text:
sum to develop. How many other sites like this have you found on the web where even the best editors are slapped around as though they are third-class citizens or children? Do you seriously think it has got to the stage where there is not even any point in commenting ("sniping") from the sidelines? --Epipelagic (talk) 01:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm against this proposal, but it has nothing to do with being a glutton for punishment (if it did my block log would be much longer). A lot of people complain about getting blocked for things I often want to do but hold back from. A fourth revert, tossing an insult into an argument, a pointy action. I restrain myself because I value the fact that everyone overall is restrained from those things here too, which overall makes this place conducive to maintaining an encyclopedia. Any venue that hopes to maintain a somewhat civil, professional working environment needs to have rules that go against what the average human might feel compelled to do at some time or another. Does it suck to get blocked? You bet. Maybe things have to suck sometimes for some individuals who violate rules, even if their intentions weren't evil, in the interest of maintaining the environment the rules are intended to uphold. Of course, some people choose to spit on the rules and take advantage of everyone else's restraint, but that's a discussion for another time. Are some admins unnecessarily harsh in enforcing the rules? Sometimes, and they get chewed out for it. The system isn't perfect, but if you think you can make it that way, you'll be adding rules til this place needs lawyers to interpret them. Dr. Blofeld's example doesn't persuade me that this proposal needs more consideration, because it's an example of a person offering an opinion of another person -- a low opinion; and maybe it was deserved, or maybe not, I don't know, and it doesn't have anything to do with this, nor does it show how admins need more rules. Rant complete.  Equazcion  ( talk )  04:07, 17 Jun 2012 (UTC)

 * Support with the caveat that admins should be given a reasonable amount of latitude to determine whether a 3rr violator has been adequately warned. If the editor has not been edit warring recently, and does not have an extensive track record of edit warring, they should receive a warning about the specific edit war before blocking. If they are gaming the warning rule, or have a running edit warring problem and are clearly on notice as to the problem a warning specific to the current war should not be required. Issuing a warning to another editor about a war one is involved with should count as a warning to both parties. Monty  845  06:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support but I would have give strong support for the original proposal. Having been around here for over eight years I firmly place myself in the contributing editor camp and while respecting you guys who are administrators, I do see that administrators collectively fail to respect long-term contributing editors. This is an issue of respect. It is depressing to read the contents of the -oppose- posts above who using the language of Star Wars and are demanding the right to continue to collect scalps. "Hey, Jodi I have just zapped User:Clinton, 11 years of experience and 25 thousand edits. Wow. How many points do I get for that? And guess what I did him on a 3 revert, while he was correcting the spelling of an IP- how trivial, I reckon that must triple my points"--ClemRutter (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Fanboys and groupthink. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

 * This is just vested contributor nonsense. You edit war and break 3RR then you are liable to a block although I would agree that admins should consider whether a warning or page protection would be better served than a block before reaching for the button. Spartaz Humbug! 09:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support editors break the 3RRrule in the heat of a disagreement. They should be given a warning for the FIRST time they do it. After that they have been duly warned. It seems to me that most good administrators have followed that rule for years and it has worked well.  All of this talk about behavior modification, and experienced editors should know better, it is really laughable and even hypocritcal for some, as my memory serves me well.  Follow the advice of the experienced administrators in good standing.  They know what they are talking about and have helped shape some of the best editors here in many cases through their knowledge, skill and patience. Perhaps the others just do not have the temperament to be an administrator. I know I wouldn't.Mugginsx (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you measure what is best? How do we know that what the ones in good standing are doing is effective? And effective at what? Being good politicians and popular? What you have put in are weasel words with no basis. Dmcq (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good administrators are known by their actions and their length as successful administrators. They are well liked, even by those they have warned.  They are not self-obsessed by their power. They do not "gang-up".  They give good advice without being abusive. Some are right here.  They are self-evident and they generally know who they are.  No map need be drawn.Mugginsx (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that sounds to me like a good admin is one who is liked by disruptive people. You have put in no consideration about the effect on the people who aren't causing trouble or about improving an article never mind how one would know what those effects are. Sometimes obvious is obvious but I hardly think one should invoke obvious in a discussion where there is considerable disagreement. Dmcq (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing Clintonesque in my words - those that follow the rules and do not get caught up in themselves and their power and abuse it - are good administrators, those that do not, are not. Final word, too busy to converse. Have it whatever way you wish.  You will anyway.Mugginsx (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "You will anyway"? Marvelous. Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry said it best. Dmcq (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Support with a caveat for situations such as Wonderfool. Perhaps we could say "except for emergencies"?  Nyttend backup (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - If someone is in the middle of revert warring with several other editors, there are times where a single block rather than protecting the page is the better solution. This proposal has the potential effect of suggesting that admins shouldn't deal with disruption. This is a case-by-case basis kind of thing. And so some overall rule like this will likely end up getting ignored. I'm not saying that I think warnings are bad in every case, but there are times where warnings are pointless. And this also will likely just lead to wikilawyering nonsense as well. "But he didn't warn me I'd be blocked for making that 9th revert in 12 minutes". - jc37 19:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't think this is the right move to try to get rid of edit wars. I don't want a newbie's giving the reason "I didn't know I didn't get warned" for an unblock and then get unblocked.  Jay Jay Talk to me 00:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: There is little need to bifurcate the reasons for blocks in this way - one set of blocks for which a warning is required and another set for which a warning is not required. Except for a small subset of blocks over gross violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, etc., an editor, established or not, should not be blocked without a warning first. For this reason, I've supported the original proposal.  EngineerFromVega ★  06:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The very reason this was proposed s because editors are getting blocked without warnings over minor disputes over content. No it shouldn't happen and a rule needn't have to be made if admins used common sense. But this is sadly not the case. See the history of Dark Side of the Moon.♦ Dr. Blofeld
 * I understand. But then it is a case of behavior, not rules or policies, which should be handled differently. Additional rules will not result in an improved behavior.  EngineerFromVega ★  15:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Am I correct in that you are siting this history as defense for this proposal. A quick review of just the history page shows two editors that should be blocked without even reviewing their edits for behaviour on Jun 12, User:Parrot of Doom and User:Julzes - I don't care what the content dispute is. -- Trödel 21:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * EngineerFromVega. So you support this, but you prefer that it be more broadly applied beyond 3RR. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. We should not isolate 3RR as a special case.  EngineerFromVega ★  15:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

