Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:51, 3 July 2011

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

• WP:VPR
• WP:VP/PR
• WP:VPPRO
• WP:PROPS

New ideas and proposals are discussed here. Before submitting:

• Check to see whether your proposal is already described at Perennial proposals.
• Consider developing your proposal on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (idea lab).
• Proposed software changes that have gained consensus should be filed at Bugzilla.
• Proposed policy changes belong at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy).
• Proposed WikiProjects or task forces may be submitted at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Proposals.
• Proposed new wikis belong at meta:Proposals for new projects.

Centralized discussion Village pumps policy tech proposals idea lab WMF misc Refining the administrator elections process Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard. view edit history watch archive talk purge

Page mover

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There may be a rough consensus for Sven's counter-proposal, but realistically speaking more editors need to provide their opinions before any action is taken. Ed  08:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Rfcid Template:Rfcid (moved to village pump to generate more consensus, please continue the discussion there.) This is a proposal for a new user right called the pagemover. Propose that this new user right would be able to move pages that have been move protected (move) and the ability to suppress redirects (suppressredirect). Those are pretty much the main idea I have but it was suggested that the movefile user right be include which is something i am not totally for. I would also like for move-subpages to be included which would give users with the pagemover user right to move pages with their associated subpages. As with any user right, there must be baseline requirements. What I propose is that the requirements for the pagemover right is that:

• You must have some formal experience with moving pages.
• You must have at least 500 edits.
• At least 1 month experience

Let me just brief you of the benefits of having a pagemover. It would make the job of administrators a little easier by having someone else to userfy pages. It would also give users other than administrators the exclusive right of moving pages with their subpages. I myself am in opposition to the idea of pagemovers having the ability to move files as there are already two groups that can do that and their is no need for three. This could be done in a trial (Of Lord, the evil Trial word comes back) to see if it is a good idea or not. And with that I leave it to the community.mauchoeagle _(c) 03:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

While I'm generally supportive, let me ask you the question that I foresee will ultimately shoot this proposal down. If someone can be trusted enough to be given this user right, why can't they be trusted to be an administrator?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Alot of respected users of the community were completely shot out of the water (eg My76Strat, Ancient Apparition and Chzz) and this sort of user right would touch the things that admins do without you actually becoming an admin. mauchoeagle _(c) 16:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Why is this needed? The number of move-protected pages that need to be moved on any given day is vanishingly small; there's not a huge backlog of such pages waiting around to be moved. Why does a special user right need to be granted where "ask an admin to do it" would work just as well? --Jayron32 04:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, another user right to performs such tasks could take a load off of administrators. And the proposal above is not only moving protected pages it also can move pages with there associated subpages and help with userfies. It always helps to have someone else to do a task, such as userfying, when you come accross pages that need to be userfied almost every day. In my experience with new page patrol, I see them alot. mauchoeagle _(c) 15:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There isn't much of a load to take off though. Most pagemoves that require an admin aren't moves of protected pages, they're moves over an existing page; completing these moves requires the ability to delete pages. Pages with subpages are typically established pages (subpages are most frequently used for discussion archives) and are rarely moved. Userfication is really the only one done on a regular basis, but is it that difficult to just move it yourself and put a speedy tag on the redirect? Mr.Z-man 16:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Support - Although I think that there is very little need for this I can see it could be useful. As one user who has basically lost interest in attempting a run through the gauntlet to become an administrator and who considers the process of choosing one completely and utterly broken (although good folks do become admins so no disrespect intended to them) I think this is a good step towards decoupling the various roles an admin does. In my experience most admins deal in specific things anyway and few use the whole suoite of tools so this would allow those interested in moving pages to do so. --Kumioko (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Counter-proposal: Do not allow the right to move move-protected pages, only allow (suppressredirect), and up the requirements

This version would only allow suppressredirect, as moving protected pages seems like a bad idea. The requirements would be:

• You must have a demonstrate history of constructive moves.
• You must have at least 3 months of experience.
• You cannot have a history of using moves to vandalize or content war pages.
• You should have a communicable reason for wanting the right.

As one of the more prolific filemovers (currently knee deep in a list of 3000 files that all have to be renamed) this user right would allow me to do my job better, and would save the admins that I work with a great deal of time. If it's never been used in an article, there's no need to keep as a redirect a page named File:DSC01234.jpg or File:IMG02468.jpg when the image itself has been moved to something that's more descriptive. There are plenty of other people that work in plenty of other areas that could all benefit from this.

I do not, however, see any reason why allowing non-admins to move a move protected page around is a good idea. For the very tiny number of instances where it would be constructive, an admin is just a template posting or IRC chat away.

Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 20:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on the move-subpages right? mauchoeagle _(c) 20:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I see all three components as having the potential for chaos should a vandal get a hold of the right, however from personal experience (someone moved my userpage to the mainspace once) I can tell you that an admin can fix straight up move vandalism in less than 30 seconds. I see no reason why it would take any longer to fix move vandalism if the subpages are also taken for a ride. The only component I specificly object to giving out as a right is the ability to move the move-protected pages. Especially when we get into template dependencies and trasnclusions, this could cause serious, widespread damage with a minimal amount of vandalism actions, and is much harder to clean up.

To some degree, the other issue is that I fully expect admins to grant rights to people that in no way deserve those rights, either in willful disregard for the guidelines, or because they don't care enough to even check the guidelines. I saw it with filemover. I'm not going to pretend that this isn't going to be given out like candy to both trustworthy people that will never use the right and untrustworthy people that just keep asking until they get lucky. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. "suppress-redirect" is a mere convenience for admins, to save having to create a redirect page as part of a move and then delete it after when it's not needed. Particularly for admins doing a lot of a certain type of work, it saves quite a bit of time, and is a bit neater. I'm sceptical about the proliferation of user rights generally (given the misuse issues Sven mentions above), and this one just doesn't seem worth the hassle of managing, and the associated risks. Risks being, most notably, that abuses of suppress-redirect can make inappropriate page moves (or even page move vandalism) harder to catch. Users can just CSD the redirect. Moving subpages is needed less often, and probably carries less risk, but again it doesn't seem worth the trouble to separate it out, especially if it doesn't come with suppress-redirect. Rd232 10:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

  Moving subpages carries less risk? That's a good one. Some rather nasty pagemove vandals have been known to use that option on things such as userpages with lots of subpages, and are thus able to vandalize upwards of twenty pages within a minute. Moving subpages is a right which is hardly used anyways, and has a massive potential for abuse. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I did say probably... I was thinking it's no harder to undo than ordinary pagemove vandalism, and the subpages (especially of non-move-protected pages) aren't normally of particular prominence. Rd232 15:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

  Much harder to revert, considering that most people don't recognize it as that type of vandalism, and revert each one separately - then users without the noratelimit right get stuck by a rate limit after two reverts. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

