Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:49, 31 August 2014

The idea lab section of the village pump is a place where new ideas or suggestions on general Wikipedia issues can be incubated, for later submission for consensus discussion at Village pump (proposals). Try to be creative and positive when commenting on ideas.
Before creating a new section, please note:

Discussions of technical issues belong at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).
Discussions of policy belong at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).
If you're ready to make a concrete proposal and determine whether it has consensus, go to the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Proposals worked out here can be brought there.

Before commenting, note:

This page is not for consensus polling. Stalwart "Oppose" and "Support" comments generally have no place here. Instead, discuss ideas and suggest variations on them.
Wondering whether someone already had this idea? Search the archives below, and look through Wikipedia:Perennial proposals, and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals.

« Archives, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58

Automatically redirect titles with a missing parenthesis

There is a problem with disambiguation pages that have parentheses in the article titles that results from several softwares not recognizing a link that ends with ")". For example, if you copy the link to the page Georgia (country) in an instant-messaging software, it will result in the link not working due to the IM program leaving the last parenthesis out. Some editors have acknowledged this, and thus a redirect exists at Georgia (country.

Apparently Firefox browser (or Windows 7) fixes this because if I copy the article title from the browser bar it results in an ASCII link: "Georgia_%28country%29". But it still a problem with direct copy&paste, atleast I remember several times clicking a link that's not working due to that.

I think it would be a bit too excessive to create redirects like "Georgia (country" for every page. Would it be possible to somehow make Wikipedia automatically redirect to the right page? I'm pretty sure there's only a handful of articles that actually need only one parenthesis, like the article "(" itself. --Pudeo ' 00:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested this in 2007, bugzilla:11056, but it sounds like fixing it is more complicated than we both expected. :( It might be worth discussing further, I'm not sure. (Note: There are further problems with links in IRC, where some programs will cut off the URL before the opening "(", but that's probably a separate issue.) Quiddity (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the heads up. That bugzilla report had a response: "An automatic check may sound cute, but would conflict if you actually wanted the title without the closing parenthesis." Isn't the number of pages that actually end with "(" (and thus would conflict with the automatic check) really limited though, and we could single-them out from the database? But I suppose it can be problematic indeed, then. --Pudeo ' 22:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or, titles without the closing parenthesis can override the automatic redirect. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 23:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about a routine that only kicked in if the page was not found? Then those rquesting articles with deliberately mismatched brackets would never encounter it. I have never run across this bug - I'm a Firefox user. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add to that any article ending in punctuation to make it complete. Agathoclea (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I've been experimenting with punctuation at my sandbox, and in test emails, and trying to determine the extent of the problem (number of affected articles) via some searches in Quarry. I'll followup at that bug, when I know more for sure. Quiddity (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia already has a feature which automatically adds a link at the top for unregistered users and registered users with the default language English. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(1988_film starts: "Did you mean: Georgia (1988 film)". I think that is sufficient. It is done by {{No article text}} which is used in MediaWiki:Noarticletext. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was implemented in 2009. The CSS class .searchdidyoumean was dropped from normal pages making the link less prominent. Could somebody find the responsible dev so they can fix this or go around the 200 wikis and hard code it in?

The Wiktionary projects wrote an auto-redirector Javascript to deal with case insensitivity, so we probably should integrate with that — Dispenser 21:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Create a BOT to alphabetize and organize categories automatically

As someone who has been doing this manually for years, I hereby dutifully beg of anyone who is technically proficient and knows how to create and run a bot that will:

Automatically sort all Categories on each article and category page alphabetically;
Create a uniform system for where to place categories on each article and category page that commence with numbers, such as years of birth/death, centuries, and any category that starts with a number/numeral.

Please see the centralized discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 61#Create a BOT to alphabetize and organize categories automatically. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion re-opened at VPP

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Create a BOT to alphabetize and organize categories automatically. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tech help required to improve categories

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#CatVisor and User:Paradoctor/CatVisor#Planned features if you are willing and able to assist this innovative WP project move along it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative to right to be forgotten

More essential than the right to be forgotten is the right to reply, to have your vision known. If there would be a separate space where everybody who feels the information on a page is not fair to him could have the possibility to explain his point of view, two other problems may be contained.

