This page is currently quite messed up: duplicated sections, with some conversations proceeding separately in two places. If someone feels like earning some serious karma points, they could sort this out. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:33, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
I was just about to suggest a log for showing page moves yesterday. Now today, with the new upgrade, we have a Move Log. --Ixfd64 2005 June 28 03:53 (UTC)
These are for our use:
{{VPP-project}}:
{{VPP-bug}}:
Just write the template name and sign with ~~~~. r3m0t talk 12:10, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
heres an idea for wikipedia help:
1.a user lets say me asks a question
2.you follow my signiture
3.give me the answer on my talk page or what ever page i want you to give the answer on
4. you then go back to the question and write thats its been answered by you and add a link to the page with the answer
I think its a good idea becuse you don't need to check for a reply becuase it will say at the top that you've got a reply
do you like it?
--Madcowpoo 13:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Not sure where this should go (clearly not here); if someone moves it (as they should), please leave a note here about where it's been moved to. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
hello guys i m rookie do know how to do things here just wanna give an idea,i had read an article on defencetalk.com that (Which SAM systems pose the greatest threat? Pilots perspective)
http://defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4448
i just posted the following!!!
((http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-to-air_missile
anti-aircraft_weapons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rcraft_weapons
warfare#Mobility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ai...rfare#Mobility
hey guys check these links i think u will get ur answer there!!!!))
another member of the forum posted the following as an answer to me!!!
((Just a note of caution when citing Wikpedia as a reference link.
Wikpedia is not a validated site. Anyone can post anything and it will not be validated.
Anyone can edit anything - and thus all of it is subject to immediate bias.
As a test I submitted some military entries some 3 months ago that were completely spurious to see how long it would take for people to correct it. No one did and no one has.))
i just wanna say that wikipedia should ask researchers,scolars and professors check all its articles i m sure this will really improve the contents of the encyclopedia!!!
plz tell if i made any mistake i will try my level best never to do that mistake again!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by B@B!Oo (talk • contribs) 12 Jan 2006
Anyone else think having a shortcut for this page would be helpful? If so please post some suggestions here: xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I spent months working on the community portal, including creating/installing the Community Bulletin Board, and based on the heavy use the CBB gets, I was under the impression that most people liked the page. Unfortunately, the way the talk page system is set up, it seems like only people with complaints and gripes visit those, so all I seemed to get was negative feedback, on various points and then recently to the design effort itself. I did everything I could to accomodate the specific points (except for a select couple that I really liked). But then people started complaining about the page being changed at all - and it was supposedly an open page! Then somebody comes along and reverts the page to a version that existed months ago, including getting rid of the community bulletin board, soon followed by an admin who locks the page. Luckily another bold admin restored the CBB, but *sigh*, not the rest of the page. So... I called for a vote to get the page changed back! And finally, some encouragement shows up in the form of support votes. Is this what we have to do to avoid the Wikiblues around here? --Go for it! 20:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Am I the only one, or has anyone else noticed the apparent process bias towards criticism promoted by the talk page system? --Go for it! 20:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
My proposal is to change the format of Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) as follows: There would be only three sections to this page:
Here's a mock up.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Who decides what's active and what's inactive? I'd say that 95% of ideas here never go anywhere. Nearly everything is inactive here except when someone posts to them. It's not like someone is out working on most of these proposals. This link is Broken 29 June 2005 14:51 (UTC)
I prefer to be able to watch all the discussions, which becomes much more difficult with transclusion. Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 08:31 (UTC)
I think I'm going to come out against this. I guess because I think it's another step into compartmentalisation, which to me runs counter to the idea of a village pump. I don't think the size of the pages is too great if we keep pruning them every week. Yes, the watching of discussions is a pain, I suppose another option is subpaging, but then that may be complicated for newer users. I think it's fairly easy to archive discussions at the moment, if you want it, grab it. Maybe if people started moving conversations off to relevant talk pages once they start flying, with a redirect, that would be a better idea. That's just my initial thoughts, anyway. Hiding 29 June 2005 08:36 (UTC)
I always come in through the history page so that I can see what comments have been added since the last time I looked. Breaking out the proposals to their own pages would complicate things for me. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 22:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Instead of reorganizing, we could use a (very very) subtle visual highlight for "recent" addition blocks, similar visually to that being proposed for In the news pictures (see image).
