Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 7

• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals (persistent)
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous

Village pump (proposals) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

---

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215

To create articles for hours 00:01, 00:02... 23:58, 23:59

Is it interesting to create those articles? Examples of information that can be there: earthquakes, STS missions, astronomical predictions (eclipses), exact hour of Kennedy assasination. All in UTC format. --Emijrp (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it'd be a good idea since a) Many things happen over longer or less definite periods of time and b) it would accumulate cruft. As is I personally find the date articles borderline. Nihiltres^{t.l} 17:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Nihiltres. It would be time-cruft^?, and the date articles are barely worth keeping. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Cruft is a bad word. Please don't use it and make your case with a clear, solid explanation that doesn't rely on a catch-all term. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea bad idea This is a Secret ^account 21:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• There is a good reason to keep articles on dates. Dates are a common query people use to search for information. Like "What happened on my birthday on May 16, 1981". I highly doubt a similar case can be made for times. Besides, it would open a whole can of worms too. How would you count time on a ship disaster in international waters. What time would apply? Too much bother for too little gain. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  Oppose. I agree with MacGyverMagic. An article on a specific time would collect together information that has nothing to do with each other. Also, the same earthquake might accidentally be listed under more than one time as different agencies (or the same agency at different times) come up with slightly different locations and origin times. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

  Oppose. While there is at least some correspondence between 5 November one year and 5 November the next, there's next to no correspondence between 4:15 PM one day and 4:15 PM on a day three months later. We celebrate the anniversaries of events, but we don't celebrate the times that they occurred (with a few exceptions). As such, I don't see any reason creating these thousand (1440, to be exact) articles is necessary or helpful. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems about the definition of randomly selected, coincidentally-related factoids put together into a garbage article. If you don't like "cruft", or "garbage article", well, it can always get called a spade instead. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference subsets

I'd like to see an extended capability with the <ref>/<reference> subsystem that will allow subsets of the references to be viewed. This will be particularly useful, for example, in cases where notes need to be separated from references, and on list pages where notes for subsections are appropriate. For example,

• a citation could look like: <ref group="notes" name="myname">cite template here...</ref>
• the notes sections could be: <reference group="notes"/>

What do you think? Would this be something that could be implemented without great difficulty? I'd prefer an approach like this as the old method of implementing notes is unwieldy and a nuisance to maintain. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Such things are often discussed at WT:FOOT. (SEWilco (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

bugzilla:11899 is related to this.—Random832 14:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes I was pondering what alternative notation to use. Many old-style notes use letters rather than numbers. It would be good to allow an option similar to the CSS list-style-type for an ordered list, but I'm not sure how you would implement that. — RJH (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Misleading shortcut - proposal to search/replace it

Because it was ambiguous and was being misinterpretted by some editors citing it, Wikipedia:Avoid self-references has been renamed to Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid.

The new shortcut is WP:SRTA.

The old shortcut (WP:ASR), which is an acronym for the old title, is equally misleading.

I hereby request consensus to search/replace "[[WP:ASR]]" with the new shortcut to accelerate awareness of the guideline's new name, to prevent "ASR" from being misinterpretted as "avoid all self-references" which is a common mistake in AfDs, etc.

