and should not destroy the flow of an article
4. replace "wild grown" property boxes by real category-property-templates: (i.e. within the lemma Missisippi one can just insert the temaplate category:river and everything is nicely laid out, no need to format a huge unmaintainable table anymore.
5. add navigation templates: Allow for templates that can access the properties within one lemma to directly navigate to the appropriate category, select one of the properties, display the ~5 closest entries within the property (including links, of course) - this replaces "wild grown" navigation bars
6. add an option to activate/deactivate navigation bars in the preferences

It would structure the content in an efficient mannor, while keeping it transparent and easy to maintain. This way the mess with categories, lists, navigation bars, etc. would find a "happy ending", finally...

I definitely would second your proposal! But do not forget an option to trunctuate/shift properties that surpass the width of the screen (maybe with Java/ECMAscript?) --BoP 08:31:34, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

As far as NevilleDNZ's proposal is concerned, this argument is an extension of one currently going on at both CFD and, it must be said, on my user page. The basic proposal, as I see it, is to use categories to sort things as lists, which, surely, is what lists are for. Categories and lists currently serve completely different purposes - a category is simply an index of all the articles on a particular topic - a list takes things one stage further by allowing a place for more information about particular items which may or may not yet have their own article. As such, they are much more flexible, and allow the scope to list items not yet with, or never to have, their own article. personally, I don't see the point of creating an extra variant on the category which will be far more difficult to keep track of (A mistake in ten items on a list? One edit fixes it. A mistake in ten items in a category? Open each one to make the changes), less able to store extra information about the items in it, and less clear to read. Compare his Category:NZ Mountains by Elevation with the quickly created List of New Zealand mountains by height, and see for yourself which one is easier to comprehend. Grutness...wha?

I agree with the problem that categories usually are build bottom up, which means that you've got to have an article on these. On the other hand you have to ask yourself if the information stored in the list already makes it worth to have a lemma on its own. In your example the links for the lemmata (i.e. Mount Pirongia) are already in the list, but the lemmata are just not generated, which makes no difference. In the proposal above it was not ment to store the properties within the lemma, but within the category - also to reduce the number of table-lookups. Therfore the List of New Zealand mountains by height would become a - Category:mountains, property:Country="New Zealand", sort:elevation>1000m So all the lookups can be done within the category, even if one wants to add this information into the lemma. In case you want to access the property within the lemma you write:

instead of: {{category_mountain|globe=earth|region=NZ|elevation=0962}} inside the article inside the category "{property:height category:Mountain:Name="Mount Pirongia"}" and get the height updated from the category. This way a change in the list of New Zealand mountains would update all the entries in the lemma. And you can maintain the full list in the category. Templates like "mountains in mexico over 1000 metres" would then be a similar lookup in the category.

I personally think that an article on "mountains in NZ over 1000m" is a nonsense as a lemma and should be a database lookup instead (which is not supported now, but is essential to structured information IMHO). To perfect the idea one would have to be able to update the information also within the article, which would be generated dynamically by the engine:

to update the category entry within the article by stating the obvious: {{category_mountain|globe=earth|region=NZ|elevation=0962}}

If there would be a template for inserting a database lookup, that can be edited from within every call, one could easily place a "list of NZ-mountains" by placing a static lookup into an article (like: {{tablelookup category_mountain|globe=earth|region=NZ|elevation>0962 format:Name|longitude|latitudue|elevation sortby:Name}}), that is expanded by the engine. One can maintain the list by editing the list itself, which would open the editor with the expanded list to manipulate the entries inside the category. An adjustment in the online editor, that gives you a dropdown list of properties for the categories of the current lemma to insert would complete the functionality needed to reduce errors. It is obvious that Wikipedia has to go one step further, not to become frozen in time. We should reduce clutter like formatting statements for table generation and concentrate on content and semantics. --BoP 13:38:46, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

Help Please on Able Danger

The article Able Danger is demonstrating one of the problems with Wikipedia. If you have a faction that is intent on peddling a conspiracy story driven by partisan blogs it is very difficult to get balance.

The article is currently locked (not by me). I am not sure that many people who are interested in acheiving an NPOV are going to want to work on it as anyone who objects to the world according to Fox News and Bill O'Reilly is going to be attacked as a "liar" and a "national socialist" (i.e. NAZI). Time Magazine is also accused of 'lying'.

If the Able Danger conspiracy story is true then the Bush Administration is currently engaged in the biggest coverup since Watergate - to protect the reputation of Bill Clinton. Am I the only person who finds such a claim to be somewhat unlikely?