Anything in the last 2 days gets an ever-so-slightly darker blue background than normal, and anything in the last 1 day get a slightly-darker-than-that blue background. Everything older than 2 days is displayed as normal. That would also solve some of the issues leading to the perennial proposal - bring modern interface (see image).
I don't know if it's technically feasible though. Somehow integrate diffs with css? not my specialty. --Quiddity 00:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
This is an equation created with Wikipedia's font for math markup:
Q = C A P ( g c k M Z R T ) ( 2 k + 1 ) ( k + 1 ) / ( k − 1 ) {\displaystyle Q\;=\;C\;A\;P\;{\sqrt {{\bigg (}{\frac {\;\,g_{c}\;k\;M}{Z\;R\;T}}{\bigg )}{\bigg (}{\frac {2}{k+1}}{\bigg )}^{(k+1)/(k-1)}}}}
This is the same equation created using WikiCities' font for the very same math markup:
A suggestion has been made at Bugzilla that Wikipedia make the smaller font TeX version, used at WikiCities, available as an alternative option to the current larger TeX font used in Wikipedia. It is quite obvious that the WikCities TeX font is smaller, neater and tidier. It is much closer to the size of the regular text so that the overall look of an article that uses TeX equations is more balanced. Also, the smaller TeX font allows for displaying longer equations, within the display screen width, than does the Wikipedia font.
The larger font would remain just as it is. Users would still use the <math> and </math> tags. If they wanted to use the smaller font, they would use <maths> and </maths> or some similar technique. In other words, when a user creates an equation, he or she would decide which font they wanted to use.
If you agree with this suggestion, visit Bugzilla Bug #4915 at here, scroll down and vote for the proposal. - mbeychok 19:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I have just started a article with the title mentioned above. Perhaps it would be interesting contributing\starting with me to this list; it might be fun if their is some kind of a competition between several users, to be on top of that list! Maybe some people would go and work harder, do more, contribute more, and vandalise less! So, what do you say?
the Old and respectable Kashwialariski 15:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
A question. I am fully aware that deleting any comment from any page is customarily, and rightly, regarded as amazingly naughty; in unusual situations, such as the intermittent outbursts on this page and on the project page by sockpuppets of User:Cplot, could an exception not be made? Obviously they are all immediately reverted, and why he does not learn to expect that I do not know, but would not erasure make the point more forcefully?--Anthony.bradbury 00:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to discuss the guidelines for Sockpuppetry more in-depth, including better ways to deal with this phenom when it's clear there are many "users" who are simply the same person. I'm following a specific case study entry where sockpuppetry is abundant and obviously related to an individual who is seeking to make the Wikipedia entry a personal soap box -- or rather a puppet show. Although the person/user is repeatedly told to follow the guidelines, they simply create a new sockpuppet who post their POV edits and claim to not know any better. It is almost a "comedy of (intentional) errors" and I would be interested in following other examples of sockpuppetry and related policy discussions as this has wider implications for best practices around creating authentic shared knowledge repositories of record. Are there algorithms that could determine a fair "one-who-poses-as-many" user policy that flags an entry as being questionable or having a bad case of sockpuppets?
--NewMediaResearcher (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
A semantic network appears to make the search. A good selection as the relation set allows a substantial network. You have a list.
I tried an AI program once and the problem appeared the relation. I was not adept totally and had to define. A set eliminates this open set semantic system.
A sentence writer as a short demonstration is the implication of complete third order testing function.
A subject appears represeted by the letter, A. And to make the sentence requires the A to be defined as a link or not. A desire to infer existence appears the applied semantic relation. A common usage is to invert the appearance of knowledge and discover relations between topics in Wiki. A link as you propose was to imply a relations semantic existence, good idea!