 * 1) Strong Support I believe that any editor, no matter how established, should be warned at least once before being blocked (twice is better). Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe a very similar effect could be achieve by having bot(s) issue warnings for potentially 3RR violations, this could be done very fast and hopefully nip more edit wars in the bud. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think your suggestion deserves greater consiedration. Indeed automatic blocking of exact-match 3RR might break the current damaging "blame culture" of rapid block/ refuse to block. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is entirely the opposite of how things should work; allowing instant blocking of newbies, but requiring admins to jump through hoops for the very users who should know better? No. Ironholds (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're somehow misunderstanding what this actually is. Nobody said anything about treating newbies more harshly and bending over backwards for established editors. Its simply a proposal to make admins at least consider warning editors engaged in an edit dispute before imposing an instant block.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose All above proposals. The proposal admits that this applies to users who know the rules, but are engaging in an edit war or other inappropriate behavior, and to remind them to use the talk page. If the blocking admin did not use good discretion in applying the block to exceptional behavior an unblock request would succeed, and often does succeed with the blocking admin's blessing. Established users should know better than to knowingly engage in an edit war, and if the encyclopedia's reputation or content they feel passionately about needs to be restored - to seek a broader audience that will support their position (and if the community doesn't support their version of the language - take a good look at their own position. -- Trödel 20:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've never seen any evidence that this is actually a significant issue, and none is presented as part of the proposal. The same rules apply to established editors as new editors, and few established editors ever engage in sustained edit warring anyway as this is obviously a dumb idea and is easily avoided. Admins already have discretion in deciding whether a 3RR violation should result in a block, and this is frequently used. Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * One would think it stating the obvious that wikipedia has a problem with trigger happy admins who will happily block first and ask questions later.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Support. I have seen this happen; trigger happy admins that shoot and ask questions later if at all do exist. Per User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom, admins need to think more before they block editors. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Definitely better to warn first, then block if the war continues. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 16:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No Comment. I have nothing to add to this discussion. Herostratus (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment; my problem with this is that, in some instances, people are causing active harm by edit warring things into articles. For examples, search anything in the AN3 archives for ... reported by User:Sitush; you'll notice a common thread.  Sometimes using 3RR blocks to short-circuit someone trying to foist their commentary or their pet revisionist theory into an article are very effective, and completely banning admins from doing that assumes that 1. we don't have any capacity to use our discretion, which would run counter to many systems on this site (not the least of which are closing RfCs and XfDs or enforcing discretionary sanctions) and 2. that it's always necessary and/or beneficial to expend energy on warning people.  Spend some time watching over areas under ARBMAC, ARBPIA, or Indian castes, and you'll find that some people should just be blocked.  I understand the problem this is trying to address, but it has a very real chance of creating much larger ones.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 03:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Invention country of orgin
Should an invention's country of origin be the inventor's birthplace, the place of the invention, or both? Sandcherry (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a regular issue, but it has arisen most recently in relation to Belgium. Please see Category:Belgian inventions, Wikipedia talk:Categorization, Talk:Bakelite as well.
 * It has also come up in relation to New Zealand, Andy Dingley (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest to use as categorization whatever is used in reliable sources. If sources universally claim that something is a Belgian invention, label it as such. If there are only statements "was invented by this Belgian-born person", do not categorize it by country. —Kusma (t·c) 11:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an excellent recipe for warfare, cf. Forget Edison: This is How History's Greatest Inventions Really Happened and other such analysis. Methinks the concept of "invention" is somewhat overblown and dumbed down. Let's not get on that bandwagon. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I'm not quite sure precisely what Kusma means here.
 * This is an awkward area. It's that grey area that requires inferencing from RS, without straying into OR. Very few references will come right out and say "The Frobosticator was a Belgian invention". Where they do this, it's more commonly for the relatively narrow inventions, not something as broad as the internal combustion engine. If we look at land yachts, we get very clear RS that say "A land yacht was invented in Belgium by foo on date". We can accept that within the meaning for invention of "This person made some personally novel, creative step of innovation". However that doesn't negate their invention (unknown to foo) some centuries earlier in China, which is also well sourced. We have a plethora of good sources that say things like this (with that narrow personal scope to "invention"), but it's a mistake to extrapolate from these to expand the invention's scope to being the first ever, which is mostly what's happening here.
 * I agree that we have to be based on RS. However that still has room for variable intepretations: taking a sourced claim for the land yachts would double categorize them. Is that what we want? Do we simply take two inventions so separate to both be "inventions"? Or do we take the strictest interpretation (as I read your comment literally) where almost nothing is going to be categorized in this way, because there are very few RS (and even fewer uncontested RS that can't be shown to contradict others) that state forthrightly, "This was a Belgian invention". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is what I am suggesting. This probably won't create a very useful or complete category, but I prefer it to making up an ad hoc rule. A list of Belgian inventions (that can be annotated) will probably be more useful than a category and it will be easier to make it conform to WP:NPOV and WP:V. An alternative is to be as inclusive as possible, and label anything invented in Belgium, by a Belgian-born, or funded by Belgians as a "Belgian invention". It has been some time since I had a feel for our category system, so I don't really know what fits it better at the moment. As an example, categories for Nicolaus Copernicus list him as both Polish and German instead of neither. From a navigational point of view, that is probably most useful. From an "attach only widely accepted and correct labels" point of view, it is a bit questionable. —Kusma (t·c) 12:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the 4th place this issue is being talked about, it being dragged away from places someone who's actually Belgian is looking.I'm not going to argue for rain or sunshine allover again, but take a minute to check the inventions of countries with inventions who are there at the moment. It will take some time , but will undoubtedly settle the argument. Look at all inventions which have 2 or more countries listed and try and extrapolate a rule from there. Also , whatever gets decided will have to be retroactively applied. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 07:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's consider the options:
 * A. List only the inventor's birth country
 * Pros - easy to verify, recognizes inventor's birth country
 * Con - could be perceived as a slight to the place (country) of the invention?
 * B. List only the place of the invention
 * Pros - easy to verify, recognizes place of the invention
 * Con - could be perceived as a slight to the inventor's birth country?
 * C. List both inventor's birth country and place of the invention
 * Pros - easy to verify, recognizes both inventor's birth country and place of the invention
 * Con - violates "only widely accepted and correct labels" rule
 * D. List neither inventor's birth country nor place of the invention (i.e. scrap the "Country Invention" category)
 * Pro - easy to administer!
 * Con - could be perceived as a slight to both the inventor's birth country and countries' place of the invention
 * E. List inventor's birth country or place of the invention based on generally accepted facts
 * Pro - complies with using "only widely accepted and correct labels"
 * Con - not always easy to verify, generates controversy (like the catalyst for this discussion!)
 * F. Replace "Country Invention" categories (such as French Invention) with categories such as "Invented By a Frenchman", "Invented in France" and "Invented by a French company" ("replacing inventions by country" with categories that aren't open to interpretation or debate. Whatever they may be)
 * Pros - more accurate, easy to verify
 * Cons - ??
 * G. Same as Option F except add additional categories like "Invented by a member of a religious faith" or "Invented by a particular gender"
 * Pros - more accurate, easy to verify
 * Cons - ??

I think Option E is more in line with Wikipedia's practices; however, Option C may be more practical due, in part, to the nationalistic (no slight intended) views of some contributors. Sandcherry (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

 * This is too simplistic. There's a world of difference between someone inventing something whist on vacation, inventing something whist still being an American but working abroad on his project (having easier access to the materials his invention is made of for example) , Then still being an American but having moved to Mexico on a open ended basis . And lastly having taken the nationality of the country he moved to. Taking belgium as an example , it's hard to take a 2 hour drive and not end up in another country. If you stand in the middle you can see about 5 countries around you on a clear day. This is also too big to be a matter for a few people to decide upon. Are you going to take it upon yourself to start chopping up other people's work ? I would say , start by examining the multi country cases case by case in _depth_ , then list them specifically , invention per invention , then adding potential issues. Also there are a whole lot more aspects to it than birthplace and place of invention. Just to add one , there's the aspect of what counts as the invention .. Edison made the modern long lasting lightbulb , but it was based on Joseph Swan's work. Wikipedia gave that one a nice curve ball . Vice versa there's Edward De Smedt who made what is today's asphalt , but the only invention mentioned is tar-macadam (as Scottish) . Which counts , the final usable version ? the first prototype ? the guy that turns in the patent ? The person that gets the most praise ? The guy that's the biggest self important windbag ? There are good examples for all of these. There are more aspects than these.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Something that has the least room for personal interpretation would be the best solution IMO. "Category:Invented By a Frenchman" Where the line should be drawn at the actual nationality someone has at the time he invents the thing. "Category:Invented In Hungary" and _only_ for inventions by undetermined people "Category:Invented By an Australian company" . The whole question about, "how relevant is this information really" still remains. From what I gather , the Belgian category was empty 2 weeks ago , and this whole discussion started from the fast some Belgian guy found it looked embarrassing his country didn't have anything listed. Having a team of people from multiple countries would just add multiple entries for the first category. It being something they had to drag around to develop , multiples of the second , and if research departments of certain companies who don't wish to disclose the people who did it work together , multiples of the third. All this to say , IF , and this is a big IF ... Something which involves work is to be done , redesigning the inventions category , it has to be done right this time. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