- Sensorship as a result of the right to be forgotten.

- People editing pages about themself.

And it could increace accuracy of the main page as authors take in to account that point of view. Controversial articles that talk about (political) issues where many people feel involved may have to be excluded.

A personnel reply could also be something like: I admid I was wrong there, but it was 10 years ago. I didn't know what I know now. Look what I did after that.

Hopefully courts would take into account the existance of that possiblilty in individual cases when somebody tries to force the right to be forgotten. And if so also the search site committee will be less inclined to approuve a request if that possibility exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.101.91.31 (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're discussing anything other than the normal Talk page process, that's a horribly unencyclopedic suggestion and you may as well consider it rejected out of hand. Wikipedia is not a collector of public apologies. --erachima talk 11:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are on such a page expressing such opinions as you edit this page, and your anonymity, at least as far as your IP number, is totally preserved. Yes we have that policy already! Obviously, however, you have some deeper concerns of a legal nature which you have not explained here. ~ R.T.G 02:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's time to discuss this...

due to two recent incidents involving the editors Bulletrajabc (see this discussion) and Gnuuu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see that editor's contributions) in as many days I feel that it is time that we discuss the possibility of changing the right of an editor to move pages after 4 days and 10 edits. I feel that this is far too low, and has been seen recently, is ripe to be taken advantage of. My idea would be to make it a 30 day/500 edit restriction, OR (my preference) make it like the rollback right - "if you don't have it, you can't do it" sort of thing. I know and accept the fact that Wikipedia is an "open" wiki, but I think the time has come to put more restrictions in place for the good of the project. ArcAngel (talk) ) 09:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree. 90% of moves require discussion. The obvious moves that can be performed boldly are usually only obvious to experienced editors. Like if an IP made made a new article for someone with a famous stage, but placed it under their real name. An experienced editor would move it due to WP:STAGENAME, but a rookie probably wouldn't know about it. The article creator might actually move it back due to ignorance of the guidelines. I think moving is something that should be a right you apply for just like rollbacking. Feedback ^☎ 21:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I've moved a few hundred pages—probably about five times as many as you—and I doubt that even a dozen really required discussion. Preventing page moves means preventing people from moving drafts into or out of the main namespace, which means preventing them from fully engaging in normal editing work.

Also, raising the requirements for autoconfirmed status was discussed a couple of months ago, and the WMF refused on grounds of principle ("anyone can edit").

Finally, people who think that en.wp is "normal" would do well to look around a bit more broadly. At many Wikipedias, you don't even need to login to create articles, and autoconfirmed status may be awarded even sooner. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. With me, it was difficult enough to get just 10 edits without all the nice tools that auto-confirmed users have access to. 500 edits would seem almost impossible to attain to, and we would lose a lot of new contributors (you would have lost me, as well). I would only support admins having the right to removed this status from users if they obviously abuse it. Writing Enthusiast (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea that could help achieve great things for conservation & the environment - but I need someone to help me with the proposal and technical side

Hi there

I have always been interested in animal welfare and environmental safe guards but have recently become more involved especially on facebook.

I have noticed that there are so many different groups/charities set up for animal welfare and against animal cruelty and trophy hunting etc that no cohesive action is being taken as people are so fragmented. Also many of the public have lost faith in donating to charity due to bogus charities being set up to extort money and some charities having hidden agendas (like a well known animal charity being founded by and supporting trophy hunters)

Being independent and transparent I think wiki is the ideal vehicle for my idea. It's to set up a wikiplanet. To record all the environmental groups, animals groups, charities etc - what they do, if poss the percentage of money raised that goes to cause, contact details, interested journalists, relevant news articles, interested politicians, interested Lawyers, interested ecologists, interested philanthropists etc etc.