One possibility which might be useful is to allow editors to suppress the creation of a redirect when moving a (userspace draft) page out of their own userspace into mainspace. That's probably harmless, is a common task, and prevents useless cross-namespace redirects. This would require a software change of some sort, but once done it wouldn't require any management. Rd232 15:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• If this was going to be devolved from admins then it sounds like one of the least controversial accesses. move without creating a redirect, and move subpages, override title black list, and no rate limit on moves sounds like a reasonable package to grant as a right. However there must be some limit to the number of different rights before it just gets too confusing for people to understand. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support this would make files work so much better. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support I'm not normally one to support new userrights, but for those of you who don't do NPP you'd be shocked at the absolutely horrific page titles we come across sometimes. I've got hundreds of page moves in my log, and a good number of them are 1. names like BANURI VILLAGE (HIMACHAL PRADESH) from non-native speakers whose often horrendously mangled English isn't confined to the article body and/or 2. titles with missing or extra spaces. This would make it far more efficient; it wouldn't entirely do away with R3, as it seems many NPPers are not very experienced, and sometimes people create redirects that don't quite meet G3 but are clearly implausible anyways (Media shitstorm being created as a redirect to Media circus or Aught-six being redirected to 1906, for instance), but it would definitely help streamline NPP for those of us who know what they're doing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Although I might also suggest simply adding this to the filemover user right, as file redirects should be deleted anyway. Alpha Quadrant 22:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Alpha Quadrant. @Alpha Quadrant: not all redirects are invalid though, common misnomers and so forth are worth retaining. —James • 4:00pm • 06:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Another counter-proposal

We allow suppress-redirect, and move-subpages. We also merge it with filemover.

• At least 2000 edits;
• Knows all applicable policies;
• Good reason for wanting the right;
• No vandalism or edit-war from past 2 months history.

Thoughts? ~~EBE123~~ _Contribs 18:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know; suppress-redirect and move-subpages don't entail quite the same things. I'd certainly qualify for the first two, but I do essentially no image work so I wouldn't be good for the third. On NPP, I could definitely use the ability to move without a redirect, for reasons I detailed above; I don't need the ability to move files. But perhaps I'm the exception; if that proves to be true, it would make more sense to combine them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• OK, I am lost; why, would move-subpages be needed with File mover? Kind lost in space there. —Croisés Majestic 01:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha haha haa, I press the stop button in my browser and edit conflicted my-self. —Croisés Majestic 01:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I can't really think of a reason a non-bureaucrat would need move-subpages. The move-subpages flag is mainly used in user renames and renaming Templates or WikiProjects. There isn't really a backlog in this area either, as normal users can still move sub-pages one by one. Alpha Quadrant 04:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  It would be to save lots of time. Did you see my move log? There is a reason that screams out loud! ~~EBE123~~ _Contribs 20:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. Support either proposal. Alpha Quadrant 06:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose all We do not need more new userflags. Either we add userrights to existing flags, or we leave them to the admins like it is currently. Otherwise, we create more fodder for the rights-hungry annoyances that haven't be blocked yet. This is a particularly trivial userright (suppressredirect) that should either go to all, say, rollbackers (as I think I proposed last year), or stay with the sysops. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Question Are these rights, or any others, ones that appropriate admins could just give on a case-by-case basis? If it's just a matter of a few people working on particular tasks that would be facilitated by these kinds of rights, maybe an admin or some other appropriate person could simply bestow them. this may require some sort of software change, though-- I don't know how rights and abilities are handled software-side, so I don't know if it's possible to make someone and editor with extra powers. Wabbott9 (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No, we can't give out suppressredirect or anything like that unless we create a new flag for it, which is essentially what this proposal is for. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand. Oh, well. worth asking, to see if this sort of thing could be done less formally, but it looks like it would be just about the same. Wabbott9 (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support While I don't agree with the limits, file-redirect cleanup is really annoying, this would speed things up. —James • 3:06pm • 05:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Link to Facebook

I've noticed that an increasing number of sites have facebook twitter icons which when clicked on put on link on you relevant profile or create a tweet. Would is be useful for every[REDACTED] page to have such a button? As an example have a look at Liverpool Echo when a user writes a comment the sytem can be set up to past that comment to Facebook and create a tweet with a link back to the article. Seems good PR as well as usefull.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought about the same thing as well. Also, maybe let users log in using their Facebook account. Misplaced Pages has a shortage of female editors and women rule social networking so might be a great way to attract some new editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This has been suggested quite frequently recently, see e.g. this or this discussion and the links there. As a logged-in user, you can install User:TheDJ/Sharebox for yourself, but it appears that many users would find such icon blocks too intrusive to to be turned on by default. For Signpost stories, we added unobtrusive "Share this" dropdown menus a while ago (example - see top right).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What would the purpose of echoing your edits onto Twitter and Facebook be, other than for canvassing purposes? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You would not be echoing your edits, just articles you chose though might interest you friends.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sharebox is a script that reorders your toolbox. It adds new buttons that make it easier to mail, print or share an article on Facebook or another linksharing service. You must have an account to add Sharebox to the sidebar. See User:TheDJ/Sharebox for more information. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  23:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

User:TheDJ/Sharebox sounds great but I cannot get it to work?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 10:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

What browser are you using? ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  19:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Firefox.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Facebook integration already exists in MediaWiki, and is used on Wikia. Someone brought it up on Jimbo's talk page recently and he supports Facebook for Misplaced Pages. Just pointing it out. I don't think we should be a social site, I hate social sites, but linking to social sites will increase readership and editing. People wonder why we aren't getting new editors, maybe it's that Web 2.0 is old-school for most people now, and Misplaced Pages is hovering around Web .7 ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

What sort of editing Misplaced Pages will get from integrating Facebook needs to be considered before any action is taken. My guess is that since Facebook is for socialization and similar activities, and not for "scholarly" activities such as writing an encyclopedia, the majority of edits will be of no benefit at best. The worst case (and likely) scenario is that such links will attract Facebook trolls, fans, and POV pushers to Misplaced Pages. That's something the editors dealing with vandalism don't need. Rilak (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Er... and using Misplaced Pages in schools... we'll get school-children editing their schools pages ... and abusing their friends and teachers... Oh no! It already happened! … It's not like Wikipedeans now are such a "neutral" bunch (see ANI, ARBCOm, block log, AIV etc), and it's not like there aren't many many links form FB to WP already. While I have great qualms about putting Fb and Twitter links on WP (and got soundly trouted for putting Google links on pages needing refs myself, although consensus later moved) I don't think that thinking of FBers as "the great unwashed" is either helpful, accurate or true to the spirit of the project. Rich Farmbrough, 19:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC).

Except that school kids are currently studying research techniques and materials relevant to different articles, so there's a potential gain (for us and them). The abuse is a problem for allowing anyone to edit (not suggesting we get rid of that), so there's not really a net loss there. FB does not teach anyone how to research stuff (as many pyramid schemes and trojans I have to point out to my friends, quite the opposite), so there is no potential gain. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that Facebook mirrors Misplaced Pages. Rich Farmbrough, 19:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC).