A face value examination was to make it appear simple, but as the set was chosen, abstract, a basic computer appeared! If your list of clauses of semantic relation is closed a search for new relation was impossible. A simple applied search return function allows all clause to be examined as a search. A word outside the link allows this. And the dog was to be inferred. The writer has a search example defining abstract subject as searchable!
The writer of the search engine for the wiki is third order complete in his example! It is an outstanding concept in modern applied reason. It is a real good stuff idea. --Eaglesondouglas 14:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
So I defined three sentences. And the code is as follows.
java psuedocode
class a(){ automatically insert link list here!
}
a
A letter a as example appears the runtime to cause a running "a" example.
Title this "a".
This is object design talk and a valid example of just an "a" class appears to control. A search engine text popup example appears a valid a test or inference. All abstract a as definition appears to be a link inserted in the class a. A relation as defined by abstract a allows a redefiniton as equation where class "a" is given symbol. Meaning the popup to search can have a hyperlist of valid a examples, so the relation, "a member of" will popup with all set memebr examples from the whole wiki! And this all revolves around the little little class example given.
SO be careful outthere.
--207.69.138.138 15:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)--Eaglesondouglas 15:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
I've posted this question to several places more relevant to images, but I haven't really gotten much feedback. I've encountered a user who has created several categories for images as analogues to categories on the Commons based on the idea that then linking those categories to the Commons makes locating images easier, even though there is far less image content on WP and so the result is many categories for a few images; they have even begun categorising Commons media that are not even used on WP (1,2,3,4) so as to populate the hierarchy of categories created (1,2). My understanding was that we were actively in the process of moving all free images to the Commons, and so it followed that if not reducing image infrastructure on WP, we shouldn't be increasing it. After an inquiry to an admin working on image categorisation that recommended that I transwiki to the Commons any images that were on WP, and which led to deletion of one of the images, this user promptly created a page for the Commons image and again categorised it on WP. According to that sort of convention, what stops us from categorising every image from the Commons by their WP description pages, thus pretty much negating the utility of separate projects? Please advise, TewfikTalk 18:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I am becoming a little concerned about the growing number of commercial organisations using Wikipedia as effectively free advertising space, by posting pages on themselves and products. Whilst corporate information is obviously useful, these pages are often rather positively biased as you may expect. My personal view is that these postings should be discouraged. Wikipedia... facts not marketing.--David.oconnor 16:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The admin of Wikipedia is doing a great job, but I'm worried that it is becoming cluttered. There are coloured boxes on every second page saying the the article doesn't meet the quality standards or needs clean up. They are useful but becoming an eyesore. What about a less obnoxious standard box, in a standardized place at the bottom of the page. --MarcBrackett 9:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I know that some sites, such as this one, have trouble with vandals. I'm curious to know if these vandals can be permanently banned from the sites they vandalize. Brian Pearson 00:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This important issue needs to be clarified. If we spot an obvious act of vandalism, such as happened to the article on aging,the best thing to do is to go to the article's history, use the "Copy" and "Paste" facilities and insert the earlier version before the article got vandalised. This is what I did to the article on aging on December, 20, 2007. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Why are the village pump pages not archived in the same way as other policy pages? After 1 week they move to a single archive each, then after another week that archive is purged and not saved? I think it would be useful to preserve the history of village pump discussions so that people can refer to them. Is there a reason why we do it this way? If not, any objections to my setting up a more standard archiving system like most policy discussion pages have (archive001, archive002, etc)? Wikidemo 02:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
{{User:MiszaBot/config |algo = old(7d) |archive = Wikipedia:Village pump (example)/Archive %(counter)d |counter = 1 |maxarchivesize = 60K }}
|archiveheader={{Archive list|root=Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)}}
You may have seen either the original list of the day proposal or the revised version. A more modest experimental proposal is now at issue at WP:LOTDP. Feel free to voice your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