 * If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting a variant of Option F. It has its pros and cons like the other options.  Sandcherry (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but no, you unilaterally stamp "confusing" on F . which what I've written inherently isn't. I am proposing that whatever gets decided it leaves no room for misunderstanding or interpretation else how it is now shouldn't be changed. Sorry to point it out sir but your pros and cons are biased , and as I said your points are limited mostly to only aspects of origin and location. What I proposed is as well so it would need working on. See my "initial vs final version which gets the credit" example.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I replaced Option F with your proposal (as I understand it), added the pros, and leave it to you to add unbiased cons.Sandcherry (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If reliable sources in the history of science, engineering, technology etc. do not mention the nationality of an inventor, then why are we associating nationality with an invention—this reeks of OR. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally agree the whole "American Invention" etc etc concept stinks of high heaven, nevertheless it _IS_ there. Ideally it should just be scrapped like so much hot air. Keeping it as it is now , precedents and rules of conduct need to be extrapolated from what is there atm . As a third option I see changing the way this whole fiasco is to be done , replacing it by something 100% verifiable using more categories that are less prone to interpretation. To me these 3 are the only options we have and this is the order of what I personally would prefer as well.. 1) Scrap the whole thing , 2) Extrapolate rules from how it is now , 3) Redo the way it is done in a way that leaves out interpretation. It being there I can understand people wanting to add entries for their country .. But ultimately , as it is now , the amount of actual information it adds to wikipedia is very small. If there is to be a petition / rally , etc to get this whole "pissing contest" removed I'm in <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Allowing only personal relations between invention/inventor would be another sane option. The actual relevant information would still be present and just as easy to find. I don't see how a whole geographical area can feel entitled when it comes to the work of an individual. The concept is laughable at best. Allowing a person to be linked to a specific invention or discovery on his page in a specific verifiable way with as much detailed data as possible, then mentioning - if needed - that person again on the invention's page again with as much detailed information as possible. Avoiding anything that stimulates regionalistic chauvinism. Phoenixxl (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we are overlooking a significant opportunity here . The possibility of adding Black inventions, White inventions , Jewish inventions , Muslim inventions and Christian inventions to the mix. Being a Jew myself I know I appreciate the fact I'm Jewish more than the country I happen to be living in. If I ever invent something I'd like it to reflect that.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And then there are the dexterous versus sinister inventions. Really, there's no limit but the paucity of our imagination to the opportunity open to us to ascribe bogus attributes to inventions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

How about a preliminary indication of support for a specific option and the supporting rational? I will start:

Option D - inventions are by an inventor or a group of inventors, not a country; simple to administer Sandcherry (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Countries don't invent anything. Scrap the whole concept. Relevant information is still available. IE on the Edison page we can see which nationality he was. that should be more than enough.
 * Countries don't invent things --> SCRAP THE CATEGORY <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Option D - removing of all such categories - seems to be the most reasonable. Categories are for "binary" things only - it must be very easy, almost trivial, to tell if any article should go to any given category. If it isn't - or if we would need some sort of qualification - the category should be removed and we should probably use a list (in a table form, with a note column) instead. It's a simple application of Neutral point of view: we do not write anything that is debatable, but try to find some (almost) universally approved "proxy" instead. And the problems with "invented by nationality" categories are even more numerous than for other "invented by" categories: not only it is hard to tell what counts as an invention (for example, does Windows 7 count?), who counts as an inventor of something (is Radio an Italian invention or a Russian invention? Can such a question be answered without taking sides on the question "Who is a real inventor of radio?"), but it is also hard to tell what counts as a country and which country should be used. The disadvantage given - "could be perceived as a slight to both the inventor's birth country and countries' place of the invention" seems to be a little questionable. It would seem to be perceived to be "a slight" when some countries or inventions end up treated unequally - and that is going to be the case with any other option. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Option D - but with the added caution that whoever does the actual editing makes sure no information gets lost. IE: If the only link to where an invention comes from is the category that gets scrapped, at least a mention of the people - as complete as possible , especially for inventions that were made independently in multiple places- who were involved should be mentioned. Failing that, option F which means making new categories which aren't open to interpretation or debate and replacing "invention by country" by those.Phoenixxl (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Since Option D is the unanimous choice, I propose the inventor's nationality and/or location of the invention be included (as appropriate) in the body of the article. This should address Phoenixxl's concerns. The invention's country of origin category can then be safely removed as in Bakelite. Sandcherry (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Now for the rest of wikipedia ...<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * One small step for a Leo Baekeland and Bakelite, one giant leap for Wikipedia. Or not...  Sandcherry (talk)

Viewing article quality from a category page
From time to time, it would be convenient for me to be able to browse a category and see which articles in it are of reasonably good quality, perhaps by using icons like and  in the category listing. Does anyone else think this would be interesting? Can it be done through a user preference or would it require a mediawiki developer? Kilopi (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It will require a gadget. Ruslik_ Zero 18:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

 * We have nearly four million articles. Of those, about 20,000 are GA or FA, representing 0.5%. That means out of a category page with 200 articles, on average only one will have a GA or FA rating. Is that what you're looking to see? Regards, RJH (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

 * The metadata script at User:Pyrospirit/metadata used to cover this - see User:Pyrospirit/metadata/assesslinks.js- and it was surprisingly helpful for skimming categories. However, it no longer works - the main script (and associated gadget), colouring article titles, is fine, but the assess-links script hasn't been working for a couple of years. That said, this means it should be solvable - it's been done before, and there's no reason it can't be done again if you can find a js coder! Andrew Gray (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Andrew, that's pretty close to what I'm looking for ... or rather it would be if the assesslinks script worked. I'll look at it more closely later. Kilopi (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * From vague memory, it stopped working sometime in late 2010/early 2011. This may be an effect of the MediaWiki 1.17 rollout in February 2011, but I didn't note it well enough at the time to be sure! If you do manage to resurrect it, I'd love to hear about it. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

 * If made to work, it would presumably be helpful to find some way of representing other assessment data (stub, start-class, etc). Rd232 talk 01:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Pyrospirit's script handled all classes - the trick seems to be to do it with colouring rather than icons, though it's a bit less accessible. There's been a few similar scripts in the past to highlight links specifically to stubs or redirects. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I made a script request here. Voxii (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC for CVU and committed Vandal Fighters
Dedicated vandal fighters and members of the Counter-Vandalism Unit are encouraged to participate in this RfC on whether a bot should notify users on elevated vandalism.— cyberpower Chat Online  22:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Moderators (redux)
Coming out of Jc37's proposal for a Moderator user group, which attracted a lot of support, I'm making a proposal along the same lines in an attempt to see if agreement can be reached. (Alternatively, my development of the proposal may be so bad that it satisfies no-one.)

In essence, the proposal this time is to create a Moderator user group that are coequals to Administrators but with a sub-set of tools focused on content-development (as opposed to user/site management). The idea, like Jc37's proposal, is to create a user group that (while objectively the same as admins) may be subjectively more inviting for some users to join than the current Administrator user group for one reason or another. Thus, the number of trusted users with access to core administrator tool for tasks like XfD, editing protected templates, etc. may be increased (which is a good thing).

The proposal is to trial the user group for 12 months on the basis of 'what harm can it do' while we test the hypothesis.