As you say Facebook feeds Misplaced Pages as in Rose Heilbron what I and the people I'm connected with seems to do on face book is post links to articles, videos etc, lots of external content.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reasons as I opposed it the last two times. Also, Facebook is the antithesis of credibility, and in my opinion, the antithesis of intelligent discourse. Having the icons there would be damaging, I think, and the only reason I can think of people wanting it is that it saves them about a seventh of a second and that 'everyone else is doing it'. Seriously, if you want to link to a Misplaced Pages article, copy the URL, it's not at all hard. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Something like this might look nice. Killiondude (talk) 08:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that most people use their real names on Facebook, I sincerely doubt that this would increase vandalism. If anything, using your real name is more likely to discourage it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Only if they used their real names when editing on Misplaced Pages. But since Facebook and Misplaced Pages aren't linked, we'd only identify them with their IP address. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, one of the suggestions is to let users log in using their Facebook accounts. A lot of web sites are starting to do that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

How exactly would that work? I mean, in YouTube for example, I can log in with my Google-Mail account. In that case, both accounts are probably hosted on the same service (ie a Google server) (that's just my guess, it might be wrong). How exactly would that work in the case of Misplaced Pages and Facebook? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

How that would work essentially is that you log in to Facebook, they tell Misplaced Pages that you are logged in to your account and your name is "John Smith"; of course, they'd provide a unique ID so that you don't conflict with other "John Smith"s. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Undecided This might be a good for attracting new editors. However, I would like to see a better developed and more detailed proposal before deciding. I think this could also have a lot of negative issues. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Opposed to any sort of non-optional, formal integration of the 'Like this!' box variety, for the following reasons (which I've kept quite abstract for the time being):

a) Credibility - connecting to facebook etc. in any overt way detracts credbility from us, especially in academic or professional circles - per Sven

b) Editor ingress - as has been observed, FB already mirrors[REDACTED] and links to our articles. That means that people are already able to jump from FB to our site, introducing a feature which allowed them to jump back doesnt seem paticularly beneficial in terms of keeping editors.

c) Expert retention - If I'm an expert on an obscure subject and create an article on something which is likely not of much interest to non-experts and come back a month later to see that it still has "0 likes" whilst another article on Will Mellor has thousands of likes, I probably won't bother making another.

d) Commercial reasons don't apply - Most sites, such as newspapers, blogs etc. have commercial motivations behind the FB links and 'tweet this' buttons - they want to draw in more views to earn more money - these reasons don't really apply to us.

e) Lack of techical knowledge needed - Come on, anybody who can edit[REDACTED] can also copy and paste a URL anyway, we don't need to build a toolbar into the interface to help them do that.

f) Independance - personally, I quite like the idea of having a major site which isn't linked into the 'evil empire' of the day.

They're my (possibly half-baked) thoughts anyway - I may try to expand if this becomes a serious proposal rather than a brainstorm. (Note that I'm completely unopposed to allowing people to choose to include something like this in an alternate skin/JS function/whatever). Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Bob House. Also, in the manner of what I'm refering to: day b nuf spelin n shit 4 work weddout folk @fb writ dis we dot needat Ian.thomson (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Nasa's web site integrates with Facebook, Twitter, Digg and many other social networking sites. Can someone show me some evidence that this has caused NASA to lose credibility in academic or professional circles? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Bob: I don't think anyone's proposing that we add "Like this" buttons to Misplaced Pages. Instead, I see two proposals: 1) Let readers share articles they find interesting by sharing them on Facebook, Twitter, etc. 2) Let people log in using their Facebook accounts. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Nasa, that's a completely different situation. Nasa doesn't have to fight for credibility like we do (they have it and would have to work to lose it, we're gaining it and have to work to not lose what ground we're acquiring), nor do they allow anyone to edit their site. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain exactly how letting readers share articles they find interesting with their friends will cause Misplaced Pages to lose credibility? I don't get it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - First, it is disheartening to see the elitist attitude of some of the comments here. It is unfair to assume that we are smarter than others, simply because they involve their friends in their lives, and we anonymously bicker about hyphen usage. Like I said above, I do hate social sites, but that doesn't mean I hate their users. I wanted to point out http://help.wikia.com/Help:Facebook_Connect as an example of how a MediaWiki site uses the Facebook API. Also, if anything were to happen with "like" buttons, or social bookmarking links, this could be handled through an integrated gadget, so only logged-in users who choose to have to see it. This should help us keep our "street cred". ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• I have to say I'm not a fan. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose How to manage it? Also, people would not go here just because they can use it because of a sn (social networking) account. ~~EBE123~~ _Contribs 20:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose we don't want Facebook tracking people on Misplaced Pages, so we need to keep it separate. However I am not opposed to linking to official or fan facebook pages in external links. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I would oppose linking Misplaced Pages to Facebook for the following reason. Although there are probably many people (myself included) who like both Misplaced Pages and Facebook, and have both a userpage on Misplaced Pages and a profile on Facebook, we should remember that if one goes to WP: What Misplaced Pages is not and reads what is under Sub-heading 2.5, we have the clarification that Misplaced Pages is NOT a social networking website. We should not really confuse social networking websites with an online encyclopaedia - Facebook and Misplaced Pages both have their uses, but for different reasons. As or the suggestion above that this would be unlikely to attract vandals because people use their real names on Misplaced Pages, please remember that people use their real names on Citizendium but that this online encyclopaedia is still vastly inferior to Misplaced Pages. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• oppose Along with many other reasons listed above (and perhaps this is too) I would be worried that some of the ... ummm ... problems (Virus, phishing, scams, etc) could end up compromising something here. And accounts/names/passwords being compromised at WP almost always leads to some very undesirable results. Second, I'd wonder if it would increase the amount of "WP:OUTING" that happens, as many users here edit under pseudonyms. I might like having a "like" button at times, but it's really not that hard to just copy and paste a link either. — Ched :  ?  02:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Social Media