The Transhumanist 23:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support - as proposer. The Transhumanist (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• The shortcut will be almost exclusively used in comments people have made on talk pages or project pages, and replacing the shortcut will be altering their comments. It's also a pure waste of server resources to be making automated edits to replace a redirect. We have redirects for a reason. --bainer (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The server costs need to be weighed against the human benefits. How many mistaken AfDs will be prevented by replacing the erroneous acronym? How many conflicts averted? How many contentious discussions resolved before they are started? If it was just a plain ole shortcut, I wouldn't have asked. The Transhumanist 04:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Leave it as-is. If someone used WP:ASR, then they were referring, rightly or wrongly, to the policy under its own name. By changing it, you're potentially changing the meaning of what they wrote. --Carnildo (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Don't fix redirects that aren't broken - it's a waste of server resources. There is no point in the proposal - editors who have not heard of the self-references guideline, who find the shortcut WP:ASR, are unlikely to get the wrong impression from it. If the shortcut WP:ASR is changed to something else, like what happened when WP:EA was changed from Esperanza to editor assistance, then such a change could be considered. Graham87 09:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose There are over 1000 links, most probably in old AFDs and talk archives, and I would wager many people still don't know about the name change. Unless there is something else that ASR is going to be redirected to, I don't see the point. Mr.Z-man 15:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Pointless. All of the usages are likely in either edit summaries (which cannot be altered) or comments (which should not), and, for that matter, changing _past_ uses will have no effect one way or the other on _future_ misuse. —Random832 14:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The one thing that could have an effect (but likely isn't going to happen) would be to delete the redirect - then people might look into the issue further when they see the shortcut they linked is a redlink. —Random832 15:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

need help with contribution issues

helpme

i wish to submit rules for a card game i made up for standard playing cards. should i copyright the narritive first? i'm really only looking to get credit for originally devising it. if posting it here will copy write it for me then that would be fine i suppose. i read the copyright literature for such things but my head is still spinning. (helpme) -- Justsomewikiguy

From what it sounds, it probably doesn't follow notability guidelines. You might want to check that link before making your article so you don't fall prey to any sticky deletion situations. bibliomaniac15 00:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your card game must achieve some fame first before it can be covered in Wikipedia. Sell 5,000 units, or get it displayed or mentioned on several thousand websites (not forums), and it will be notable enough for representation here. An article about it in Time Magazine would also suffice.  :-) The Transhumanist (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

yes i suppose that is a wise policy. the game it's self is based on the blood bath struggle surrounding the diamond trade. so in that it could maybe be somewhat notable? i wrote it while i was in jail for the 5 months preceding my trial for 2nd degree murder. they reduced the charge after police admitted to having every indication that i had no intent to kill. they reduced the charge to first degree reckless homicide(a charge that does not have the burden of showing intent to kill) and still lost to my self defense plea. the trial received plenty of coverage as a case involving the passing of a human being should. perhaps i could merge the game with an article about the incident or of myself during that tumultuous time? i think the vast loss of human life surrounding this game might be considered in some way as notable. but i guess i could try to get it published in a magazine or two. let me know. justsomewikiguy ( talk) 12:00pm, 27 nov 2007 (CT)

If you get some newspaper coverage (a single article in a magazine probably wouldn't do it), then there is certainly the possibility of a Wikipedia article. At that point, you might want to start a new conversation at the Drawing board, keeping in mind that we generally dislike articles about a topic that are written by someone very close to the topic. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

thx justsomewikiguy ( talk) 08:37(ct) 11/24/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.175.200.137 (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

We should tell newbies what to do to create an article

As I mentioned previously, we do practically nothing to let newbies know what should go into an article. So it is no surprise that they create so many useless articles. I just looked at 100 New pages - 62 of them had no references. That's probably typical. An article without references is usually not notable and not verifiable. Such articles are often speedily deleted.

The normal route to creating an article is through the search box. When the article is not found, users are immediately invited to "create this page". There is nothing in the way of advice as to what should go into a new article. What I recommend is to modify MediaWiki:Noexactmatch as follows:

No page with that title exists.

You can search again:

• Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive, except for the first character; please check alternate capitalizations.
• See all pages that begin with this prefix.
• See all pages within Wikipedia that link to the page.
• See Wikipedia:Searching for more search tips.

To create this article:

• Read Wikipedia:Your first article.
• Gather references to the source(s) of your information.
• Create the page.
• Add your references.