The proposal is here: User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid/Moderators. -- RA (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Where's the RfC to invite commenting?— cyberpower Chat Online  23:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's still a work in progress, and they're inviting comment first. - jc37 23:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please comment on the associated talk page to save space here. -- RA (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I finished reading it and I'm opposed to it. The requirements to obtain this right is way too high.  It makes this right extremely redundant.  Why go through the RfA process, face the same level of scrutiny as an admin candidate to obtain a right that allows you to only do 20% of what the admin right does?  If there was an RfM process that had less strict criteria for evaluation, I would support this proposal.— cyberpower  Chat Online  00:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the same reason I opposed Jc37's proposal. And I stick with it. How I've tried to answer it is by leaving the option open: a Moderator could become a Administrator at any time simply by asking a Bureaucrat to change their user group. Consequently, a Moderator would not only "obtain a right that allows you to only do 20% of what the admin", they would also obtain the right activate the other 80% at any time of their choosing.
 * I know that's objectively meaningless, and it doesn't do anything to "fix" RfA, but I do find Jc37's argument compelling when he says that some editors may find the "Moderator" role more inviting that "Administrator". I too have heard some exceptional editors saying they just wouldn't draw the (post RfA) hassle of adminship on themselves, don't want access to the user/site management tools, etc.. Yet often the same editors actually rely on admins to complete day-to-day tasks (like deleting files, or editing protected templates) on their behalf! It's a waste!
 * So the difference is merely one of preference and choice. You get the same stuff (or at least an option on the same stuff) but you can go about your daily business without having to bear the title "Administrator" or have access to a lot of tools you don't want. How many people that title or those tools put off, I don't know, but I think it's worth testing the hypothesis for a year since it can't do any great harm. If it drew in just 1 in 10 more then it would be a 10% rise in folk with admin tools. -- RA (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As of this time stamp, there are non-insignificant substantive differences between this and my previous proposal.
 * (noting that I supported the 1 year trial period as well).
 * So as it currently stands, I would actually be forced to oppose this. - jc37 01:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I propose we have an RfM process. It is less strict than an RfA and if they pass, they become a moderator.  If they wish to become an administrator, they will have to go through an RfA process.  If they are an administrator who wish, for whatever reason, to become a moderator, they ask a bureaucrat to move them to that group.— cyberpower  Chat Online  02:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on statements from the Wikimedia Foundation, such a package could not include the ability to delete and undelete pages. (I realize that you're aware of this; I'm mentioning it for others' benefit.)  —David Levy 04:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As I noted in the previous discussion, I don't object to the technical creation of such a package. But given the interchangeability with adminship, I would support a proposal along these lines only if no distinction were drawn at RfA.  (I realize that this proposal calls for the same criteria to be used.  I mean that candidates shouldn't even be asked to specify whether they intend to accept the full set of admin tools or the abbreviated set contained in the proposed package; they should simply indicate their preferences upon their requests' success).  —David Levy 04:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree too. I've changed the wording so that it explicitly says, "Requests to join the Moderators user group would be through a standard RfA,..." However, I don't see a practical way to make it entirely "blind". In a practical sense, you couldn't stop people from asking an applicant if they will opt to become an Admin or a Mod? It's a fair question too as it would give an understanding of the person's motivation and the areas they intended to work in.
 * I'm thoroughly open to suggestions for how to make it "blind", though. Any suggestions/ideas? -- RA (talk) 08:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I agree. Candidates are routinely asked about the tasks on which they intend to focus, so there's no reason to prevent it (or practical means of accomplishing such a thing).
 * As I should have been clearer in stating, I only mean that we shouldn't divide RfA into separate sections or formally label the requests differently (given the fact that a successful candidate could choose to switch from one designation to the other). —David Levy 13:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose for the same reasons I've opposed every proposal and RfC to unbundle the tools: it does not address the reason why we have a dearth of candidates for RfA, and additionally that  the WMF have insisted that the accord of any of the admin tools should be made through a similar process as for RfA. This would simply duplicate the number of venues for the very problems that have reduced RfA to its current state. Furthermore, the very use of the word moderator would lure less mature editors into  the belief that Wikipedia is some sort of run-of-the-mill web forum or SN site. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

my villege information is not available in wikipedia.com, so i am providing my villege information,please update it
Climate: Aleeti Ramaiah Pally has a hot summers from late February to early June, the monsoon season from late June to early October and a pleasant winter from late October to early February. In the evenings and mornings the climate is generally cooler because heavy forest nearby this village. Aleeti Ramaiah Pally is almost 100 km for away from warangal (District headquarters) and 220 km away from Hyderabad. Income Source: Aleeti Ramaiah Pally’s economy is predominantly agricultural. This is a rice-growing region and most farmers grow rice for both subsistence and the commerce. Cotton and Mirchi(Chilly) has also been a major cash crop since the early 1990s; however the cotton sector has been troubled in recent years. In addition to this,one of stream/rivulet is called Chali vagu very attractive place nearby Aleeti Ramaiah Pally villege and major water resource for all the crops. Culture Telugu is the language spoken by the majority in Aleeti Ramaiah Pally. Both traditional attire like Saree and Dhoti and modern dress styles are worn. Festivals Major Hindu festivals such as Bathukamma festival, Dassera, Deepavali, Sankranti are celebrated here. Bathukamma festival is very famous here and celebrated by the women worshipping the goddess for nine days with various flowers. In addition, other villege mogullapelli hosts the Sammakka-Saralamma Jatara or congregation. Every two years (bi-annually), approximately 2 Lacks people converge for over three days around the small village of Mulkala pelli and its adjacent stream/rivulet, ChaliVagu, 5 km from Aleeti Ramaiah Pally village. This fair is said to be the largest repeating aggregation of tribal communities in the whole world and commemorates the valiant fight put up by a mother-daughter combination (Samakka and Sarakka) with the reigning Kakatiya king over an unjust law. Bonalu and Bathukamma festivals, symbolic of the Telangana region are also celebrated here (Bathukamma is celebrated particularly by women) with gusto. Tourist places Pochamm Temple in Aleeti Ramaiah pally, this temple has almost 100 years history, great ness of this temple is every 5 yrs all the people in the villege celebrate “pochamma panduga” in the same day. Lord Hanuman temple in Aleeti Ramaiah pally,most of the people wear “Lord hanuman mala” in early March. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijender60 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 7 July 2012

 * Did you know you can start an article on your village by yourself, using the article wizard? Go ahead, be bold, and start editing! David  1217  What I've done 20:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To get you started, I have created an article on Aleeti Ramaiah Pally for you. Welcome to Wikipedia — and good luck in your contributions! -- RA (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye on it; I somehow suspect I'll end up indefinitely semiprotecting it. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 02:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On a similar note: not to offend southern Asian editors (we have some great ones) but many people from the Indian subcontinent seem to practice their (poor) English on Wikipedia. What do they write about? Their communities. So we end up with a ton of extremely poorly written articles on southern Asian communities. I haven't seen this with other parts of the world, for some reason. David  1217  What I've done 02:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hence my earlier comment. For further reading on this problem, see WP:IEP; I suppose it's slightly better for it to be here, where we can generally clean up their copyvios as opposed to the south Asian language wikis which don't do anything about it, but it's a real pain.  And when they're not copyvios, they're incoherent; see the history of Malhoo for a demonstrative example.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 02:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. I try to clean up the grammar and spelling of the articles, but I don't even touch verifiability problems. I'm tempted to just ignore southern Asian articles altogether. David  1217  What I've done 02:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Most editors say something to that effect, and the percentage goes up among admins. I'm one who runs head-on into a lot of it, and experience has taught me that it requires a very strange sense of humor.  I personally find much of it very amusing, but I know most people get annoyed with it (and I don't begrudge anyone that), so those of us willing to do it often feel swamped.  Help is always eagerly accepted, but where isn't it on Wikipedia?  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 02:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend not to worry overmuch about citations in such articles but I do like to see a couple even if they don't cover all the facts, so I would encourage Vijender60 to try and find some books or reasonably authoritative looking pages on the web with more than just a couple of sentences about the place before doing too much writing. ps. if you can get one good photo of something associated with the place that is good too. Dmcq (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Primary Section for Children
I believe Wikipedia is a monolithic encyclopedia. I believe it would be very useful to have a separate section for primary children (Grades 1 to say 5) with articles that interest them in simple prose. I could let my 6 year old child to play in such a sandbox with peace of mind. Currently I feel Wikipedia is not usable for my 6 year old. Santonathan (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest Simple English Wikipedia? (It is very unlikely that en.wiki will ever split or section off material based on reading comprehension range, hence while SEW was made...) --M ASEM (t) 14:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is not usable for my 6 year old -- nor is it supposed to be. It's a comprehensive encyclopedia. At minimum, that means high school level. To use the old standby, I doubt Britannica is useable for your 6 year old either. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

 * My immediate reaction was similar to the two above, which you're going to find is commonplace when any new and different suggestion is made. But upon further reflection, it's actually not a bad idea -- a Wikipedia children's edition. It would certainly make parental filtering easier: simply block Wikipedia but allow the children's area. It could be as simple as mirroring selected articles from the Simple English project into a new subdomain.  Equazcion  ( talk )  17:46, 7 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * See also strategy:Proposal:Wikipedia exclusively for Kids, strategy:Proposal:Proposal:Wiki for kids, Wikikids and Wikijunior. Helder 14:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * http://schools-wikipedia.org/ Nanonic (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I had the following additional comment. Book (encyclopedia/dictionary/thesaurus) titles are available in the market. e.g. of such titles are Books published by Priddy Books, US(?), The Children's Picture Encyclopedia published by Parragon, UK. I'm not endorsing any of these books but my dream/proposal is for wikipedia to start an endeavour to manufacture the mother of such mentioned titles for small children. Santonathan (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Split log entries' "action" and "target" to reduce the amount of info that has to be RevDeled
There is currently something of a problem when RevDeling e.g. block logs pertaining to offensive usernames where, if you do so, you necessarily also have to redact the terms of the block ("Delete action and target" is the option you are given at Special:RevisionDelete), when this latter information does not actually have to be hidden from the public. For example, block log entries currently typically look like this:

 * 17:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC) ‖ blocked  (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‖

... where the double vertical lines (‖) are not actually present in log entries themselves, but here signify the break between the "editor's username/IP", "action and target", and "edit summary" fields, as listed at Special:RevisionDelete.