People could then ideally be able to cross reference information to properly show global trends, contact relevant groups and hopefully by sharing information get the silent majority to see the facts and hopefully stop being silent.

Getting this information out there would mean eg people fighting trophy hunting in Zimbabwe could contact all anti-trophy hunting groups, all Zimbabwe animal groups, could contact world elephant groups, world rhino groups, world big cat groups, could maybe find a interested journalist, lawyer, donor.

You already publish lists of charitable organisations and animal rights charities etc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animal_rights_groups).

I do not suggest you promote any charities but simply produce a list and add extra information in a way that people can use it to search and cross reference.

And to be fair I would suggest you produce a complete list by providing information on all animal/ eco groups eg some Animal Conservation groups are pro-hunting. So add them to the list but answer about all groups Do you support/denounce trophy hunting?

The big picture is if this information were available and provided by an independent source like Wiki it could literally help people to change the world for the better.

Yours sincerely

Helen Timson

Much of this information is already available within individual articles. If you are proposing a wiki dedicated to this purpose (i.e., as you call it "WikiPlanet") then the correct place to make his suggestion is here. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Helen Timson, this page is ~~for discussing rules and regulations~~ (not for discussing individual content so the worth of response may be limited), however, if you have a specific list in mind that is noteworthy, such as a list of noteworthy anti hunting groups, please go ahead and create the page in the same style as the list of animal rights groups you referenced, or if you think that is a bit difficult, try navigating through the "Community Portal" on the left hand side of the Wikipedia page to Requested Pages/Articles and follow the instructions. (to create a page your self you will have to make an account and log in, or you'll have to request someone to do it, which I can do if you have the list to hand, just ask my talk page, but items with lesser notability will be deleted form the list at random because that's just how Wikipedia is kept in trim)

Alternatively, if what you want to do is create a website with a wiki program on it, please refer to Mediawiki, which is the home site for the software this site runs on. This software is completely free for any purpose, and though somewhat complicated, it is well documented and updated and should become intuitive for you through use. In fact, many service internet providers who host websites will offer to pre install wiki software free and it can be edited to look however and contain whatever you want. Best of luck.. ~ R.T.G 02:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Create "hoax investigations"

I want to create "hoax investigations". I think it will reduce the length of the lifetime of Wikipedia hoaxes.--S/s/a/z-1/2 (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've already got WP:NPP. If they couldn't pick up on the fakery, how are you going to? Pound random and google every article? --erachima talk08:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. We won't do this for any article unless an editor believes that the article is a hoax. --S/s/a/z-1/2 (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not seeing the value here. If you want to watch AfD for articles with suspected WP:V issues go ahead, but the lack of any proactive aspect to your plan means that it's definitionally incapable of "reducing the lifetime of Wikipedia hoaxes." --erachima talk 11:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A new board does absolutely nothing without a new set of policies and procedures. A wikiproject, on the other hand, has a chance at some success by at least bringing together hoax-hunting editors to share strategies and coördinate investigations. Van Isaac_WS^cont 18:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Locking topics without prose that are guarunteed not to change very often

If a list isn't going to change for a very long time, or some other lengthy information, like a list of international dialling codes, the full text of a constitution etc.. that information can be written into the mainspace on a blank article, and let's say the otherwise blank article is called "X", well if you put x in brackets thus {{X}} on a page called "Y", the contents of the page "X" will appear as though it had been edited into the source of page "Y", but in fact page x could be locked elsewhere requiring a request to edit, while any required accompanying text could still be edited on page "Y" normally.

I do not know what this proposal is called in concise terms so I do not know how to search for it in existing policy or proposals, but as regards this, if those people who thought the barcode had changed found that it wasn't possible to edit, they'd have gone to the talk page where they'd have received education and no edit warring on the main space would have occurred at all, so let's do thet. Yeah it's definitely good practice and if it already exists as policy please someone tell me that policy for some reference, thankyou ~ R.T.G 02:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like the list on Inclosure_Act. Couldn't that list be locked with the creative aspect remaining open? Shouldn't the list be locked with the rest of the writing remaining open? Actually, the method is called transcluding the text and the, variable?, is {{:page x}} for "Page x" content to be transcluded.