The important changes are to tell people to read Wikipedia:Your first article and to tell them to add references to the article. If users actually follow these directions we'll get better referenced articles and fewer useless articles. Admittedly, that's still a big "if" but at least we'll have pointed editors in the right direction. Sbowers3 (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Something similar that has been playing through my mind, is to make something like the WP:AFC template:

<!--put the text of your article here-->

==References==

{{refbegin}}

<!--List the sources from which your article is referenced here (without them, the article might be deleted!)-->

{{refend}}

and possibly:<!-- remove the below tag after your references are added -->

{{unreferenced}}

Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There's that "Help" link on the left side of the page as a starting point. (SEWilco (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

There were various suggestions and a Wizard created in a recent discussion about anon page creation. Don't remember where it was. (SEWilco (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

I like Sbowers3's idea, though I don't like specifying that you need to add references after creating the page. Let me be bold and see if this is acceptable. [1]--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That was quick. Now that it is in place, we'll see what the reaction is. One thing: possibly the new wording should be used only in the Mainspace not in other spaces. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the reason I left out the "request it" is because WP:RA is so hard to figure out and has a gigantic backlog. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion was in this VP recently.[2] with further discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anon page creation. One of the proposals was for guided article creation and a test wizard was developed (Wikipedia:Article wizard). SEWilco (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

I think you might as well go ahead and make it impossible to save the page unless there is a references section with at least one citation. The days of creating a stub for an article that somebody really ought to write are pretty much over in practice. I've been watching the speedy deletions pages and articles without references are tagged within minutes of creation, and deleted soon after. Newcomers who just want to try their hand at an article would have a better experience if they can't save the page without a citation, then they do if they start a page stub and immediately feel challenged and harassed by an administrator who has to delete 200 pages a minute just to keep up with the spam, so the administrator doesn't have the time to google the topic, or wait for the creator to get around to finishing the article. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking that it might be useful to have a ==References=== {{Reflist}} section attached by default to all newly created article pages. It's a small world! Though I would hesitate in making article creation too frustrating for anons and new users. Bear in mind that the bulk of Wikipedia is written by new users (see AaronSw's article) who might just give up if having to do too many difficult things. It's up to us, the more experienced Wikipedians, to shape the raw material and make it acceptable to the Wiki community. Too much instruction and people may give up and go away. A quick google may not turn up top quality sources, but it will generally throw up enough to show if the article if verifiable or not - and takes on average the same amount of time as it does to prepare an article for AfD. I think some people might be sending articles to AfD on principle without doing a quick search for sources because an anon had the nerve to create an article without references. That is not doing the project any favours. Where am I going with this thought? I don't know. It's late, and I should go to bed..... SilkTork *SilkyTalk 01:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Politics on main page

Yesterday, for a short period of time, one of the "Did you know" entries mentioned a U.S. political candidate [3]. This entry was soon removed because it seemed inappropriate, and I think that was reasonable. It seems to me there should be a record of a discussion on the wiki about this sort of thing, since it will probably come up again before November 2008, when the US presidential election occurs. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems fine to me, although it did look somewhat like there was a little bit of favoritism. It doesn't seem to be much of a problem in my opinion. Captain panda 02:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that wikipedia is not censored. I know there was a time when this was followed: Talk:Duncan Hunter presidential campaign, 2008, Talk:Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election. However if editors want to break this rule, I don't care. I'd just like the courtesy of letting the editors who edit these type of articles know that they cannot put their hooks on the suggestions for the DYK. Because of this I developed this template:

However editors have reverted it twice and feel that I am being disruptive.--STX 02:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that neutrality is a core principle of Wikipedia. I know that these articles are neutral, but putting them on the main page of Wikipedia, where tens of millions of people will see them, provide certain candidates with additional publicity. I can certainly imagine other candidates demanding the same kind of publicity. As such, while the articles are neutral, I do not think that they should appear on the main page, at least during the primary campaign. Danny (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

So do you agree with my template?--STX 03:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, from a technical standpoint, the template looks terrible on Firefox, with the U.S. flag overlapping the text. The U.S. flag also seems to imply that only U.S. politics are forbidden.