We can all agree this word is deragatory. If the word terrorist is to be used correctly why dont we see it by names such as Stalin and the government he ran. In the colonial period the colonists called the colonized who fought against them terrorists, who is the bigger terrorist here, the colonizers or those that defend themselves? This word is really opinionated since someones terrorist might be considered someone else a group that stands for justice, and this word should not be even used unless the borders of which the colonizers setup is removed, especially after they did soo much damage to world history and humanity in general. Just for the intire wikipedia, we are not to show any way favoritism to one side, so lets report facts of what has happened and confirmed rather then putting titles such as terrorists on one onther, since this supposed to show only facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logic of History (talk • contribs) 00:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Large cladograms / phylogenies in biological taxonomy can be hard to read because they can sprawl over several screenfuls. It struck me that this is a fairly common problem on the web, and that a common solution is to provide an expanding / collapsing tree hierarchy, like those use for folders in Windows Explorer and most email programs. Versions implemented on Web pages often have additional facilities, e.g.: "expand all" and "collapse all" buttons; the ability to restore the hierarchy to its last state if the visitor leaves and returns to the page. Doing this on a Web page requires: some special CSS to define the tree's appearance; Javascript to manipulate the tree's appearance and to save its state as a cookie (strictly per session, i.e. vanishes when the visitor quits the browser; no harm done if the visitor's browser is set to reject all cookies). If the visitors' browser is set to disallow Javascript, the tree apppears with all branches fully expanded, i.e. as at present. To cater for printing, the CSS should include an "@media print" section which sets all branches to expanded. Once the relevant files have been set up, an editor who wants to use this technique would: include the script (once per article) by linking to a file; insert 1-2 lines of Javascript code per tree, mainly to pass to the script the HTML id of the specific tree; code the tree as HTML nested unordered lists (UL and LI tags). I know how to produce the necessary Javascript and CSS in a standard Web page as my own site uses this technique. Would it be (a) permissible (b) desirable for Wikipedia pages with with large taxonomy diagrams? I've searched the Help pages and could only find Help:User_style#JavaScript, which refers to User pages. Philcha (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Recent article reviews mark down articles for using simple Web links in references rather than a citation template. The problem is that using citation template is pain: it's intrinsically fiddly; it's not easy enough to find the relevant Help pages (and don't say "so bookmark them", I have over 500 bookmarks already and I'm sure that's not a record for Wikipedia editors); the Help pages are fragmented (examples of different sub-types of citation template in different pages, none of which contains its own description of the relevant parameters). I suggest a "citation" button be added to the edit toolbar. It should display a form whose contents depend on the citation type; citation types should ideally be radio buttons rather than a drop-down (one less click, and makes it possible to provide tooltips on mouseover); tooltips when the user mouses over a parameter name; clear indication of which parameters are mandatory for a particular citation type; etc. I suspect DHTML would do the job (change the display property of form elements from "none" to "block" if relevant to the citation type). Philcha 19:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I've recently noticed Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Put button for "ref" tags in edit window toolbar, which should be considered in conjunction with my proposal as it concerns another aspect of referencing. Philcha 00:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
(undent) And why is this thread here (on the talk page) rather than on the proposals page? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
We still have a post at the top of the front side of this page from Christmas. I suspect this is some technical problem related to the large 'hidden' discussion in the Muhammad image controversy. Please someone fix this. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
A lot of the proposals on the project page involve programming changes. I don't see comments from developers about feasibility, the amount of work required to implement the changes, and other priorities for the developers' time. Without that essential input, making and discussing proposals for what more they should do for us isn't all that meaningful, or at least is missing a very important element. Is this the right place for these discussions? Finell (Talk) 16:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I just found that there is an Archive48 and Archive 48 I don't know how you handle the archives here, but I guess thats not how it should be. Greets --Dbenzhuser (talk) 10:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Please forgive me if this is a false alarm. But Archive 58 ends at 20 February, and Archive 59 starts at 7 March. Seems the