The sort of edit warring this guideline would avoid peaks at the most critical times, i.e. when a rumour floats up. There could be a template for the talk page informing if a page contains, or only function is to be, transcluded text. ~ R.T.G 19:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Read Later" Feature for the Mobile Application

I've just discoverd the Village Pump, and I believe this to be a good place to voice my idea...

I read mobile wikipedia a lot for entertainment. Since the mobile application doesn't have tabs, I can't open links to other articles without leaving the one I was reading. This can be an issue when I'm reading a large article with links to other large articles which I wish to read (or need to read to understand the content of the current article) and soon enough I'm 12 articles deep and I can't remember which one I started on.

I was wondering, would it be possible to implement the ability for a user to long-press a link, have a drop down menu open with an option to "Read Later" (And maybe even have another Save Page option for easy access, along with the option in the corner dropdown menu) which would then save the link to a list, accessible from a menu similar to the Saved Pages?

It would differ from the Save Page option by not requiring the user to be on the specific article to be saved, and not download the content itself, only the link. It would be similar to the Watch Later playlists on youtube. Smortypi (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smortypi,

Thanks for posting this idea. I need to know how you are reading Wikipedia. Are you using your normal web browser on your mobile device, or are you using the Wikipedia mobile app? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using the Wikipedia Mobile app for Android. I hope I'm doing all of this right. If not, you have my sincerest apologies. Smortypi (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could add them to your watchlist in the mean time ~ R.T.G 06:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a suitable workaround for me. Thanks for the idea. Smortypi (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, Smortypi. User:DGarry (WMF) is the product manager for the mobile app on Android. I'm sure he'll be interested in your suggestion when he sees it.

The watchlist workaround won't work for minority of users who have large watchlists for editing, but it's a clever workaround for most people. Also, I wonder whether "Read Later" could/should download the page for reading offline? (That might not be such a good idea if you have limited space on your device, but it might be nice if you're filling your list of things to read when you'll be away from your normal internet connection.) What do you think? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The watchlist is working in a pinch but it's a bit clunky to navigate, not to mention it can't be accessed from the mobile app to the best of my knowledge. To me, it sounds like Read Later and saved pages go hand in hand. But like you said, due to storage constraints and the like for some users, it might be best to keep them two separate selections. I'm thinking that Read Later could be more of a bookmark system to complement the saved pages option rather than an extension of the latter. I'm not sure, I'm on the fence on whether it should download the pages or not. It seems like it's the kind of thing where the best solution will become apparent after implementing and testing it out. Smortypi (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use apps, so I can't say anything for sure, but can't you just switch to desktop view and then zoom in a bunch? I hate most mobile versions of sites and Wikipedia is no exception, but at least there's the viewswitching option at the bottom of every page. I don't think it'd work for the app (I'm assuming it's a separate program as opposed to just another way to view the website), but at least that's a way to access your watchlist. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 01:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Smortypi. Thanks for the suggestion! Given that we have the saved pages feature, which does everything that your suggestion does except it also saves the pages for offline reading, I think adding a read later feature would clutter the app up unnecessarily since we'd also have to add menu options for it. It would also take development effort that's better spent elsewhere right now. I'd suggest simply using the saved pages feature for what you're asking. In terms of your request to be able to save pages without going to them first by long-pressing the link, I think that's an awesome idea, and I've filed a bug for it which you can view at bugzilla:69930. Given the other work we've got on our plate right now we can't really prioritise this given that there's a workaround available (i.e. actually going to the page), but your request is now recorded and hopefully we'll be able to pick it up some time. Thanks! --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it would over-clutter things, and the more I think about it, the more I realize that the long press function to save the pages would solve my problem which is all I really need. It's not too much of a hassle to remove read saved pages. Thanks a lot for this; it's gonna make browsing even better than before (and a lot more efficient for me, too!) Smortypi (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Community desysop process