Aside from that, anything we put on the main page will attract additional publicity. If Hillary Clinton was a featured article and we displayed it on the main page, that would be fine since the article would be NPOV. It may even encourage others to improve other candidates' articles to featured status. Even so, we should make it clear (with a special disclaimer if necessary) that we are not endorsing the candidate, and should subject articles like this to high scrutiny for compliance with WP:NPOV. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. NPOV means "treat no differently one way or the other". If someone makes a good DYK or FA or ABCXYZ during the campaign, consider it like one would consider anything else. (If the article is truly NPOV, it shouldn't be either encouraging or discouraging someone from voting for the person anyway!) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the foundation be asked about this? Featuring something about a candidate on the front page may have implications for campaign funding rules / equal time requirements / etc (I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if any of this applies, that's why I said we should ask someone from the foundation).—Random832 14:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As I have said elsewhere, I think we need to be mindful of avoiding it looking like Wikipedia is endorsing any political candidates. A massive public row about what candidates are receiving the most prominent coverage on Wikipedia is not in our interests. There are plenty of DYK hooks to be chosen - updaters should simply use their best judgment about what may be problematic main page content. I agree that there is some unfairness to the writers of such articles, but I think it is unavoidable. Wikipedia insiders will realise that DYK appearances are not politically motivated but it isn't going to look like that to outside interests. The article remains uncensored, the main page just needs to be updated with some discretion. WjBscribe 15:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As always, let the Foundation handle legal issues, since the vast majority of us here are not lawyers, and even those who are are not the Foundation's lawyers. If they say it's legally disallowed or could cause legal problems, that's another story and we must heed that advice, but if they do not notify us of such an issue, we should neither include nor exclude DYKs solely on the basis of their subject. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of the reasons given here against displaying such articles on the main page are completely ludicrous: if other candidates come asking for main page coverage, the answer is quite clearly: no, we do not advertise; as far as I'm aware Wikipedia is not legaly obliged to give all candidates equal coverage, if it is, then this an issue the Wikimedia Foundation should be dealing with; if in fact a certain candidate gains additional exposure by being mentioned on the main page, then this exposure is as much negative as positive, assuming the article is balanced, which in this case it was. Wikipedia also has information on the main page about Nawaz Sharif, who is running for office in Pakistan, should we remove this also? We have coverage of the riots in France, should we remove it to avoid encouraging kids to take part in those? It's consensus that Wikipedia should have coverage on current events, so it would be ridiculous to stop informing about elections in the US because of a notion that this might actually influence these elections.--Carabinieri (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This is probably more complicated a discussion than it needs to be. Although we fight bias, having a particular political candidate on the main page, even if it is the only featured article of any candidate, presents the appearance of bias even where the decision was impartial, or indeed may introduce a form of bias in that one is featured and another is not (but that's up for debate). We cannot, in terms of public relations, afford that with Wikipedia's visibility, even if it is an arbitrary choice in keeping with our principles. This is a matter for discretion regardless of the ideal of treating all issues important enough for the main page equally. Nihiltres^{t.l} 16:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

USA centric articles will be deleted? How is that possibly collegial? Your warning is offensive. Corvus cornix_talk 19:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Searching Wikipedia

I think searching wikipedia is quite hard if you're looking for something that is quite difficult to spell because it doesn't have a "Did you mean . . ." feature, and i think it should, any thoughts. -- Hadseys (talk • contribs) 15:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that searching Wikipedia is rather difficult. Between the minor spelling errors, and capitalization of some letters, its easier to use an advanced Google search. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Whenever I look for something and misspell it, I'll create a redirect once I find the correct spelling. That will help anyone else whose makes the same mistake. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Same here-- Penubag  02:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you create a redirect?

See Help:Redirect -- Boracay Bill 01:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

When you end up on the Wikipedia search page, to the right of the search term is a pulldown menu which lets you choose other search tools. The second option on the list is Google, which does use spelling correction. (SEWilco (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC))

Dating of Photos

As with newspapers, I find it irritating that photos are printed with so much information, but often neglect the date.