messages in between are lost (about 17 days). I made a proposal in 28 February and I can't find it in the archives - that's how I noticed the problem. Also I noticed that Archive 59 is missing the header: {{Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive header}} - Ark25 (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I think we should consider tagging old proposals with a template such as {{Dormant}} so that they get properly categorized (apart from Category:Wikipedia rejected proposals because they weren't really rejected, just went stale). This way stale proposals that haven't received adequate discussion and input may be much more easily found and revived by browsing through the category. We could add another bullet point in the top menu instructing readers to tag their proposals if they go dormant. Meanwhile we can search through the archives and tag others that maybe potentially important. -- Ϫ 23:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Where has the contents list gone? It used to be the case that one would see a list of titles of proposals here, and one only needed to click on a wikilink to get to a proposal that interested one. Can we go back to doing this, please? Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry - I think I have just found what I was looking for, I had missed the wikilink that says "Show" earlier. What I meant by content list is what one accesses when one clicks on this! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
hello,
my proposal was archived by the bot. Now it seems that nobody reviewed my post and closed this to implement this feature. I wasn't informed on my talk pages, so I don't know if someone is doing this or not. Maybe there is already a beta version. Would be glad to see the link to my sandbox. Regards.--♫GoP♫TCN 23:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
There was a thread with consensus to enable the recent watchlist changes... whatever happened to that consensus after being archived? --lTopGunl (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I phrased a RfC / proposal on this template talk page. Question: Should I leave it there and just post a link on the Village Pump page, or should I copy it over here? What's best practice? Also, is this the right place or is there a place for proposals, e.g., in Wikiproject software? --Jesus Presley (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I am going to make a survey about WP anti-vandal tool and WP, vandaliam. Shall I proceed?--Pratyya (Hello!) 12:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems the village pumps were recently changed to use {{Village pump page header}} at the top. I think this looks good, except for the bullet points. I suggest to either remove them or keep them and make the text left aligned instead. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The consensus seemed very strong in the proposal here to test out Template:COI editnotice on the Talk page of a sub-set of articles on organizations. What's the next step to actually implement the proposal? CorporateM (Talk) 15:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
This notification has appeared repeatedly on my Watchlist page over the past several weeks: "There is an active discussion about whether or not the opt-in requirement should be removed from the edit counter for the English Wikipedia. [dismiss]". I've dismissed it at least a dozen times. Why does it keep showing up?--Wikimedes (talk) 07:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
li.cookie-ID_172 { display: none; }
May one propose changes to the Banning policy? GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll leave a few notes here at roughly one-week intervals; my tendency to speak up as a closer hasn't bothered people in the previous user-rights RfCs I've closed, and my feeling is that the spirit of NPOV almost requires it, for a discussion that's really never stopped over the last 12 years. (I'm supposed to be reflecting the community's POV, as expressed in this and past discussions, and I don't want to just spring that POV on you at the end.) But there's a problem that overhangs all these discussions, and I haven't even seen anyone try to argue otherwise. We have enough admins and people assisting admins to get the most critical work done now (just barely), but when the current admin corps moves on, the 22 new admins per year that RfA is producing aren't going to be sufficient. This problem has solutions, but the best solutions require helping the new guys along ... and I'm not saying no one is doing this, but we're not doing enough of encouraging and training and vetting tomorrow's admin corps.
The current RfC tries to tackle the problem by letting non-admins get some experience pushing admin buttons, which might also prepare them to move on to bigger things, but this RfC isn't close to a consensus yet for any one position. And I take the bar to be higher than "consensus" in this case, based on past discussions. Most of the admins and people doing similar work who we really rely on, the ones who can grind through heavy workloads while feeling relaxed and focused, are not looking to have a daily fight with the community over the legitimacy and value of what they're doing ... they need broad support, or else their enthusiasm declines rapidly for this kind of self-sacrificing work. If a solid 25% of Wikipedians are pushing back against what you're trying to do every day, you're not going to be effective doing it.