Why, yes, I do know how many times this has been proposed. And how many times it's failed. I'ma try anyway. User:Writ_Keeper/Community_desysop_process is where it's at. Comments/concerns/feedback welcome! (preferably on the talk page) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to read due to very long paragraphs that cover more than one idea at a time. I am reading it though. Chillum 21:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I was a writer. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You want, in general, a two-step, procedural and courtesy, delay to the beginning of review. A new designated place to begin proposal. Minimal interaction between editors, insofar as, restriction of detailed questioning of each voter on the matter, yea or nay without being asked to defend your philosophical worldview. A review of the percentage of dissatisfaction required. And you want to review perennial proposals on the side, periodic retesting, the community implications of insulting an administrators value, and probably some other stuff. Plus a few related tweakings. Or, something completely different..? ~ R.T.G 23:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the post

Hi to all, I want to ask you, if it is possible to accept the biography about our Rector translated from Macedonian to English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninoslav_Marina . I can not understand what is not good in this article, please if it is possible make the corrections in order to post this article without problems. Thank you in forward. Jovan UIST — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jovanuist (talk • contribs) 11:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're trying to cite the Macedonian article in the English article. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and should not be used as a citation. On the other hand, if you're trying to incorporate translated text from the Macedonian article into the English one, I'd recommend consulting Wikipedia:Translation for guidance. --N Y Kevin 01:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User pages

As all admins will know, a large number of new users create accounts and then immediately use their user pages either to advertise their business or product, or to create an essay on a subject possibly unacceptable as an article but obviously unacceptable as a user page. Now I have no problem deleting these pages, but it does take time; over a long period quite a significant amount of time. Is there any way in which users creating a new account for the first time could be automatically directed to a simple instruction link relating to what is, and is not, appropriate for a user page? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you could add a link to {{welcome}} and its ilk, but they already contain a lot of junk people don't actually read. Maybe add a {{#ifexist}} to {{editnotice load}}? --N Y Kevin 01:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick thing to do that would be somewhat effective would be to add a link to, say, WP:USER to various welcome templates (From what I can tell, very few say anything about the userpage. Maybe the Welcoming Committee can take care of this?). Obviously, this wouldn't work for everyone, but it'd be a good first step, at least until we can implement something else. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 01:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is the idea lab and we aren't supposed to say no, but welcome templates need fewer things on them, not more. Protonk (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why haven't we upgraded to CC 4.0 yet?

According to [1], it is expressly allowed to relicense 3.0 things under 4.0 (but not the reverse). So far as I can tell, we don't need anyone's permission to do this (though I imagine the WMF would freak out and superprotect everything if we actually flipped the switch without their permission, so please don't actually do that). Until we make such an upgrade, any CC-BY-SA-4.0 text will be impossible to incorporate, while after making such an upgrade, 3.0 text would continue to be usable. Does anyone object to such a change in principle? --N Y Kevin 01:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's materially different about 4.0 vs 3.0? Protonk (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very little, at summary level. The summary of CC BY-SA 4.0 says "Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0)", where the summary of CC BY-SA 4.0 says "Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0)". Otherwise, they are identical. But at detail level, CC BY-SA 4.0 looks like a complete rewrite, I think because CC BY-SA 3.0 failed to take into account certain legal matters outside the U.S. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the more obvious changes is automatic license restoration. Suppose Alice publishes something under any CC license (not necessarily BY-SA). Bob unwittingly violates the license, perhaps by failing to properly attribute her. Some time passes, and Alice becomes aware of the violation. She informs Bob, who promptly corrects his mistake. Under all versions including 4.0, Alice may pursue copyright violations for the duration in which Bob was not in compliance (subject to a variety of legal issues not relevant to this discussion). But under 3.0 and earlier, Bob is legally obligated to stop distributing the materials entirely unless and until Alice formally restores the license (which, if Bob has half a brain, will probably need to be done in writing with one or more lawyers involved). Under 4.0, Bob's license restores itself automatically if he cures the violation within 30 days of becoming aware of it. Other changes in 4.0 are discussed at [2]. --N Y Kevin 16:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times Bestsellers