The article is now unblocked (not by me), and I have removed the {{current}} tag because I feel that it was misplaced there. Otherwise, it is hard to see the problems with this article: the Talk page is certainly violent, but the article itself seems to give space to both sides of the argument. 9/11 Intelligence Failures is (IMHO) a much more serious violation of WikiEthics... Physchim62 01:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The relationship between the two subjects is likely to alter the latter further, so it will not remain in its current violationist condition. (SEWilco 02:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC))

'What links here' to show link text

If I create an article and create a link to 'painting' but put the visible link text as 'art', the reader is going to expect to see an article on art, not painting, which may not be how that article has been written. The destination should either include the expected content or the link be changed. This seems difficult to identify. If the 'What links here' results showed the link text, it would be easier to review article content and links to ensure the quality is maintained. If this takes up too much processor time it could be a new option. Joe1011010 12:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it would take much processor time at all. The "what links here" list acts like each entry is saved at the time the linking page is saved. I imagine that is what is actually done. So your suggested modification would require very little extra processing. I am a little iffy on the usefulness of this, though. I mean you are addressing a significant problem, but I am not sure whether you have solved it or not. Maybe more context would be needed to tell whether a link is "good"? I'm not sure. — Nowhither 03:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

show protection reason on "view source"

I suggest that when the "view source" link of a protected page is accessed, it should show the reason for protection given by the administrator who last protected the page.

For example, instead of:

"This page has been locked to prevent editing; there are a number of reasons why this may be so, please see Wikipedia:Protected page."

The message should say something like:

"This page has been locked to prevent editing by non-administrators. The administrator who last protected the page gave the reason: visibility reasons."

Pages protected from moves only should show a similar message:

"This page has been locked to prevent moving by non-administrators. The administrator who last protected the page gave the reason: frequent vandalism."

Pages protected by default should have the message:

"Due to the software design, this page has been protected by default."

Also, when you click "view source", it also says "edit this page" in the title. It may be confusing for new users. --Ixfd64 00:46, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

revert of old vandalism

Most vandalism gets reverted in a few minutes, but some remain unnoticed for months. I recently reverted a 4-month old vandalism in Angelina Jolie. I once remember reverting a 1-year old vandalism. I was wondering if there is a meta page which has got entries of vandalisms which are found very late. I could add this entry there. We can also have an association of Wikipedians who would pore through edit histories looking for unrevereted vandalisms. Jay 22:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

A new namespace

Please visit Wikipedia:Album namespace for the proposal of a new namespace. CG 08:42, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Graphics tutorials in the project namespace tagged for copying to Wikibooks

• Wikipedia:Graphics in two modes
• Wikipedia:Basic bitmap image editing
• Wikipedia:Graphics tutorials
• Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia
• Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Microsoft Word
• Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with OpenOffice.org Draw
• Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with OpenOffice.org Writer
• Wikipedia:How to reduce colors for saving a JPEG as PNG
• Wikipedia:How to use the GIMP

Please discuss the disposition of these articles, whether it is better to have them in the project namespace at Wikipedia or in the main namespace at Wikibooks (some possibly merged in with the existing wikibooks Using The GIMP, Using OpenOffice.org, and Microsoft Word User's Manual), at Wikipedia talk:Graphics in two modes/move. Uncle G 14:13:53, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

Links to subpages

There's a feature in Mediawiki were you could link to subpages by typing [[/SUBPAGE]] instead of [[PAGE/SUBPAGE]], but the display of the link is [[/SUBPAGE]] (with a slash mark) and not [[SUBPAGE]]. That's why I'm suggesting that whenever this feature is used, the link displays as [[SUBPAGE]] (the slash mark is removed). I suggest also to use [[//SUBPAGE]] to keep the slash mark as it displays [[/SUBPAGE]]. CG 12:19, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Cletus Spuckler (the Simpsons)

Given that the term "wifebeater" in reference to a tank top is considered by some to be offensive, perhaps that word in the article on Cletus Spuckler should be changed to "tank top."

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. You can edit almost any article on Wikipedia by just following the Edit link at the top of the page. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. (But I fixed it myself this time. Thanks.) ~~ N (t/c) 16:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

New Standard Section

I know there is no real 'standard', but i would like to see a 'rough notes' section added to articles. This would be at the end, hand contain a brief over view in bullet points about the article, ie, for 'Digital Cameras': - Digital Cameras are Camaeras in wich the photogrphic image is stored in digital format rather than on film. -etc.