So, for the moment, the big problem remains. Unless the admin fairies start dropping admins out of the blue sky, we're going to have to find something that works better than what we're doing now, or risk the future of the English Wikipedia. Actually, what the supporters and opposers are saying gives me more hope than usual here; many arguments on both sides are sound, and I think we're close to eliminating from consideration all the things that won't work ... which in theory, gets us closer to finding what will work. I can imagine projects that would give non-admins the chance to cover significant bite-sized chunks of the admin workload that aren't currently covered by non-admins. (The reason it hasn't happened yet is simply that it can't be done "on the cheap"; people will need to invest time and commit to making it work.) But that's up to you guys; I'm just a closer. - Dank (push to talk) 23:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I will. The chances of my ever wishing to take on adminship would be greater in multiple small steps than in one giant leap for Mandrusskind. That's pretty much it in a nutshell. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
{{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)
It has already been proposed that it should be possible to expunge a bad block. That makes perfect sense to me, and it kills the ruined-for-life argument, but it hasn't been added to the RfC. It seems that the RfC can't be modified without consensus on each modification, and there is no mechanism for reaching such consensuses. I don't get it; if there was no consensus required for the original proposal, why would we need consensus to modify it in response to opposers' objections? Sure, people would have to re-evaluate their !votes based on the changes. So what? How is that a big problem compared to the virtually inevitable stalemate that will result without it? It's called iterative negotiation, a part of collaboration and teamwork. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I was looking for an older discussion, which I eventually found in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 126
However that archive is not shown in the list at the top of the page which only goes through 125. Does that list have to be updated manually or is it supposed to be updated automatically and the automatic update failed with the last archiving?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
{{Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive header}} should be moved to within the <noinclude></noinclude> part so that it does not get transcluded under Wikipedia:Village pump (all)#Proposals. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The page --> Village pump is almost incomprehensible, and I say this as someone who has edited and added to this Wiki since it started. Every time I have come to it to try and suggest something, I give up. Except this time. Is their a guide to the page somewhere? Like, for complete newcomers? I am not proposing anything, I am telling you it is daunting in the extreme. Fxmastermind (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Your response is an example. I asked questions. "Is their a guide to the page somewhere? Like, for complete newcomers?", and got no answer. Fxmastermind (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
For starters, there is no notification for when somebody replies on a talk page. Why isn't that part of the software? I'm sure this has come up before, but how to search for that discussion?
So there are two issues. Communication is just horrific here. And no idea (or a FAQ to consult) about how to find where (or even if) this has come up before. On the village pump. The internet and apps are pretty slick and easy to use these days. This (talk pages/village pump) is not. I don't even know if this is the place to discuss what I just mentioned. Fxmastermind (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Like I said, I just give up. Fxmastermind (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. An example would be this communication effort right here. You and I. There is no notification when somebody responds. This is hard to imagine in this day and age of communications. I don't believe anyone actually wants a system that doesn't allow notification when somebody responds to a message. That's the most basic feature of all communication, it's in use almost everywhere, in many ways. 10 years ago it could be overlooked, but now it's a bad joke. If, as you say, the very nature of communication was built by the masses, it's frankly impossible to believe. The lack of the ability to do almost every last thing involved in communication is not a feature, it's a failing. The question isn't "how can it be fixed?", but "Is it even possible to change anything?". Certainly there are people with code skills who could add all modern features to talk pages with little effort. Right? The problem seems to be, not as you alluded to, "an environment built by the masses", but that it has been built on top of an old and primitive foundation, and there isn't any way to actually change anything. If the masses could change Wikipedia, the communication system would have been updated long ago, with all kinds of wonderful features. You can see these actually working on other Wiki sites.
The complete lack of a quote feature, that's hard to imagine. Here's a specific example. How do I find the way to quote somebody I am responding to? (I'm not asking how, I am asking how to find it, what would you do to simply search for the answer?) Fxmastermind (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
{{ping}}
@GenQuest: I'm not quite sure. But thanks in any case.Fxmastermind (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
We cannot have dialoges about new ideas on Wikipedia, thus Wikimedia should create a new site called:
WikSciTalkia
so we can create genuine articles about future research, and the talk page will be more like chat. People need a parallel WikSciTalkia open to new ideas and dialogue! People want to CREATE - NEW STUFF and COMMUNICATE OVER CREATIVITY not only ideas of great others!