Now, if is actually an offensive username that you wish to redact, at present your only option is to select the "action and target" field, as I have indicated above, leaving the log entry looking like this to non-Admins:

 * 17:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC) ‖ (log action removed) ‖

However, in the interests of leaving as much information publically visible as possible, I think it would be better to be able to tick "action" and "target" separately, leaving partially redacted logs looking like this:

 * 17:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC) ‖ blocked ‖ (log action removed) ‖ (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‖

... where the second and fourth sections of the above mock-up would both, in fact, be part of the "action" field.

 It Is Me Here   t / c 17:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The "action and target" that is being hidden is one message, blocklogentry (or unblocklogentry, or reblock-logentry, or protectedarticle, or rightslogentry, or uploadedimage, etc). In order to hide the individual pieces, Special:Revisiondelete would have to be able to sensibly present the ability to hide the individual parameters to the log entry. Anomie⚔ 18:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

travel guide
A proposal for a Wikimedia Foundation-run, wiki-based travel guide is currently discussed in an RfC, started by admins from the WikiTravel and WikiVoyage projects. Please comment there. – SJ + 20:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Per page IP-rangeblocking
Per recent discussion at WT:MILHIST, there seems to be a need to block certain IP ranges from editing certain articles. This would allow editing to other articles from those IP ranges, but not the select articles so marked.

This would be a finer degree of IP rangeblocking than the global edit block of current IP rangeblocking. Since certain IP ranges are associated with insertion of hoax-ey material on certain articles, but other users from those same ranges perform good edits on other articles, it would be better to restrict access to certain articles from certain IP addresses, instead of all articles from those IP addresses.

In effect, every page would receive a deny list, with IP ranges that get added and removed from it. The software would check if a deny list page exists for the page where an edit is being requested. It would then check if the IP address of the person requesting edit access is in one of the listed ranges, and if so, would deny edit access. (This is a conceptual model, how it gets implemented may be very different)

-- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

 * This is already possible with the WP:Edit filter, although I understand it's relatively costly in terms of server resources, so it's only used in rather severe circumstances. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would strongly support <IP_ADDRESS>'s proposal, and I suspect other Milhist editors would do so too. We are discovering significant amounts of hoaxes and imaginary data in a current clear-out of lesser watched countries' militaries. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would support this, but I don't know if developers want to do it. An edit filter implementation would not be very practical.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect an per-page IP range could potentially be useful for anti-vandalism bots, perhaps by applying a lower sensitivity filter criteria. (I.e. there'd be less concern about false positives.) Regards, RJH (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

wikifunding
how about an e-reader specifically for wikipedia w 3g capability. something like the kindle keyboard 3g but with a hobbled browser. so anywhere you can look up wikipedia wikitionary and wikitexts. mebbe a cut paste and email to record findings with. 70 bones w/free 3g? mebbe even contracted through amazon? your goal? to make ten bucks per reader to keep wikipedia free. amazon would probably be sympathetic financially as they have search wikipedia on their kindles. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

 * "ten bucks per reader to keep wikipedia free [sic]" doesn't make much sense to me. → Σ  τ  c . 03:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

A daily article for improvement
I am proposing that a project be created to focus on improving one specific article each day. The articles could be chosen through a nomination process, with only stubs and articles with clean-up notices being eligible. The daily article could be mentioned in prominent places, perhaps even including the main page. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Comment. You do not need a permission to create such project. If you feel it woould be useful just create it.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, but I am basically making a suggestion. This isn't something I want to undertake entirely on my own, and it would be nice to gauge interest first. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Something similar used to exist at Collaboration of the week and Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive. Perhaps a pretty new process could attract attention via the Signpost and the Community portal. —Kusma (t·c) 19:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Confused. Can't people improve practically any article they want already? Sorry, I fail to get the point of this proposal right now. Is this about a WikiProject? If so, shouldn't this be at WikiProject Council/Proposals instead? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 19:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, theoretically they can improve any article they wish to improve. However, having a specific project (and not necessarily a WikiProject either) that promotes specific articles in need of work will help draw attention to these articles and hopefully improve them. It's true that the articles can be improved at any time, but if an article has been a stub for a couple years, I doubt that it is likely someone will jump in and start working on it. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I think the point is to have several people work on the same article (that is probably more fun that just working alone all the time). —Kusma (t·c) 19:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. I don't know if a WikiProject is really the right format for this or not. After all, I believe the Motto of the Day is not a WikiProject. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is to promote collaboration to achieve some specific goal (like say bring article XY to GA status, de-orphan article XY, copy-edit article XY, general-cleanup article XY etc), then I am all for it. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is basically the idea. I'm trying to determine how much support there is for this idea. Is there a better way to find out? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I guess you should first have a look at Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive and Collaboration of the week - two similar projects that do not seem to be very active... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I like the idea. But perhaps you should have started this at WP:Village pump (idea lab) first? I personally would like to see the details of this proposal worked out before voting "Support". Please note that this is not meant to discourage the original proposer. I am willing to help develop this idea, just think that it should be at VPI at this stage instead of here. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But since we are here already, I think we can also work out the details here via sub-threads (eg level 3 heading). No need to start discussion in two places. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. Shall I do that now, finishing out the proposal before asking for support? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Even without the details the idea behind of such a process appeals to me. The way I think you should approach this is looking at the past similar collaborations processes and try to break down what they did (that we know failed) so you don't tread the same ground. Probably most important is the wheres and hows of the way they were advertized because that has to be a key part of why they were not successful.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. I have posted the details below and would appreciate input on good places to advertise. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

One suggestion is that the "politics" of the project should not begin to interfere with the main purpose, which is improving articles. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While I don't want to sound like a Debbie Downer, difficulties in preventing the "politics" of the project from interfering with the improvement process is basically what brought down WP:COTW. Basic human nature is such that it is much easier finding people desiring to nominate articles to be improved than it is to find and keep people willing and able to track down sources and perform the work needed to actually produce improved articles.  As a result, improvement projects have historically suffered from "too many chiefs and not enough Indians".  This in turn promotes burn out among the core group performing the bulk of the work as the articles they wish to see improved are out voted during the selection process by others who claim they will help work on the articles they supported but who can never seem to be around when time to do the work arrives.  I wish you luck if you are still interested in building a new improvement project and will be interested in seeing if you can find a solution to the problem that has brought down previous improvement projects. --Allen3 talk 22:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You make a good point. However, I think it is worth another try. Hopefully, some people will have learned from the first time. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Daily is too fast, especially in the early days. You'd need a huge posse of editors to make radical improvements to an article every day, and people wouldn't have the time to retrieve library books and read them for that day's article. Also editors who only edit for a couple of hours a week might feel excluded. I'd suggest relaunching Collaboration of the week and consider a more frequent cycle when you are getting to GA standard in the first half of the week (you could even launch it as collaboration of the month and compress the cycle as and when you get to FA standard earlier). As for the problems of people picking topics without doing the work, why not give the honour of picking the next article to whoever added the most referenced content to the last topic.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Allen3, you bring up someting that rings very true - especially (I've noticed) in AFD discussions. Almost everyone is totally cool with bringing in their 2 cents on an article, but hardly anyone is actually willing to go out, collect the sources and actually edit the article to make it better. Many say that it is not their duty... that those who "work" at afd's only purpose is to vote on articles. I beg to differ. AFD's dicsussionning should only be "that other thing" that is done in the meantime while we help improve an article. Well anyways, the point I'm making is that this slacktivist attitude is absolutely everywhere, and it is a massive shame, and we should really try to overcome it in all areas of Wikipedia, including this awesome one that you're proposing here :D--Coin945 (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * AFD is a special case, I wouldn't necessarily extrapolate from it. AFD has long had a problem with people who judge topics on the current state of the article rather than the notability of the topic and think they can nominate articles for deletion on an improve it or it dies basis. Of course nobody minds when articles are nominated that fail the GNG or that need specialist paywalled sources to rescue them. But it is timewasting when people nominate articles and start AFD discussions in the expectation that someone else will google them and add some sources. Hence I suspect some editors there concentrate on pointing nominators to WP:NOTCLEANUP as improving easily sourced articles at AFD risks encouraging people to treat AFD as cleanup.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  20:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Details of proposal
The project would be maintained by a group of members who would nominate articles and review the nominations. After an article was successfully nominated, it would be placed on a schedule and given a particular day during which to be improved. Ideally, the article of the day would be given mention in prominent places. I am interested to hear suggestions on what pages would be good choices. Of course, on a particular article's day for improvement, a notice should be left on the talk pages of related WikiProjects. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are some of my own ideas for advertising: 1) As I believe a prior similar project at least tried to do, a watchlist notice is a good idea. 2) Finding a place on the main page and perhaps on the Wikipedia sidebar to link to the project would be very effective. 3) As I mentioned already, placing notices on related WikiProject talk pages. This could help recruit new members. 4) Invite users who seem to be very experienced in improving articles. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Comment Thanks, AS, for this description, much appreciated :). I have two ideas for places to mention those articles, which I describe below.
 * Comment I think it's a bad idea to have any human decide on the articles. I think it would be better if a bot randomly generated 10 articles based on 1) age-since-last-edit 2) lack of sources, and 3) number of page hits. I think it would be great if you could somehow use this project to attack problems like Insurance and other high traffic core articles, not the AFD queue. Ideally, the improvers should be able to jump in and jump out without any complicated procedures, and improvements should be easy to add, without needing to learn Wiki syntax. Similarly, anyone can do the organization stuff (purge the queue, run the bot), all the way up to the start moment, etc. That way there can be no politicking beforehand. Jane (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Implementation proposal
We could create a new section at the Main page, something like Today's article for improvement and perhaps also a separate page that could contain the article for that day and discussion for that nomination. For example something like