It's becoming increasingly clear to me that all Misplaced Pages articles and photos need a social media share functionality, probably just FB and Twitter, but maybe a "Share This" dropdown if we have to be fair. Thanks for reading and cheers. ~J — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengod (talk • contribs) 19:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree. Seems like an easier way to attract vandalism. If people truly want to read something, they will search for it and Misplaced Pages is normally a top search result. The visits should be organic. Encyclopedic information is generally not something that you share in a social manner. Gary King (talk · scripts) 20:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I am somewhat on the fence with this one myself. I admit that allowing this type of functionality might draw some attention to the articles I also believe that there would be some significant drawbacks, vandalism being one of them. I do think that it might be interesting to do a test of some to see (maybe pick a couple hundred). I think we need to ask ourselves though what the return on the investment is. What would be gained and lost by doing this and is it worth the investment of time and energy? The foundation has been beating the bushes looking for ways to attract more editors and this could be a way to do that. --Kumioko (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Since most people use their real names on Facebook, I doubt very many would be vandalizing articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If "most" people use their real names, does this not mean that there are no mechanisms to ensure that people use their real names? Rilak (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Using real names on Facebook and vandalizing articles here are two different things. You can discover a Misplaced Pages article through a friend on Facebook, then visit the article, then vandalize it. We would never know the user's Facebook name. On a somewhat related note, for about a year now, Facebook has been using Misplaced Pages's data to create information pages on every single subject. So for instance, in a person's profile if they listed "Cooking" as an interest, and you clicked on Cooking, you'd go to something like facebook.com/topics/cooking which would show the Misplaced Pages article for Cooking. I don't know how we could use that to draw editors here, but it's a thought. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with the original poster. That's why I made Misplaced Pages:Sharebox in the first place. But to implement it everywhere, we need an open and free sharing system that supports multiple social share tools. We can't promote just one or two services, and above that, social sharing services are still very dependent on your country of origin/language in terms of popularity. That's quite a development effort. Not impossible, but will take considerable time none the less. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

@AQFK: Especially not BLP articles, if you catch my meaning. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, the Wiki software already supports this feature. For example, scroll to the bottom of a WikiNews article. There are links for Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Digg, and several others. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That's just a template, found here. We can't use the same exact method to implement them here because we'd have to edit every single article and add the template to each one. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

mw:Extension:PageNotice might obviate that, if it were installed. Rd232 10:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Please see the post five posts up from this one, which deals with the exact same thing, for my reasoning. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I've seen both of these, and many others. They never seem to get real consensus. Perhaps we have another Persistant proposal to add to the list? Wabbott9 (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose One of the best things about Misplaced Pages is that it doesn't have a load of Facebook 'social media' bullshit and doesn't, like every other website on the planet, demand I "Like this" or "share this" or whatever. If I want to post something I see on Misplaced Pages to a social media site, I move my mouse to the URL bar, copy the URL and paste it into Facebook or Twitter or whatever the hot new thing of the week is. That is all the social media integration anyone needs: publish it on the web at a persistent URL and allow other people to link to it. Beyond that lies marketing douchebag territory. Let's not go there, okay? —Tom Morris (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Everyone here is talking about what they want, or like. We should be considering what our users want; and what will encourage greater use of and participation in the 'pedia. And while that means doing research, anecdotally we can see that people do like, and use, such features. (For the record, my personal view is that such things belong in the browser, as bookmarklets or add-ons, rather than on the page. But I accept that that probably puts me in the minority). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

+1 to both your meta point about needing to engage the users on this and you preference as to implementation via a plugin. Although I could also see having it as part of a skin, so user selectable as a reasonable option. Gonzo (talk) 10:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

First, I'm noting that I made this a subsection of the above Facebook thread, as they are both pretty-much about the same thing. Second, how about this: Why doesn't somebody whip-up a WP gadget with social bookmarking functionality, and we can use that as a gauge. We can easily track how many people use it. If it gets an overwhelming amount of support, we can look further into implementing actual MediaWiki extensions like mw:Extension:Facebook. If it is not popular, or causes problems, then we have our answer. I would recommend this gadget only function in mainspace and File: space. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 11:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• comment Someone asked me to comment here from n:Wikinews:Water_cooler/technical#Facebook. I just wanted to mention there may be significant privacy considerations with integrating facebook. A click here to share on facebook button is ok (Since its passive, the user has to click in order to send info to facebook), but facebook like buttons, or logging in using facebook account, and pretty much all of mw:extension:Facebook allows facebook to gather information about our users essentially without their permission. (And is probably in violation of the privacy policy, although I don't think I've read the privacy policy so wouldn't be able to say for certain). Previous times this has been brought up on the mailing list its been shot down over privacy concerns recent example that's not quite the same because its about chapters. Bawolff (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • These issues are well known throughout the technical community and within the Foundation. Of course that doesn't mean that we can't do more than we do now, just that there are some specifics that we cannot do. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Page moves from userspace

Proposal: allow editors the option to suppress the creation of a redirect when moving a page out of userspace into mainspace (which would normally be a userspace draft-type page). That's probably harmless, is a common task, and prevents useless cross-namespace redirects. It's also a task which will likely become more common when the limitations on non-autoconfirmed users creating articles goes live, since many will be creating userspace drafts instead. Rd232 02:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• I know nothing about the technicalities of this while still not allowing suppression of redirects with other page moves. If it is technically feasible though, I would support it. It seems quite silly for people to have to request deletion of a cross namespace redirect that they didn't want in the first place. LadyofShalott 03:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • It's a good idea, but it widens a loophole. Moving pages from userspace means that any editor can easily create an article and get around WP:NPP. Suppressing redirects would make it less likely that an admin is going to come across it. I don't know if that's a reason to vote it down, I'm just pointing it out. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    • "Moving pages from userspace" existed for centuries, well before NPP. In my past experience, existence or deletion of user-to-mainspace redirects did not affect visibility of articles in any way. There were, however, two drawbacks: (a) no NPP = less exposure (b) it's easy to mess up by editing mainspace article thinking that it's one's userspace draft. Deletion of a redirect removes the latter, but it's no big deal really, and then anyone who ran into redirect-related troubles will soon learn to {{db-user}} it, won't they? NVO (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Well that just points up an obvious flaw in NPP! Moves from userspace to mainspace ought to show up at NPP. Shall we make that a separate proposal? Rd232 12:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
      • It's a bug in bugzilla, but I don't have the bugnumber right now. Anyway, if you find it, vote for it in bugzilla! Fram (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Ah yes: Template:Bugzilla. I've voted for it. Rd232 13:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
        • And I've just created Template:Bugzilla to cover redirects - a similar NPP loophole. Rd232 16:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) I brought up that exact problem in the idea lab (here) a few days ago but no-one has responded so far. The same issue also exists for articles expanded from redirects. doomgaze (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Back to the question: if/when the NPP loophole for moves from userspace is fixed (Template:Bugzilla), do we want this to happen? Rd232 10:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

We have a proposal for a pagemover group. It may be useful. ~~EBE123~~ _Contribs 19:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that new page moves from user to mainspace don't feed into NPP. I thinks it's absolutely essential they should, because if this loophole gets more widely known, it will be massively exploited. Not by the vandals, hoaxers, and attack pages, which are more spontaneous, but by the hard nosed SEO agents, corporate spammers, soccer fans, garage bands, and autobiographers promoting their first book or candidacy to the village council. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I question whether it is a useless cross-domain redirect. If the content existed in userspace, and now exists in mainspace, someone may have linked to the userspace version, so those links should redirect to mainspace. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The only links that its important to maintain are those in the mainspace, and there are no mainspace articles linking to userspace articles, any links that are added are removed on a weekly basis (From Misplaced Pages:Database reports/Articles containing links to the user space)--Jac16888 19:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Links from outside Misplaced Pages to the user version. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Teenage Editors