Just a suggestion, - David

This is kind of the intention of the lead section to an article — the bit before the table of contents (or in a short article the first paragraph or so). It's supposed to give a brief overview of the whole article. The trouble I would see with a "rough notes" section is that it is not terribly encyclopedic sounding (and this is an encyclopedia, after all). However, it's quite common to put a note on the talk page (click the discussion button up top) if you're having trouble writing some part of an article, or think something needs clarifying but don't want to do it yourself. -Splash 22:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Splitting cram schools from hagwons

I would like to propose splitting Cram Schools from hagwons in terms of definition. The term hagwon is used quite frequently in terms of teaching in Asia, however very little is mentioned on Wikipedia about hagwons.Davidpdx

separate protections for files in the Image: namespace

I think that the actual image and the image description should have seperate protections. Currently, protecting an image protects both the image itself and the description. However, vandalizing an image description will have no impact on the articles that use the image. --Ixfd64 08:22, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

Seconded, this would be quite useful. ~~ N (t/c) 14:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Protecting closed VFDs and such?

Why don't we do it? I realize people editing closed VFDs is rare, but it happens. ~~ N (t/c) 14:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Why would we want to do it? Protection is generally unwiki and only to be used in extreme circumstances. Is there a particular case you're referring to?-Splash 14:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Because occasionally people will edit closed VFDs, screwing up the "historical record". I've done it a couple times. Protection should be no problem on a page nobody should ever have to edit again. Why not just make it another step of the standard VFD-closing process? ~~ N (t/c) 14:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

If part of the VFD-closing process was protecting the page, then only admins would be able to close VfDs. We don't want that. --Canderson7 14:51, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yep. Editing doesn't really screw stuff up, only the top copy is changed and the history remains. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, then, in the event that I'm promoted to admin, would people mind if I protected VfDs when closing them? ~~ N (t/c) 18:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

They probably would. Protection is generally not applied to historical records (talk page archives, closed *fD discussions, etc), unless there is vandalism. Let's avoid protecting where not needed. --cesarb 19:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Cross-Wiki Accounts

I have been wandering the wiki-wilderness today and have crossed from wikipedia to meta-wiki to the german wikipedia and realized that I have a separate account for each. Is there any way we could have one account for all wikipedia-related projects, in all languages? I think that this would simplify greatly the constant logging in as you cross from project to project and language to language. Clarkefreak ∞ 23:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• And when two people have the same name in different wikis, which one would you tell they had to change their account? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:47, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

This is hopefully going to happen sometime soon. See meta:Single login. Angela. 10:53, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

External links

Hello,

I watched at your article about hypertension/high blood pressure.

We have created a website about high blod pressure 5 years ago. It gives a lot of informations about hypertension for the general audience. Also, we subscribe to the HONcode principles and we are independent: The registered capital of drbloodpressure.com is free of any external industrial or financial corporations grant. This point is essential to protect the independence of Dr Blood Pressure web site.

We believe it can be added to the external links on your article about hypertension.

The URL is www.drbloodpressure.com

Also, we have this site in french too: www.hypertension-online.com.

Two other sites we created may be interesting too (in French):

www.e-cardiologie.com : information about cardiology. www.medinfos.com : more than 200 diseases and their treatment.

Best regards,

H. Laurent Webmaster webmaster@drbloodpressure.com

[Wikipedia:Wikipedian of the month]]

Is there (scope for) on of these Wikipedia:Wikipedian of the month things? Where the creme de la creme get a monthly pat on the back from the community? I dont wanna go making a whole page and then have it rfded. Cheers pedians --Wonderfool t(c) 23:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

You may want to look at Wikipedia:Esperanza, where there is a proposed Wikipedian of the Week. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Good standing users "flag"

This my proposal. It's like a bot flag, kind of. Holding this flag means that administrators and users can be less concerned that the person is a vandal or a new user. Such a flag is more considered as recognized as fine Wikipedians. Kind of like mentors, in sense they could teach other new users to be more expertise or something like that. If users turn bad, the flag should be easily removed. This should allow the hiding of such users from RC patrol, or exclusively showing these users in the RC patrol. This way you can sort the experts from the newbies and vandals. Since, not all experts are sysops, but they can be marked off with this flag.

Obtaining this flag should be done through community consensus with the backing of one administrator (likely the one reviewing the consensus). --AllyUnion (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose in the strongest way possible - I call bullshit, this will be abused and is simply a violation of WP:NPA. Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. Agriculture 05:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)