 * Todays article for improvement is Article name

 * Comments by nominator: I think this article needs blablabla

 * ==Discussion==
 * Bla
 * Bla

 * -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * That sounds good. However, there will need to a project page, something like Today's Article for Improvement. Should that be started now, or are there reasons to wait? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I Support creating such a page. I just think we need to establish consensus before we implement anything like that and work out the details. So perhaps we should see what other people have to say. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Okay. I will set up a place for discussion, then. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Do you think I should move the discussion from above to the section below? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Pending the details I would support such a thing being on the main page. However, changes to the main page are notoriously difficult. I think maybe after some of the details are worked out, a discussion should take place at Talk:Main Page and be advertized through and maybe through a site notice, focused just on the logistics of, and to gain consensus on, a main page appearance. Meanwhile, I've been trying to figure out why all the past "collaboration of the X" have failed. Most were Wikiprojects, not sitewide, but there was Collaboration of the week and collaboration of the month which now redirects to Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive, also dead. I haven't found much on why they died but I think they were a side result of the death of Esperanza. I'm wondering if there's some way to get around the tons of edit conflicts that we can expect when we do one of these but I can't think of anything other than to make the time period longer, maybe 72 hours. Also, I really think we should have a rule that only edits with reliable sources included for new information additions are allowed and that we need a good template for an edit notice describing such rules and other instructions to be added to the article that is being improved (and G6'ed afterwards). Last, as much as I dislike the overuse (in my opinion) of wikilove, watering down accomplishments, we might get a good response out of some type of incentivizing reward system for really good edits associated with this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Good points. If this project is (as I hope) started up, I will appreciate any help I can get in creating policy and filling in the details. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've started a process page at Today's article for improvement (as opposed to the title case name higher on this page, per our standard naming conventions). I placed an opening paragraph there but as you can see this is the barest start of a start. Edit as you see fit.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This is just the first step, but it's a big one. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * At Today's article for improvement/main page placement I've mocked up a main page for this project to play with how the section would appear, and have taken a stab at adding a section for this in a prominent form right next to "Welcome to Wikipedia". Please take a look. I would need help from people better at the coding for the spacing. I also have an idea for a less prominent main page appearance, but it's good to have something concrete to start with rather than discussing vapor.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Support as proposer AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * The main page is for showing off some of our better work, it isn't appropriate for a needs improvement section any more than it is for an uncategorised or orphan article of the day. That said, if this gets off the ground it might be an idea to broaden the DYK section from "new, or five times expanded" to "new, or the referenced prose is five times expanded". However if you get this off the ground I would have hoped that the existing FA process would be the best way to get such articles on the main page.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not? Why "isn't [it] appropriate for a needs improvement section [or] an uncategorised or orphan article of the day [section]" on the main page?. Why can't the main page have sections on the "articles of the week" to be improved/copyedited/created etc.?? Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia.. not the "perfect" or "complete" one. Our main page should encourage people to get to work, not to show off our best work. Wikipedia isn't for reading. It's for creating. We can't help it if people reading our unfinished project is a sideffect of our work. I say this proposal and others like it (for example my "100 articles of the week" proposal) are great ideas, and we should def have sections on our main page dedicated to it, just like in all our Wikiproject "to do" templates - listing a few of each to get us started. Even if i decide one day to create a few article, most of the time is spent scouting out articles that i might be interested through the numerous lists upon lists of redlinks in various wikiprojects. Having a concrete path narrows my focus, and lets me know exactly what i need to do to get the job done - the overwhelming choice that reveals how much work is left to be done is eliminated. Stuff like this is good. And useful. And I fully support it.--Coin945 (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that would be a very different sort of main page. Maybe it would work and maybe we could recruit a bunch of main page readers that way to improve articles. But space on the main page is limited and precious, so if you want to do this you will get arguments from those content creators whose work is currently displayed there. Also I'd suggest looking at the edit history of some FAs on the day they are on the mainpage. FAs certainly do get a lot of extra edits on the day they are on the main page, but the usual quality is not promising. My suggestion would be that you relaunch the collaboration of the week and then try and publicise it through the usual ways of contacting editors such as a signpost article. Another thing to remember is that we already have various schemes for collaborative improvement but with a particular focus. For example Database reports/Living people on EN wiki who are dead on other wikis which over the last couple of years has resulted in improvements, albeit usually fairly minor improvements, to thousands of articles.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have just come off the WP:Teylers writing challenge,and it was fun, but difficult to keep track of. For soemthing like what you propose to be a success, I think it needs to be totally transparent and a game element is necessary; for example, give a link on the Main page to the "current improvement sprint", and give participants 72 hours to improve articles on that page (let's say that page has 10 articles from various core categories), and then at the end of the 72 hours the article nominators will need to assess. The "most improved" is the one with the highest assessment, and those contributors 'win' the sprint. The benefit is 1) short term sprints work best for new users, because they can oversee the whole process and 2) less edit conflicts because spread over more articles. To entice users to enter the sprint, a dashboard needs to be implemented, so everyone can see 1) the current assessment, the number of bytes, the number of unique sources used, the number of articles linking back to the article, and so forth. I think you first need to build it and test it out with about a 100 veteran users first (maybe a week long sprint announced on Signpost?). My 2c, Jane (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No it wouldn't be a "different sort of main page". Most of the main page is dedicated to featured content already written and that will not change. We're not going to have a large blocked off square section for this (obviously) like we do for the FA, featured picture, etc. – it would be a link in some form, with some accompanying text. Indeed, text on the main page is limited and precious, but we are the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" but have very little on the main page that describes or invites people to join and do that editing and I think this, a concrete and discrete "you can help here" process, is a good doorway for that to be included. As noted above, I've mocked up a place to play with how this might appear at Today's article for improvement/main page placement.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Survey (your opinion requested)
''Sorry if this isn't exactly a proposal. It should benefit the community, so kindly afford me a little leeway.''