I feel that we need to have a Misplaced Pages page/essay which explains the policys to teenage editors. I know we already have Misplaced Pages:Guidance for younger editors but this is writen in a childish way wich could put teenage editors off. I would quite happly re-word that page if there was enough support. Oddbodz (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what sort of person would be old enough to be insulted by the simple tone of the guidance for younger editors yet unable to understand the 'adult' tone of the policies themselves...? ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 21:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Some teenagers may feel that their maturity is being questioned. They may, however, not want to read the full adult version. It's just a sugestion. Oddbodz (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Or they may not want to read them at all :P But I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect them to do so. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 21:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an "adult" place; I'm all for contributions from a diverse range of ages and demographics, but if you need to be spoonfed policies because you can't/don't want to take the time to decipher our professional-style guidelines... that's not a good thing. Juliancolton (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The policies imo are generally readable enough by any 13+ year old. AD 21:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Bah, don't listen to TT or Juliancolton. They're just trying to scare you off for some reason. You're just talking about an essay, so just click on: Misplaced Pages:Guidance for teenage editors and start writing. I'm sure that there are some people who will find your advice useful.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm—I think you've inspired me to write an essay called, Misplaced Pages:Assume bad faith. Oh no, there's one already. Good. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 08:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no need to assume anything. You provided the ammunition all on your own.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. I know when I first joined I wasn't keen on reading through all the policies. Having a page where they are written in a more approachable manner would be helpful. Muskeato 22:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds fine, but aiming it at teenagers is a bit silly really, and would be very difficult not to sound patronising. The "nutshell" box at the top of policy pages usually sums them up quite well. AD 13:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This page looks like it sums up every policy briefly. AD 13:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, most of our policies and guidelines could do with re-writing to improve the prose. Collaborative editing has many strengths, but clear prose is not one of them. I tend not to bother reading any of them unless absolutely necessary. If I had read them before starting to edit, I wouldn't have started editing. DuncanHill (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If our current policies are written at such a level that someone with a (partial) high school education has trouble reading them, that's a problem that needs to be fixed. If the issue is that people just can't be bothered to read them, making a separate page probably won't help much. Mr.Z-man 15:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Undergraduate level education actually. I'm someone who loves to read. The problem with the policies is that the prose is just so dull and flat. DuncanHill (talk) 10:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

But they're not supposed to be interesting, merely informative and comprehensible. They're not targetted at people who would read them for leisure purposes; rather, they're aimed at people who need to read them in order to edit Misplaced Pages effectively. To take a comparison, instructions for flat-pack furniture are usually pretty dry. These sorts of writings are designed for people who need to read them, not who want to read them. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 12:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If something is not interesting, people tend to forget the details and sometimes just skim. If you make things interesting, even funny, people are likely to remember what is said and want to read them. Comparing to a furniture construction illustration is not very useful here as that is something simple and straightforward that doesn't require much thought. The many[REDACTED] guidelines that people are expected to adhere to are another thing as people are expected to follow many of them, and you can't have people follow guidelines that they have never read. Granted some are common sense, but others aren't. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I've got to agree. Most of the policies are pretty clear, clearer than many of our articles. Individual cases ought to be handled through discussion on their talk pages leading to consensus for clearer expressions in the policy pages themselves. If there's a problem, it's because often something isn't notable under our criteria, but seems notable to a new editor. Even that's not really a problem with our policies, more that the new editor just went with "notable" in a common use, rather than in the way we use it in policies. Wabbott9 (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

We're working on improving stuff! Only just begun - but please see the headway we're making at WP:V. I think possibly that saying that it's aimed at teenage editors may not be a good way to go - anyone who isn't a teenager (or even those teenagers who don't want to be perceived as teenagers) is quite likely just to "not go there". (Perceive it as irritatingly condescending.) What we need is a Wittgenstein's ladder approach, in all likelihood. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 04:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What we need to remember is that the Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. There is no software than can identify an editor's age, and the Misplaced Pages:Advice for younger editors was deliberately aimed at a target language level to be cogent for the 10 - 14 age group. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy should be pretty clear:

1. Teenagers are human beings.
2. Human beings that have not been banned are welcome to edit Misplaced Pages.
3. Therefore teenagers who have not been banned are welcome to edit Misplaced Pages.

That is all. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

...and that is relevant how? ╟─TreasuryTag►Odelsting─╢ 10:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The point is that I'm not totally sure if we need to spend time reworking Misplaced Pages:Guidance for younger editors. I guess I just don't see the point, unless we can find good reasons, preferably from said younger users, why specific outreach is needed, and those younger users can work to ensure it isn't condescending. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Install extension Pchart4mw - for charts drawing

Since we only have the <timeline> extension for simple (bar only) chart drawing, I propose to install the Pchart4mw extension to have the ability to create various types of real charts/graphs. Thank you for your support!--Kozuch (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support I would have it tested on one of the test wikis first, but this extension does seem to be a net positive for visuals in articles. Logan _Talk 07:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Sounds like a very useful feature, so long as it goes through a series of tests before widespread use (support, efficiency, output...). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea how correct "extension installation" works here on EN Misplaced Pages, but I suppose community consensus is the very important part of the proccess. So yes, after we hopefully have consensus the technical part will begin (probably extensin code review, making sure it performs ok etc.?). If someone can supply info about correct steps in the process this would be welcome. I was also thinking of enabling it first on a smaller wiki (for instance Czech Misplaced Pages), but I did not ask for consensus there yet.--Kozuch (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Support This makes data editable as opposed to user externally-created charts. This will also bring some visual consistency. And finally this will make new chart making easy as pie. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• How does this compare with the (many) options listed at WP:Graphs? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not know "Template:Visualizer" or "Template:Pie chart" - one of the differences I see - these run on Toolserver (whose stability and availability is a big "?" sometimes). This would be a local extension which will perform much better I guess. --Kozuch (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Pchart4mw has more chart types, it seems. They also look better (in my opinion) and are more customizable. InverseHypercube 00:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support Makes sense. We probably should have a comprehensive guide explaining the use of the extension, though. —James • 3:11pm • 05:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support It would be extremely useful and would reduce the number of charts uploaded to Commons. As well, the chats could easily be edited and provide a consistent look. InverseHypercube 00:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Really short Misplaced Pages URLs

I think that Misplaced Pages should get their own article URL shortening service. There are 20 million articles in its >250 versions. So 6 alphanumeric characters should be enough to list them all (52^6 = 20 billion, or 70 million articles per language). How about an automatic system that changes en.wikipedia.org/History_of_the_universe into wkpshrt.org/5egF4w and pops up in each article page you visit to share easily? That can go for other Wikimedia projects as well. How do we make it? --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Is there a good reason that Wikimedia/the MediaWiki software should implement this when there are good third party tools available to do it easily, though (TinyURL.com, bit.ly, etc...)?
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• • It is worth noting that some projects already have slightly shortened urls (http://enwp.org, there's one of the English Wikinews and probably others too). - Jarry1250  14:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Yep, enwp.org works for any WP page ( http://enwp.org/Barack_Obama for example). And the Wikinews one is enwn.net, which works differently (more like a bit.ly service). But I agree with the above. There are way too many third-party services out there. And we want to make Misplaced Pages less socialized. Anyone who wants to share a short link should already know how to. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