This may be a policy issue, but I'll start here. There are about 5,000 pages that have the term New York Times Bestseller, and many are for people who have written books or the books themselves. Often these tout: "his New York Times bestselling book...." This is fine, except that not all NYT bestsellers are equal - far from it. There are those that are on the list for months or years (e.g. a Stephen King book), and there are those that make it into a small-ish category ("Hardback business books") at position 30 for one week. I would like to discuss the idea of requiring those boasts about being on the bestseller list to have a reference to the actual NYT page, or in the case of one that was on the list for more than one date, to have a link to the last page (which then gives the number of weeks on the list by the title). In other words, this is a fact that needs a citation.

It will take a fair amount of work to add ^{[citation needed]} to all of them, but it would at least raise consciousness about the issue if we can get it into a fair number of the articles.

What the NYT list actually means is another level of complication. Now that ebooks are included, those self-published Kindle books that sell for anywhere from $3.99 to $0.00 appear to be included, at least in some cases. Yes, a sale of $0.00 counts as a sale, AFAIK. But I don't think we can sort that out easily, so at this point I would be satisfied with requiring a citation for the claim of NYT bestseller. LaMona (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:PEACOCK doesn't cover phrases like "New York Times bestselling book" because the presence of a book on that list is verifiable, I think in most cases removing that is reasonably within bounds. There's not a policy or guideline which proscribes it, so I wouldn't recommend doing so for a bunch of articles at once but it's the sort of needless puffery that would be excised a before an article reached featured status. Protonk (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't thinking of removing the statements, only adding ^{[citation needed]} as a reminder that saying "NYT bestseller" is a fact that needs a reference. NYT has the best seller lists online only from 2008, unfortunately, but it isn't unreasonable to ask for the reference that isn't online, right? LaMona (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unreasonable, though I would strongly recommend against running through all 5,000 pages in a go. :) If you'd like, you can make a list of the pages that have bestseller statements w/o cites on a user sub page and post a link here so other editors can pick through it and help. Protonk (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for a WelcomeBot

Over at wikiHow (where I come from), we have a feature called WelcomeBot, which automatically welcomes new users. Would a similar feature here be convenient?
Writing Enthusiast (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Use a bot to welcome new users --Gryllida (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for group that works on making things look nice.

Hi! I was just wondering if there is some group of people who are interested in helping stuff look better. I have noticed that many articles, portals, etc. have great content, but don't seem to look very good. Unfortunately, I am not very good at making things look nice. I was working on the Energy portal when I got the idea to ask. One thing that I thought would be nice was making pictures in the portals match each other. Sorry for rambling. :) SpinningSpark suggested that I post this here instead of the help, which was really kind of him. :) I'm still kind of confused on where to post things sometimes.

As I said, I'm not very good with making things look nice, which is why I was hoping there was some sort of group that works to help with this sort of thing. And I do think that photographs and drawings can look really nice together; what I meant to say was that some of the more cartoonish pictures/drawings seem to kind of clash with more realistic/detailed pictures/drawings. Of course, that's just my personal opinion. Again, thanks for taking the time to read this! :) PS: I LOVE the idea of letting people put their ideas into the idea lab so they can be worked on before being proposed!JonathanHopeThisIsUnique (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for polls about wikipedians.