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

 * Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange). If you have any questions, you can leave me a note on my talk page or email me at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cheers! Ocaasit | c 20:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Allow unregistered users to create pages in userspace
Some unregistered users who are regular contributors have been known to have userpages and userspaces (such as myself). I probably won't be able to create an account anytime soon, and I find it inconvenient to create userspace pages in the talkspace and then have them moved to my userspace, forcing me to rely on autoconfirmed users who have lives. I think it would be great if there was a new permission called " " that unregs had. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Support I agree that there are regular contributors contributing under an IP rather than an account. We should make Wikipedia as positive an experience for them as we can. The only thing that needs to be addressed in my opinion might be the following: For users contributing from a dynamic IP, how they will be able to find their userpages and user sub-pages again, once their address changed, if they forgot under which IP they contributed before the change (the same might apply if an IP contributor changes location, ie. contributing from home, from school, from mobile device etc.). -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 17:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's already an Articles for creation process to allow unregistered users to create article drafts. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Query I don't have any problem with this in theory, and Toshio is correct that we have a number of awesome and deeply experienced IP contributors (and a good number of excellent contributions from drive-by IPs as well. However, a question: I'm a little confused as to how creating an account should be anything but a trivial hurdle. Maybe it's been too long since I've done so, could someone lend me a cup of WP:CLUE on the subject?  --j⚛e deckertalk 22:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For personal reasons, I can't create an account until I'm 18. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I must admit I'm curious as to what reasons would allow you to edit Wikipedia but not to create an account, but I don't expect an answer since it's probably too personal to discuss publicly. Anomie⚔ 02:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean? Why do you think you can't create an account until you are 18? Note that you do not have to give any personal information about yourself at all. You can create an account under a completely made up name so no connection to your real identity would be possible. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 11:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The editor said "personal reasons", not technical reasons. It could be a disciplinary sanction agreed with parents or school, or a personal rule of the owner of a computer that he borrows… I'm only guessing. We do not need to know. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I didn't mean to press into someone's privacy, I just figured I was missing something obvious. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 15:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose - With all due respect to the maybe 10% of IP editors who are serious, as opposed to the probably 50% who are outright vandals or blatantly unhelpful content changers, we should be mandating registration, not making it easier for unregistered users to edit. Carrite (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Um... More than 75% of IPs are not vandals. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Point understood: I'm an avid good faith contributor and have been involved since 2008, and even had an account before but do not use it since I am quite retired. If I wish to create an article, or if you wish to create an article, you may do so via Wikipedia's articles for creation process. After the Seigenthaler incident, unregistered users may not create articles or certain pages. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC), last modified 19:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Carrite. The main reason IP page creation was discarded in the first place was because of ridiculous amounts of spam, libel, nonsense, and "jgkjgffjh" type pages.  This is still a problem, of course, but would be infinitely worse with IP-created pages.  Opening the floodgates would be an enormous step back and would arguably even be worse as material in user space would be harder to police than in mainspace.  Besides, IP use of userspace is limited because IPs aren't always the same person.  You wouldn't want someone else's racist vitriol or political rants in 'your' user space just because they're on the same ISP. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Only because someone editing without an account doesn't really have a userspace in which to create pages. Sure, there is a "userspace" for the IP address they are using, but the editor could be assigned a new IP (and the old IP reassigned to a different editor) at any time. Anomie⚔ 02:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all the above. The proper solution for the inconvenience of IP editing is registration. If there is a good argument against this I should like to hear it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the benefit of forcing users to create an account in order to create user subpages? What harm would it cause if IP users were able to create subpages in that IPs userspace? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here we go. First, a lot of IP editors are outright vandals. A lot make two or three edits and then nothing again. A lot make two or three edits and then their IP address changes. Most Internet Service Provides assign and retire IP addresses as needed and very few IP editors can count on having the same IP address every time you log in. It is more this technical issue than anything against IP editors. If more IP users had a consistent address, I would be all for it, but this is not the case. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  12:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose per Anomie, there is too much of a difficulty due to dynamic ip's. Ryan Vesey Review me!  20:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

 * On a related note, there's a technical problem with this: the rollout of IPv6 is happening. Your static IP address will, at some point, be changed from <IP_ADDRESS> to one of the new ones, which means your user "name" will change. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to dynamic IPs and users requesting IP moves/redirects: The creation of IP-named subpages would generate a whole bureacracy, to resolve complex issues, for people confused by dynamic IPs changing when they logged out after several hours/days, and asking, "Where did my IP subpages go?" and requesting instant moves, or, "Could my major subpages all have multiple redirect titles from 500 range-related IP addresses?" all pointing to the same set of subpages, regardless of dynamic IPs, etc. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Few IP people actually want to do this, so they can ask someone else to do it. I could easily manage one a week if I was aked on my talk page. The criterion would be that the person was long term on that IP number. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Pipe trick behaviour
If the pipe trick is used like this: epoch (astronomy)s, it produces epochs. I suggest that it produces epochs instead. I find this a bit easier to read. Iceblock (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean whenever it is followed by an 's' then a non-letter character? Regards, RJH (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 * For me, epoch (astronomy)s renders as epoch (astronomy)s with the terminal  blended in the link. ---—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 17:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I think the proposal is for A (B)Z to be rendered as AZ (parses as AZ) rather than AZ (parses as AZ). It's not just easier to read but the link includes the extension. Joja  lozzo  17:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest making this proposal on Help Talk:pipe trick. Joja  lozzo  18:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Log of sources of poor paid advocacy editing
That a log will be kept in WP space of serious administrative action taken against paid editors, noting (where demonstrable) the employer, contractor, advocacy body or any other such body associated with hiring the paid editor who performed poorly.

In relation to this AN/I thread of 8 July 2012 it was noted that systematic poor behaviour can on occasion be associated with paid editors originating from a common source. Wikipedia reacts poorly to collusion off site, and to off site collusion with the intention or actuality of damaging the encyclopaedic project. In the case of paid editors who behave poorly to the point of serious administrative action being taken against them, it would be useful to track if these paid editors come from a common source. It would be useful to log this activity to determine if community action may be required against specific sources of poorly behaving editors in the area of paid editing.

I commend this proposal to establish such a log to you, chiefly in terms of providing coherent information regarding administrative actions taken against poorly behaving paid editors, allowing the community to better and more coherently consider the problem of poorly behaving paid editors.