      ...why do we "want to make Misplaced Pages less socialized."? Maybe that's what you'd like, which is fine, but I certainly don't want us to be more anti-social than we already are. :(
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we don't want to have to ask Big brother to do everything for us. Bus stop (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

... no one is, so I don't get your point. — The Hand That Feeds You: 23:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think bit.ly's approach makes more sense - links are only given when someone wants to link something. By contrast, your approach covers all articles, linked to or not, and only articles. So for example, as a test, bit.ly/lNbS69 now links to editing this particular section of this page. I wasn't asked to register. I don't know how long it will last, but it seems like a versatile solution. But I'm not sure making and archiving new custom links in this fashion would be within the mission of Misplaced Pages. True, Big Brother is probably listening in, but alas, the same is probably true of Misplaced Pages or any other site. Look at how many traceroutes run through Reston, Virginia, put it that way. Wnt (talk) 05:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Silly National Wildlife Federation spying on us Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't know enwp.org. It's a cool feature. However, as you mention, it's run unofficially. An official shortening service would be much safer. Also, enwp.org doesn't truly shorten addresses. You wouldn't be abled to share List of submissions to the 83rd Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film on Twitter, for example. Fetchcomms, Wnt, this official service would help to spread the project easier. An unexperienced user could copy the shortened link from the article page and share it with others. Not everyone knows bit.ly, and lots of people wouldn't bother follow those steps whereas this option would be much more accessible. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

In February, the Wikimedia Foundation welcomed the offer of the owner of enwp.org to give them the domain . In May, it was said that the matter had been referred to Rob Halsell from the Foundation's tech department . It was pointed out that some tech people might be a bit skeptical about it .

URL shorteners can present privacy issues as they can track who clicks on a shortened link. They often publish part of this tracking data. For example, bit.ly lists the number of clicks per country, and per referrer (add "+" to a bit.ly link). This could quite easily be exploited to find out a Misplaced Pages user's country. A shortener owned by the WMF would offer the benefit that such data would be governed by the WMF privacy policy.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Forgiveness day, 7 August

I was just thinking about a "forgiveness day", and it turns out there is one - 7 August . So I propose that we adopt this on Misplaced Pages, to help spread peace and good will among editors and encourage them to try and put aside past conflicts. The idea is that we'd knock up a user template along the general lines of "I'm sorry for my contribution to our past conflicts, in honour of International Forgiveness Day I hope we can put these behind us and achieve better collaboration in future." (off the top of my head; much improvement possible; not forgetting to encourage the user to add a personalised addendum). {{Cookie}}s and the like would be options for those as wants. Users would be encouraged to leave these templates on or around the day for users they've had some disagreements with. This would be most effective advertised annually via a watchlist notice, but that might be a bit ambitious at this point (maybe in future years). That's all. Rd232 public 23:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That'd be great fun, if only human minds allowed someone to get rid of grudges on a whim. Since they don't, the result would be either (a) something completely meaningless or (b) something easier to game than a multiple-choice test. Ironholds (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"if only human minds allowed someone to get rid of grudges on a whim..." - I think you need to reconsider what forgiveness means. In addition, a public commitment helps people sustain behaviours, so the public declaration is not meaningless, even if it doesn't work out in every case. I don't see where gaming comes into it. Rd232 public 02:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ironholds to an extent. I no longer bear ill will to a number of people that I've had fights with, but there are some things that cannot be forgiven. I think that we could adapt it to a day of talking out differences and making commitments to settling disputes more amicably, but it won't, say, stop the NFCC war or anything of that caliber of conflict. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

"I think that we could adapt it to a day of talking out differences and making commitments to settling disputes more amicably..." - well that's the general idea. Forgiveness seems a good starting point for that, since it's often necessary, but if someone wants to suggest an alternative approach, I'm open to suggestions. At root, I just think an annual "let's put this shit behind us and try again to be really collaborative" day would be good. Rd232 public 11:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I just followed that link in the OP's post. It's amusing that the "Worldwide Forgiveness Alliance is a non-profit 501(c)3 tax-deductible organization." (My bolding.) Should I forgive them for not arranging deductions for 95% of the world's population? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I forgive you for being a hater and for undermining a good idea only for the sake of hearing your own voice. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

A hater? Oh dear. I will forgive you for your paranoia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It is neither amusing nor relevant, since the organization isn't involved in the proposal in any way. I came across the organization in searching for a "forgiveness day", an idea I had, and this came up and it makes sense to use an existing date that someone is already promoting (not least to avoid the need to pick a date from scratch). If there are any alternatives to 7 August already being promoted, let's hear them. Rd232 public 11:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It has the advantage of falling on my birthday. (Forgive me for pointing that out!) :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Curses! People will assume it's a conspiracy! :) Rd232 public 02:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't all days be foregiveness days? To forgive is one of the great Christian virtues, and it would be a shame if we confined this ideal to a mere one of the three hundred and sixty-five days in the year. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

We pagans, on the other hand.... --Nuujinn (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If after trying to get through the behaviour of a person is still not satisfactory I think a measured amount of retribution is called for, it helps the world go round, without it you get jerks and freeloaders. After that one should check and see if things are now satisfactory. So what exactly is the point of having a particular date for forgiveness? Is it for people who don't know when to stop retribution or somehow otherwise to let them get on with their lives? Dmcq (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favor of forgiveness; gimmicks, not so much. I'm afraid this will come across as a gimmick, however much that might not be the intent.

I'm not necessarily opposed. Who knows; it might do some good. But it will definitely also make some people roll their eyes. --Trovatore (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"All other namespace" tab in dropdowns

Currently, dropdown menus like the ones in "user contribution" pages allow you to search by individual namespace of by all namespaces overall. With many users, more than half of user contributions are in the article namespace. Is it possible to add an item in the dropdown menu allowing you to - at one go - search all contributions other than those in the article space? This sort of addition would also be useful in the similar dropdown menus in "new pages", "what links here", "related changes", etc. Grutness...wha? 02:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea; it's been around a while. The relevant bug is Template:Bug, from June 2008; it has 4 duplicates. Voting for it can't do any harm.... Rd232 public 11:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Category →'s at the bottom of articles

A major pet peeve of mine are laundry lists. Oh boy do I hate them! Why is it that so many articles are categorized inside categories to which they are also categorized? To look at what should be done, here is a good example: Category:Rivers. So how do we get people to not overcategorize? Imagine the following scheme at the bottom of each categorized page:

Categories:

• Contents → Articles → Main topic classifications → Geography → Places → Fluvial landforms → Rivers → Rivers by continent → Rivers of Europe → Rivers of Albania
• Contents → Articles → Main topic classifications → Geography → Geography-related lists → Lists by continent → Europe-related lists → Albania-related lists

Ideally, the shortest path between the top category Category:Contents and any category selected should be chosen.