Hi again! :) I noticed that there are lots of templates that someone can put on their userpage to tell more about themselves. I thought it might be nice to make some optional polls that people could fill out, kind of like the big issues section in debate.org, except it would show the matching templates instead of just saying yes or no. Especially since someone might not easily find all the templates that they might have put in their userpage if they did find them. :) JonathanHopeThisIsUnique (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguishing between New Pages Patrol reviews and AfC reviews

A common question I see asked at the Teahouse, Help Desk, and IRC help channel is from users who are confused about why their article draft/user page/sandbox has been 'reviewed' and yet they can see no change. This is particularly confusing for new users who have submitted an Article for Creation - their article being reviewed seems to suggest that an accept or decline decision has been made, and they are confused when no such decision is obvious. This stems from both New Page Patrols and AfC reviews being called 'reviews'; when a page is patrolled the user seems to receives a notification that their page has been 'reviewed'. I suggest that the NPP process be more clearly defined as "patrolled" rather than "reviewed". Sam Walton (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Samwalton9: Please see the open RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Change the name of reviewers to "Pending changes reviewer". --Redrose64 (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though related, that's yet another place where 'review' is used, whereas my post was about the NPP review term. I guess that RfC is worth watching though as it would likely have a similar outcome to this query. Sam Walton (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NPP reviews are referred to as 'patrolls', and inspected pages referred to as having been 'patrolled'. One of the fundamental differences between the two systems is that while submitters to AfC are fully aware that their creations are to be reviewed, many first-time users who create directly in mainspace may not even be aware that such a review process as NPP even exists (at least until their articles get tagged for deletion, COPYVIO, or wrong language). None of the other tags leave a message for the creator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they're referred to as reviews. Having just tested it, a new user with default settings receives a notification and email when their page is patrolled. The notification states "[Page] was reviewed by [User]." and the email says "Subject: Your page was reviewed on Wikipedia. Content: [Page] was reviewed by [User]." I'm not surprised that new users are confused to find that their AfC article hasn't been actually reviewed, and we give them no explanation as to what the review the email is referring to actually is. Sam Walton (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following interface messages control the text in question:

Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 233: / Line 233: @@
 :NPP  reviews ''are'' referred to  as 'patrolls', and inspected pages referred to  as having  been 'patrolled'.  One of the fundamental differences between the two  systems is that  while submitters to  AfC are fully  aware that  their creations are to  be reviewed, many  first-time users  who  create directly in  mainspace may  not  even be aware that  such  a review process as NPP  even exists (at  least  until their articles get  tagged for deletion, COPYVIO, or wrong  language). None of the other tags leave a message for the creator. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 14:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 ::Actually they're referred to as reviews. Having just tested it, a new user with default settings receives a notification and email when their page is patrolled. The notification states "[Page] was reviewed by [User]." and the email says "Subject: Your page was reviewed on Wikipedia. Content: [Page] was reviewed by [User]." I'm not surprised that new users are confused to find that their AfC article hasn't been actually reviewed, and we give them no explanation as to what the review the email is referring to actually is. [[User:Samwalton9|'''S'''am '''W'''alton]] ([[User talk:Samwalton9|talk]]) 15:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
+:The following interface messages control the text in question:
+:*[[MediaWiki:pagetriage-notification-mark-as-reviewed2]]
+:*[[MediaWiki:pagetriage-notification-mark-as-reviewed-flyout]]
+:*[[MediaWiki:pagetriage-notification-mark-as-reviewed-email-subject2]]
+:*[[MediaWiki:pagetriage-notification-mark-as-reviewed-email-batch-body]]
+:*[[MediaWiki:pagetriage-notification-add-maintenance-tag2]]
+:*[[MediaWiki:pagetriage-notification-add-maintenance-tag-flyout]]
+:*[[MediaWiki:pagetriage-notification-add-maintenance-tag-email-subject2]]
+:*[[MediaWiki:pagetriage-notification-add-maintenance-tag-email-batch-body]]
+:*[[MediaWiki:pagetriage-notification-add-deletion-tag2]]
+:*[[MediaWiki:pagetriage-notification-add-deletion-tag-flyout]]
+:*[[MediaWiki:pagetriage-notification-add-deletion-tag-email-subject2]]
+:*[[MediaWiki:pagetriage-notification-add-deletion-tag-email-batch-body]]
+:[[User:Jackmcbarn|Jackmcbarn]] ([[User talk:Jackmcbarn|talk]]) 15:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)