Please require photos to be dated it adds a dimension of information and helps historical context.

Can date either with specific actual date,

or

with approximate date, i.e. "ca. 1946".

Date should appear when cursor hovers over photo or illustration, so reader need not activate hyperlink to get more info on picture.

Thanks for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobber100 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Clicking on a photo will show the image description page. If the uploader specified a date it will be displayed there. (SEWilco (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC))

I think Bobber100 meant for it to be mandatory if the photo has historical significance. We can't really do that Bobber, as I doubt all that many uploaders are aware of when the photo was taken, but putting more significance on it on the upload page might not be all that much of a bad idea. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 03:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

A new wiki for phrases and expressions

Such a wiki project could list the meaning of popular and obscure phrases. "Walking on eggshells", "Kill the keg", "Cream of the crop", "Raining cats and dogs", "Wild goose chase", "Feet of clay", "Put a sock in it", "Out to lunch", "Hold your horses", "What's Up?", "Dropped the ball", "Quit cold turkey", "Right up your alley".

Searching for a group of words results in a close match, or you could search "for all words", "some of the words" or "exact phrase". So...call it a "Phrasipedia" or an "Expressionary"?

-boozerker 05:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• • I think Google can do a good enough job for me-- Penubag  06:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary is what you're wanting. See wild-goose chase, cream of the crop, rain cats and dogs, feet of clay, put a sock in it, out to lunch, hold one's horses, what's up, etc... EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah beautiful. Well, I'd like to start a wiktionary entry for "keg is kicked". How do you tell the wiki search engine to find that specific entry when a user searches for variations such as "kicked keg", "kicking the keg", or killing the keg"?-boozerker 04:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Just create redirects. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

building a Wikiquote startup quote flash program

Hey,

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, if not please guide me.

I love Wikiquote, but it's hard to bring myself to regulary check out Wikiquote pages. Is there somebody in the Wiki community that is willing to build a small program that randomly displays one quote out of manually inserted Wikiquote urls during the last phase of the Windows or/and Mac OS startup?

If you think it's a good idea and you can build a program like this, please consider.

Floris from Belgium

Regarding #1, do you mean something like this? If so, I suggest searching Google with these keywords:

Wikipedia toolbar

and seeing what else you can find. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Floris replying: Thank you John for helping me out with my other search; a Wikipedia search bar, it works well.

Adding user scripts to Special:Preferences

(Discussion transferred from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User scripts.)