And of course, in practice, only the first parent level should be shown. Example:

Categories: Rivers of Europe → Rivers of Albania | Europe-related lists → Albania-related lists

In general, only one parent level need be shown.

This would prevent people from over-categorizing articles. This would also make for a much nicer and functional outline to be the pervasive norm.

Signed, a laundry list hater, siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Misplaced Pages
03:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment This would be technically impractical: Graph traversal is generally a hard thing to do right and would require significant work from MediaWiki developers to implement and significant system resources. More detailed reasoning than "Oh boy do I hate them!" is needed to justify the technical and human resources needed to implement this. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: wouldn't it be more practical to come at the problem more directly? The issue is page or category A appearing in both category X as well as in category Y, the parent of X. (Sometimes this behaviour is desirable, but usually it isn't.) Perhaps Misplaced Pages:HotCat could somehow flag such cases when a HotCat user visits A. Rd232 public 10:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • As long as users were made very aware of the cases when that behaviour is desirable (such as the much-discussed and occasionally understood eponymous categories question).--Kotniski (talk) 11:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Are they identified in some way that HotCat could feasibly do that? Rd232 public 21:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to seperate template warnings for edit warring and breaking 3RR

A couple of weeks ago I made this suggestion at Misplaced Pages talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive 12#Edit warring and breaking 3RR: not always the same thing!, and though it has not been rejected there has not been much response. So, thinking it would be a shame to let what I feel would be a very useful change go, I have decided to bring it here. Please see the link for the details of why I feel this would be beneficial. U-Mos (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there's a need for a separate template, as the wording of Template:uw-3rr implies accusation of edit warring. Which, as you pointed out, is not always the case and should not be automatically assumed in all cases of multiple reverts within a 24-hr. time frame.--JayJasper (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing edit conflict notice from the sandbox

I am not sure that there is the technology to do this, but here goes!! Tonight (June 28 2011) I had been trying out citation methods on Misplaced Pages: Sandbox, and got the message - "Some one else has been starting to edit this since you began, resulting in an edit conflict". My plea is for there to be a removal - if this is technologically possible - of the edit conflict tag from the sandbox, as surely, it is more than likely that there will be several people editing there simultaneously. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I remember some one raised the question of edit conflicts some time ago earlier this year (2011) - did anything come of it? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about that, by I do know that reasonably experienced users needn't be using the main WP sandbox. I've knocked up a userbox {{Mysandbox}} which makes it easy to create a user subpage sandbox. (This could probably be linked from some relevant help pages etc, if anyone can think of where.) PS I did a while ago suggest using Javascript to give every user easy access to their own subpage sandbox, by adding an extra tab on their user and user talk page. Rd232 public 21:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that - giving people the right to use their own personal sandboxes on their own userpages seems a marvellous idea! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Boycott

I propose creating a list, possibly at WP:BOYCOTT, of those companies that purposefully and repeatedly attempt to damage Misplaced Pages's credibility and usefulness by turning it into a marketing resource. Misplaced Pages readers would be advised to refuse to do business with any business on the list. Currently advertisements and spam just get reverted, deleted, blacklisted, and the editors blocked, but that just leaves the spammers exactly where they were before if they get caught and a big payoff if they don't. Instead, there should be serious, real-life consequences for these actions, and there might be enough Misplaced Pages readers who would boycott these companies for making damaging Misplaced Pages a part of their corporate policy to make getting caught spamming start to sting a little. Proposed criteria for inclusion would be any company that: writes an article about themselves that gets WP:G11ed, engages in linkspam, replaces neutral encyclopedic content with a press release, or hires anyone to do so on their behalf. 99.164.32.24 (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Any such list would probably result in companies spamming on behalf of their competitors. --Yair rand (talk) 09:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite right. That's the true spirit of a proper security consultant. Dmcq (talk) 11:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this sort of thing would be better implemented "off-wiki", so to speak. You could put together a list of companies that spam, share it with any interested partied, and do it unconnected with Misplaced Pages (say on a blog or some such thing where you have control over who posts). Just make sure you let the companies know why you're boycotting them. Wabbott9 Tell me about it.... 02:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

As Yair rand explained this would be exploited. It really would be, it isn't a joke. And it wouldn't even have been an unforseen consequence. I would not want to be associated with this sort of damage to innocent companies. We're better off just dealing with the problem straightforwardly as at present by blocking spammers.

Wouldn't this give legal problems? Even if we recognize, revert and block them, companies can easily deny relation with spammers, and then accuse[REDACTED] of plotting against them. It may be better to accept spammers as a "fact of life", that must be kept at bay but which can not be completely erased Cambalachero (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Template for Regiowikis

Hi all. Regiowikis are wikis focused on a geographical area. I propose to create a new template {{Regiowiki}} to link to these encyclopedias in the articles about cities. Example on the right for Tomsk. Just a link in "External links" section would be nice but this is a way to promote free knowledge creation.

By the way, I'm working on a list/map for all regiowikis in the world (User:Emijrp/Regiowikis), so if you know about any missing regiowiki, please, add it! Regards. emijrp (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hold your horses! I have several objections:

• Templates like you made are currently only used for other wikimedia projects like wiktionary or wikicommons. Readers will think that "regiowiki" are a part of wikipedia, when it is not and we absolutely no control over its contents.
• The regiowiki is written in a foreign language, but we are the English wikipedia. External links to websites in non-english languages are strongly discouraged (WP:NONENGEL)
• We don't link to open wikis normally, unless they have "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". wp:ELNO#12
• We don't add external links to "promote free knowledge creation", we do it because they external links improve the article. Yoenit (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. 1) OK, a new design is desired. 2) OK, only links to English writtens wikis. 3) I'm OK with this. 4) Come on! That is a side effect ; ) Regards. emijrp (talk) 10:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not think this to be a good idea. A special template for a external link gives undue weight to the link over the others, and certainly the official web site of a region (if exists) should be more important than a wiki. Cambalachero (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Since those links would almost never meet WP:EL, and thus would almost never appear in articles, why would we want/need a special template? Qwyrxian (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You could use {{Facebook}} as a model for the correct style of such a link, but Qwyrxian is right: Why bother creating a template that has almost no legitimate uses? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Limit the Wikilove feature to specific user groups

I'm sure that this should be disallowed for non-autoconfirmed users, and only in an opt-in basis for non-admins, since Misplaced Pages isn't a social networking site.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, lighten up... Next thing you know we can't even say 'hello' anymore. — Edokter (talk) — 22:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think Jasper's right, and it's only a matter of time before you see why. Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