Support as proposer. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as it seems a quite reasonable way to reduce un-helpful paid editing. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support As per Fifelfoo.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: if the purpose of this is to gather info about how and from where poor paid-editor editing happens, there ought to be a counterpart page to record how and from where good paid-editor editing happens, because that's also useful information for researching how and whether paid editing has value - though in either case, keeping it in WP space seems really weird to me. If, on the other hand, the purpose is to name-and-shame bad paid editors or their employers, or gather evidence favoring one side of the paid-editing divide...while I understand the impulse, that's not what we do here and it shouldn't be happening. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "serious administrative action" is the line for recording, so that's pretty much blocks and bans. As noted, the purpose is to identify off-site collusion.  The purpose isn't related to whether paid editing has value (a job for the sociologists, or more particularly political economists), but to determine whether site "X" colludes to degrade the encyclopaedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Seems less than half baked, to me. First, do we do the imperative on wikipedia? Who exactly is being commanded to maintain such a list? What will you do with the information? How will you draw conclusions. Suppose you find a number of poor instances arising out of eLance ... you have a numerator. What exactly is your denominator? How do you know the ratio of good to bad articles from such a locus? And given the nature of eLance, what predictive quality would your stats yield? To what extent is the next eLance commission independent of the last? Does not the problem lie with the editor, and not the marketplace? By all means collect data, let us know if it yields meaningful results. Then we might be in a position to reconvene to discuss your suggestion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Proposals ought to be put in the imperative, otherwise they're not actually a suggestion for action. Many editors believe that the problem specifically exists with the marketplace—but that is a side issue from the immediate point.  We log some administrator actions, such as community sanction results, yet don't keep a log of praise for editors editing (for example) in Indian sub-group topics.  Fifelfoo (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a more than inadequate answer to my criticisms. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Comment Fluffernutter's comment seems reasonable to me. What is our goal here? If our goal is to track the impact that certain communities have on WP, then we would need to be tracking good and bad edits from those sites. For example, there may be more crimes committed in Asia than in Australia, but that's because Asia is a lot bigger, and more of everything probably happens there. We won't have any meaningful stats unless we can examine the whole issue, and generate percentages, even if they are rough. Obviously, I have no objection to anyone keeping an off-site log of these events, but if we're going to make an "official" log, and extrapolate from that data, then we should be logging something which is actually meaningful to extrapolate from. If our goal isn't to track the impact that various communities have on our site, then please explain what it is.  — Jess · Δ♥ 22:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your contribution phrases this as if we weigh the contributions of a site against a feather. We don't: off-site collusion is a serious disruption of consensus.  Off-site collusion which has the impact of degrading the quality of the encyclopaedia is a bad and harm regardless of "good works done."  I'd suggest the EEML case at ARBCOM as an example—not all work done by EEML editors was negative, most EEML editors are now highly productive contributors to the very topic that was colluded upon.  But the collusion itself was problematic due to its impact on consensus.  And EEML editors did it from love of the encyclopaedia, not for external interests. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to second Tagishsimon's comment above. You don't appear to have understood the problem. Trying to draw any conclusions from the data you're proposing we collect would be inappropriate because we would only have one raw number, and no context for that number. It would be similar to realizing that more than a million crimes occur every day in the rest of the country, but only 1 crime a day occurs in your small town, and so deciding the rest of the country must be a million times more corrupt. In reality, one crime a day in a small town is probably quite a bit, and your town is probably more corrupt than the rest of the country. We'd never realize that without the proper data to put what we know in the proper context. You're (presumably) proposing we draw conclusions from insufficient data. That's a bad idea. You can log stats all you'd like, but you should log the right stats.  — Jess · Δ♥ 17:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And BTW, I haven't yet seen anyone suggest we're talking about off-site collusion. For elance, at least, we're talking about one editor, not any cooperative group.  — Jess · Δ♥ 17:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Less than a half-baked proposal. Should Fifelfoo wish to compile this data, that's of course fine. But until he/she is able to articulate - in particular - the way in which denominators would be supplied to enable use to be made of numerator data, then the initiative it fatuous and likely to be misleading. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Tagishsimon, Fluffernutter, and Mann_jess. This is a noble concept laced with good intention, but we already have courses of action by which to deal with negative paid editing. This proposal would yield inconclusive data from which it is suggested we... draw conclusions? Impossible to execute upon in good faith. --IShadowed 14:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: At the root of this proposal is really a question: How can Wikipedia protect itself from clearly disruptive paid editing that undermines Wikipedia and gives everyone a headache?

I agree the proposal has some practical boundaries. We can't realistically collect the data and if we do the benefits of the data will only tell us things we already know without equipping anyone to prevent it.

However, there is a need to discuss how to proactively prevent overtly bad behavior before it occurs instead of playing a game of whack-a-mole afterwards. In the past, humiliation has always been the venue for this, but it has never been a perfect system or one the Wikipedia community has taken a role in.

It would be good to start with a brainstorm of different approaches to the problem or even just establish key facts and objectives everyone can get behind. I'm not sure this specific item is it, but there is a need for a pro-active community effort to stem the tide of disruptive editing. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 20:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Objective: Make a substantial and meaningful reduction in unethical COI edits that are overtly disruptive to Wikipedia's goals
 * Qualifier: Without proclaiming all paid edits are bad and while directing companies to ways they can be helpful/ethical
 * Rational: We have to put an end to this game of whack-a-mole.
 * Possible tools: Public humiliation, higher content standards, PAIDWATCH investigations, stronger administrative actions, banning paid editors by source, other ideas

UK/Commonwealth monarchy update templates
I haven't found this proposal, please point me to it if already discussed.

Wikipedia has a great many articles to do with the UK and Commonwealth which make references to the monarch by name or pronoun, all of which will go out of date when the monarch changes, requiring thousands of articles to be updated. In particular, even articles without personal names have things like "On Her Majesty's Service".

It might be a good idea to have some general mechanism to update all articles automatically; I don't know the best way to do this; the following is discussion of the concept, I doubt the implementation I suggest is the best. There would be a master template which, when changed, would change the results returned by all the following templates (or each individual template could be changed, not much to do). I'm not usre of the exact wording of the templates, "UK monarchy" will stir the passions of those who point out that other countries are involved, maybe a mention of Commonwealth realms is better, but long.

There could be a set of templates, updated when necessary, maybe like:

 * and are identical, both return either "His" or "Her"
 * and are identical, both return either "his" or "her"
 * returns either "King" or "Queen"
 * returns "Elizabeth II" or "Charles III"
 * returns "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II" or "His Majesty King Charles III"
 * returns "Elizabeth II" or "Charles III"

Note that and  are exactly the same, perhaps better, perhaps not, than a single.

Exactly what is needed needs thought and discussion.

Then in British Army

I, [soldier's name], swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to  heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend  Majesty,  heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of  Majesty,  heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me.

This text would render as at present, but would be updated as soon as the templates were updated.

 * I, [soldier's name], swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me.

This is particularly for UK/Commonwealth realms as a huge number of institutions refer to Her or His Majesty, but might be useful for other countries, where the name and sex, or personal pronouns, could be updated:

The US President (currently ) has the nucleear code. ) must give the order...

Pol098 (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not a big fan of having templates that display some text in the article body. They make it more difficult to edit especially for newbies. It is normal that lots of articles need to be updated when a head of state changes; it is rare enough that we don't need templates to do it automatically. —Kusma (t·c) 10:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'll leave the suggestion in place, but I don't suppose it'll be favoured. While I'm at it, would it be useful to have categories like "Articles needing update when head of state of Xyz changes" (maybe they already exist?)? I suppose this could lead to category overload: "Articles to be changed when head of maths of Abc High School changes".  Pol098 (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That kind of (hidden) categories could be quite useful (and much less intrusive). Your idea reminds me a bit of things like As of and the related Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating. —Kusma (t·c) 12:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of a hidden cat, but not the template. Yes, there are a lot of articles that would need updating, but being that said updates will, in all probability, be decades apart, it doesn't seem like that big a deal. Heck, a bot could probably do a lot of it. --Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Black Tobacco
Need an article on Black Tobacco.
 * Request at WP:RA or create it yourself at WP:AfC.  Ebe  123  → report 02:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Blonde Tobacco
Need an article on Blonde Tobacco.
 * Request at WP:RA or create it yourself at WP:AfC.  Ebe  123  → report 02:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Urine Reading in Chile
Need an article on Urine Reading in Chile.
 * Request at WP:RA or create it yourself at WP:AfC.  Ebe  123  → report 02:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:BABEL#Revising Babel templates according to IELTS scale
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:BABEL. —Yutsi Talk/  Contributions  ( 偉特 ) 19:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Gamified Wikipedia
I had an idea that I feel would be well suited for a Wikimedia project. The idea is basically to create a immersive game-like experience of data on wikipedia. Or, in other words, to provide a spatial and temporal map of wikipedia content.

Here is a short overview:

Imagine that you can go through time and locations on Earth. For every time period and location, ordinary people or famous historical figures can be "met" (e.g. Joan of Arc). "Talking" with them produces quotes from original sources.

Also, at any given time or place, there are historical events - each event is significant for a given number of people (event's "magnitude"). Examples include wars, rebellions, weddings, scientific discoveries, political upheavals and similar. People could talk about events: "Did you hear about the Second Punic war? Hannibal attacked Saguntum in Hispania!". And all events and characters could be links to wikipedia content.

Wikipedia already hosts all the necessary data in semi-structured form, and the available time period could expand back in time as the project develops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilija_Pavlic (talk • contribs)
 * We're already an MMORPG. As Wikipedia is constantly changing and not stable, I'm not sure it would be an appropriate basis for another game.  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Bojemoi, NO! How many billions of dollars are you willing to donate, Ilija, in order to set up such a game and keep it going? This is not how an encyclopedia works. (There is nothing in our licensing, however, to prevent some deep-pockets third party from doing something like this, if they wanted to spend the money.) -- Orange Mike |  Talk  20:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Machine translation
I am concerned about this all-too-frequent message at the top of many articles which need expansion:

"Don't speak German? Click here to read a machine-translated version of the German article."

My experience is that this is an invitation to chaos. Machine translations are just not good enough, and this very positive statement encourages people who don't know any better

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 90