Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

From Wikipedia
Jump to: navigation, search

as:ৱিকিপিডিয়া:ৰাইজৰ চ'ৰা (প্রস্তাবসমূহ) hu:Wikipédia:Kocsmafal (javaslatok) id:Wikipedia:Warung Kopi (Usulan) ka:ვიკიპედია:ყავახანა/წინადადებები pl:Wikipedia:Kawiarenka/Propozycje pt:Wikipedia:Esplanada/propostas zh-yue:Wikipedia:城市論壇 (提議)

Centralized discussion
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.


Trimming books.google.com links.[edit]

What I have been guilty of myself in the past is including what my search term was when linking in a google books link for a reference, for example (not mine) http://books.google.com/?id=6PrmTAKiy0QC&pg=PA153&dq=nubian+pyramids+kings++tomb . This goes to the correct book (the id= and the specific page, but also highlights nubian, pyramids, king and tomb in the text which I don't think is needed. I'd like to see all of the links to books.google.com reduced down to only the id and pg fields. First of all, where would it be discussed as to whether this trim down is appropriate, and secondly, if it is, would this be a reasonable thing for a bot to do?Naraht (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There is {{Google books quote}} which may help in some cases. Helder 15:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I discussed this at Help:Citation Style 1#Web links, but that page has a specific focus. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you to you both, I didn't know about the various google related templates. I still think things can be simplified, I can't for example see any reason that the search term can't be simplified out of things, is there a better place to discuss this?Naraht (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Allow the creation of subpages in article space[edit]

Conciliation[edit]


Including the (top) in places like the recent changes[edit]

It would make some things a lot easier, like screening for missed vandalism and stuff. :| Glacialfox (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Care to clarify? Regards, RJH (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I think I get it. A "user contributions" list says "(top)" where relevant, but a "recent changes" list does not. Consider this listing of the 250 most recent changes in the Portal namespace. If a particular edit looks dubious, a "(top)" next to it would confirm that it still needs fixing.
But I don't find this a problem. With Navigation popups enabled, it is easy to see the "diff" of the edit and just as easy to hover over the "history" link to see whether anyone has reverted it. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

What about ACTA?[edit]

What about ACTA?

Is it as dangerous as SOPA and PIPA?

How did Wikipedia's SOPA initiative miss it?

Shouldn't it have been the ACTA/PIPA/SOPA initiative? Should we be worried?

What are the ramifications of ACTA's being signed? (yesterday)

The European Parliament's appointed rapporteur resigned over this. Has anyone (WMF, Signpost) contacted that person for a statement?

How transparent were ACTA's negotiations?

How will ACTA affect Wikipedia?

How will it affect the Wayback Machine? That's the best place I know of to see historically accurate past versions of Wikipedia pages. (Templates screw up historical views of pages on Wikipedia).

How and when would ACTA go into effect?

What is happening in the Wikipedia community and in the Wikimedia Foundation about ACTA?

What articles about ACTA is The Signpost working on?

What, if anything, should Wikipedia do about ACTA?

I look forward to your replies. The Transhumanist 02:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would we care if the negotiations were transparent or not? Flaws in some countries' democratic processes aren't relevant to Wikipedia. Unless ACTA actually harms our mission, we can't get involved. --Yair rand (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
English Wikipedia is a world-wide mission. English is the second language pretty much everywhere that it's not the first language. Or close enough. The Transhumanist 03:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I think ACTA could threaten our mission someday, but there is not a clear and present danger. It's just in the negotiation phase right now. At this stage, the best thing to do is not to protest but to get our representatives in on the drafting process. If the US drafts a bill for ACTA compliance that affect us negatively, that will be the time to protest. Dcoetzee 02:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
But it has already been signed. How does that work? I thought treaties had to be ratified by the Senate. But this, which obligates its parties to certain actions, is being called a “sole executive agreement”. So my next question is, did it become binding on the US government when (USTR) Ambassador Ron Kirk signed it last October? The Transhumanist 05:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • While I don't feel ACTA is quite the clear and present danger that SOPA was, at least at this moment, I also think we should suggest to the Wikimedia Foundation that they produce a contingency plan for moving the servers to Sweden, in order to ensure a fallback position is available. Also, a backup of Wikipedia's data should probably be held there.—S Marshall T/C 12:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Sweden is a signatory of ACTA. Try a different country. --Yair rand (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
      • True, but it's much less likely to sign up to something like egregious like SOPA than the US is, hence the contingency plan.—S Marshall T/C 21:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)