Just do it! (ape-man) 21:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.218.150 (talk)
is it normal to begin a pump thread immediately with an rfc (like the recent one)...thought rfc was if/when discussion is at an impasse etc...is it okay to place an rfc at anytime to simply get more input on one's thread?68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I suggesst the main page of this talk be either be made collapsible or it be archived except discussions which are open --VarunFEB2003 Talk • Contribs • Guestbook 14:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Why was Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#We should not accept pictures with pixelated people's faces closed as "No concensus" when in fact the proposal got zero support !votes? A "No consensus" close is meant to indicate that neither Support nor Oppose was clearly dominant, but in a case where there is a clear consensus for Support or Oppose the close should say so. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I started a discussion at WT:village pump#Slow down the archiving? about archiving. Chime in. --George Ho (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I proposed a change to warning templates last month - it got a lot of support over the next few weeks, and was then automatically archived after seven days of silence. Is this how proposals typically end? Am I now meant to raise this somewhere else, pointing to the discussion to show support? (If so, where would be a good place to do that?) --McGeddon (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
This is a good point - I am sure that Wikipedians will like to see good ideas discussed here put into practice. Vorbee (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes that's correct.and I am still agree with the terms of conditions
SRubelmehedi (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Whoever came up with the Sandbox was a genius. The sandbox plays a big role in allowing me to preview and practice my editing without damaging or messing up the work of others. But why does Wikipedia make our sandbox a secret place? What I mean is, when you sign in there is nothing in any menu that leads you back to it. I can't even remember how I went there the first time. I did eventually find it in my edit history and bookmarked it. But how hard is it to just add it to the menu after we log in?
If this disscussion or inquiry is in the wrong area, send me a message and I will move it. JericVgilbert (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
In February of 2016 the Wikimedia foundation started sending information to all of the websites we link to that allow the owner of the website (or someone who hacks the website, or law enforcement with a search warrant / subpoena) to figure out what Wikipedia page the user was reading when they clicked on the external link.
The WMF is not bound by Wikipedia RfCs, but we can use an advisory-only RfC to decide what information, if any, we want to send to websites we link to and then put in a request to the WMF. I have posted such an advisory-only RfC, which may be found here:
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy
Please comment so that we can determine the consensus of the Wikipedia community on this matter. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since the discussion was closed while I was typing my answer I'm adding my answer to that proposal to "the appropriate discussion page"...
Incidentally, on what grounds was the discussion closed?
Isn't that page for discussing proposals?
The only justification for closing the discussion that I could find was the word "No".
Can people just close discussions without giving anything other as a reason than "No"?
Hope to be enlightened.
Anyway... Here is my answer:
Simpler than spliting the English Wikipedia woud be nn option to display AmEng, or BrEng, or AusEng, etc.
If no option is chosen then things would display exactly as they are now. It could work like this: we start with a bit of WP text that contains say the word "jail". Now an editor who prefers the British alternative "gaol" would be able to edit this to: {Eng|jail|Br=gaol}}. If a reader chooses the option "British" they will see "gaol". If they choose any other option that does not have a specific alternative in this case or choose no option it would display "jail". If some Australian wants specific Australian variants or wants to indicate that "gaol" should also be used for "Austrlian English"" they could would edit that thing to: {{Eng|jail|Br=gaol|Aus=gaol}}. The default should be what is already present in the text. For example if somewhere else you've a bit of text containing the spelling "gaol" someone who prefers the spelling "jail" could indicate that with {{Eng|gaol|Am=jail}} which would be displayed to anyone who would have chosen the option "American" while "gaol" would continue to be displayed to everyone else.
Basemetal 17:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I recently wrote a script called User:SD0001/find-archived-section that makes it easy to find an archived discussion whose link (link before archival, I mean) you followed. Since archiving occurs quite fast for village pump threads, thought I should post here as it'd be useful for the regulars here ... SD0001 (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
|answered=
If Wikipedia is struggling to stay afloat, why don’t you put ads on the website? At this point I don’t think it would hurt anyone as every single other website runs off ads. 63.142.213.193 (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