We may not a be social network, but we are a community. I don't believe in blocking features for beginning editors, especially those that promote collaboration. — Edokter (talk) — 22:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not what you'll be blocking Edoktor; have you looked at the "make your own" option? Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect we'll come to rue that one.--SPhilbrickT 01:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That was a seriously Californian off-the-wall crazy idea. I quite like it though, better than all the gooey "love" stuff. Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously jealous of California MF? The 7th largest economy in the world. Almost all development and manufacturing of anything important in medical devices, telecommunications, social networking (though I might consider it a negative), Misplaced Pages (OK, another negative), automobile design, venture capital, computer devices, and gorgeous, intelligent women. In other words, without California, the US would be a backwards, Republican-run, anti-science, fascist religious state, pretty much laughed at by Californians. And we wouldn't let you have our excellent pot. OrangeMarlin 03:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Why would anyone be jealous of California? A state that appears to have more lawyers per square mile than any other place on Earth? Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's 12th on the list of US states for active attorneys per square mile, being preceded (in order) by New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island, Maryland, Delaware, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Florida. Additionally, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico both have far more attorneys per square mile than California. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason I opened this thread was because of some recent trolling incidents with things related to Wikilove (like this IP). Besides, many non-autoconfirmed users don't know the meanings of barnstars, etc. Therefore, I think it's reasonable if non-autoconfirmed users can opt in to Wikilove by applying for Confirmed status. It's too risky to allow IPs to opt in.

"...can we all get along?" Bus stop (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Opt out?

How about a way to opt out of receiving these unwanted advances? Apparently there's a way to opt out of the button to give these silly notices, but recipients has no such option. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

IMO the opt-out checkbox should block both sending and receiving -- it's highly unlikely that someone would opt out from sending but want to receive. For users who've disabled it, we could visibly disable the heart symbol to other users to make it clear what's going on.

I think it's inevitable that a small but vocal faction of users will dislike this feature, and this is a simple way to mitigate conflict about it.--Eloquence* 02:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if Misplaced Pages is anything like Facebook, then they will opt us in automatically, and make it impossible to figure out how to opt out!  :) OrangeMarlin 03:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is impossible to truly opt out. It is possible to make the button not appear to a user that has opted out; I can think of one fairly simple way that would work. But since anyone could manually type out any message they want I don't see a point in opting out of receiving the messages. Removing the button to send, on the other hand, could be useful and indeed I have done that for myself. Prodego 03:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I think removing the button for opted-out users is good enough, since most of the Wikilove materials are hard to find for users who aren't familiar with what they are.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like people also want an automated reply. I guess appropriate ones might be to

• A rabbit icon 'I freeze like a rabbit when given wikilove'
• A boiled rabbit icon 'I get obsessed when given wikilove, look out'
• A rabbit pie 'We can share a meal and be friends'

I'm sure the Misplaced Pages software could look for a list of automated responses associated with a user and pick out the appropriate one for edits about to make to a users page so these could be shown in the preview. Hmm if they change their edit correspondingly then a different message might come out - one could almost work in a whole Eliza type conversation here ;-) Dmcq (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hide red talk page links for deletion discussions

I'm proposing that we add something to the common JS or CSS file that hides redlinked talk page tabs for deletion discussions. I've only ever seen one editor confused by this, but surely this tab is rarely if ever used. There should not be any meta-discussion about the discussions, all that needs to be said should be said on the page. If, by some wacky circumstance, a talk page must be created, then the tab will show as blue. Any editor that knows enough to know that the talk page must be created should also know how to type "talk" into the URL. To go to a discussion and find there is an empty discussion tab is a little counter-intuitive. This way there is no chance for even momentary confusion. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

They're usually not used, but sometimes they are. It's sometimes helpful to move extended analysis of sources there, or lengthy tangential discussions. I've participated in a handful of AfDs where this happened. It's sort of analogous to the admin noticeboards: you "talk" on WP:AN or WP:ANI, but "meta-talk" goes on WT:AN or WT:ANI. 28bytes (talk) 08:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this sometimes does happen, but the difference is that WP:AN never has a red talk page tab, whereas AfDs almost always do, by their nature. Once you create a Village Pump talk page, that tab is blue forever. Also, new users often need to go to AfD, as they are the ones most often creating pages that need to be deleted. And again, if the the tab is blue it should not be hidden. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that we want to require people to hand-code URLs. We shouldn't assume that every person with an interest in that page is a regular at the English Misplaced Pages, or that everyone finds it just as easy to type as to click (especially on a mobile device). Also, the redlink definitively indicates to the regulars that there isn't anything of interest on the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not assuming that they are a regular, quite the opposite. I'm assuming that most people that go to an AfD don't know where to post. People who know enough about AfD to know that a separate discussion about the discussion is required, these people I'm assuming are regulars. There is no situation where someone who doesn't know how en works would also need to post on the talk page instead of the discussion. And yes, seeing a redlink is how people know it is a redlink, just as seeing any noun lets you know it is that noun. If only redlinks were hidden (again, not blue links), then seeing any talk page tab would be an indicator that there was a conversation there. It is unlikely this would cause a problem for anyone. Not seeing a talkpage tab will be just as reliable as seeing a red one, as it will be the same wiki software hiding it. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the total numbers, but here is a list of all AfD talk pages. I said that I personally had only seen one editor confused by the talk page tab during a discussion; well, that list contains hundreds. I ask anyone interested in this proposal to take a random selection of these pages and see how many comments had to be made on the talk page, vs how many could or should have been on the AfD. The vast majority of comments on those talk pages are from people that think they will be part of the discussion. The vast majority of "meta" comments should be made in the discussion: SPA notices, relisting, deletion sorting, etc. People would not expect a meta comment on the talk page and it would likely go unnoticed. Comments taken out of the discussion are now simply hidden with a collapsible template, so (again) people can always easily see all parts of the conversation. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Jump List support

Hi, as you know, Microsoft added in Internet Explorer 9 the support for website pinning on the taskbar ; I believe that Misplaced Pages should adopt this feature to increase its share and be easier to use and reach.

It's possible to use Jump List also in Chrome thanks to an extension (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/foekkphhdncclpelbmngokikjnkikpad) and Mozilla is actively work to implement them in future releases of Firefox (http://areweprettyyet.com/5/desktopApps/).

More info at: http://buildmypinnedsite.com/

The Dark Melon (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can make out, at the basic level, "pinning" means "put the URL in the taskbar", i.e., a feature that was implemented in Mac OS X years ago.

It appears that the advanced level adds all sorts of intrusive features, like reminding users that they ought to come visit your site. I can't imagine why we would want to spend our limited dev resources on a feature that sounds so irritatingly spammy and will only benefit that fraction of readers who have the misfortune to be using a poorly rated web browser on one of the most heavily attacked and expensive operating systems in the world. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

well if you love Mac it's not our problem, try to have an unbiased opinion. Nothing of what you wrote is actually true but maybe a mac fanboy considers all the rest just like shit..The Dark Melon (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages proposals
• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links