One of the problems that WP:US faces at the moment is that it isn't as widely known as maybe it ought to be, and that the method of installing scripts isn't intuitive and involves editing a personal scripts page, even if the user in question doesn't have an interest in developing scripts but only wanted to use them. Advances like {{subst:js}} are only so effective in this regard; but now, it seems that a better option is available. There is an extension mw:Extension:Gadgets that adds user scripts stored in MediaWiki: space as options in Special:Preferences; that way, we can have several users (probably mostly WP:US members, although there would be no reason to restrict the people who could check) check various scripts to see if they were safe to add as user preferences, and then an admin could edit MediaWiki space accordingly to add the script as a preference that users could easily access, install and uninstall, a sort of WP:US/S that's officially sanctioned by the software. Normally, this sort of project is the sort of thing that just gathers a bit of support on WP:VPR and then dies because nobody wants to implement it; however, the code has already been written, and reviewed by developers, and it is currently live on the German Wikipedia (if you have an account on dewiki, go to de:Special:Preferences and click on the rightmost tab to see the new code in action). This makes it seem much more likely that if their is community consensus, that extension will be installed. At the moment, I'm just posting this suggestion here, to see if people interested in user scripts think that this is a good idea; if the conversation here seems encouraging, I'll link it from VPR and we can have a proper attempt to gain consensus here to make a request to devs to enable this feature. Does anyone else think this is a good (or bad) idea? I'm trying to gauge consensus, so even a 'me too' is useful here if you agree. --ais523 14:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong support from me. Slightly better link: de:Special:Preferences?uselang=en. Relevant bugs: mediazilla:11956 (done for de.wp) and mediazilla:12020 (done for fr.wp). The only thing I don't like is that Gadget code is included after user code, which is kind of limits the flexibility for CSS gadgets ∴ AlexSm 16:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that it might sometimes be possible to override that using !important, but I agree that it isn't ideal. It's still a big improvement over the edit-your-monobook method, though. --ais523 10:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll copy this to VPR in an attempt to get enough consensus for the devs, then. --ais523 12:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that this feature would be helpful and useful for Wikipedians. In order for it to be enabled by developers, there will be a need for consensus here; if people agree with this – or have objections – it would be useful if they post here to establish whether there is the required consensus. --ais523 12:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree it would be a good idea to have this. It is a lot easier to tick a box than to start pasting in javascript code. I do think however, it would be necessary to make especially sure that scripts made available like this are secure and don't do anything wrong, since they are more likely to be enabled by people who don't know entirely what they're doing. Tra (Talk) 20:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, it would be wise to avoid some of the more complex and/or powerful script features whose effect may not be understood. Adrian M. H. 22:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that it might be a good idea to screen which scripts are added beforehand. Nothing that's non-portable between browsers, or slow to run, or likely to be misused in ignorance by a new user, would be good ideas to add to the list; nor anything that requires configuration or is insecure. This still leaves many possibilities, though. --ais523 15:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I love this idea in principle - there are a lot of really useful scripts of which most users are not aware, which can easily be made "features". On the other hand, I read the "Caveats" section on the mw: page, and it notes that this extension is explicitly not compatible with the CologneBlue skin. I presume that most people use Monobook, but how do we address this limitation? Nihiltres^{t.l} 16:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It needs a change to the core software, rather than the extension: I've submitted bugzilla:12064 to request that a hook into the relevant place on non-Monobook-based skins be added so that the extension will work on them. --ais523 16:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I support adding this extension to the wiki. :) FunPika 01:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Support. It would be convenient. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Request to the developers submitted, at bugzilla:12190. --ais523 19:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It would appear the extension is up and running. :) FunPika 01:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I've added popups. Now someone needs to get lupin to rewrite the whole thing so you can still configure the script. (off default settings) :) Prodego ^talk 01:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You messed up. MediaWiki:Gadgets-popups.js should be at MediaWiki:Gadget-popups.js. FunPika 02:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've started Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Gadgets in an attempt to decide which scripts should and should not be added; anyone who sees this, feel free to help out! --ais523 09:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Public admin identity

Why do some admins fail to make it clear that they are admins? They either don't use an admin userbox (okay, not everyone likes userboxes), or don't have [[Category:Wikipedia administrators]] at the bottom of their user page. I think it should be a requirement. Among other things, it would help to quickly clear up the confusion caused by ordinary editors who act like admins in their attempts to intimidate other users. This matter no doubt has a long history, but I'd like to get more information on the subject. -- Fyslee / talk 02:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It's easy enough to see WP:LOA, but not everyone is aware of this. A gentle reminder to admins who haven't put themselves in the category on their user page could be helpful. I doubt that anyone deliberately hides the fact that they're an admin (if anything, it's more common for non-admins to pretend to be admins, as implied in your comment). Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The counterpoint is that if admins are just users with a few extra buttons, and no special authority over content, then there should be no need to identify them. In fact, self-identifying as an admin might even be seen as an inappropriate effort to gain advantage in disputes. Some people feel very strongly about keeping a low profile for reasons like those. Dragons flight (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Someone added the admin star to my page, and I kept it for some time, but afterwards I removed it because I don't want people to be intimidated by it when discussing article content. And new users and anonymous, which I deal with very often, are easily intimidated by "admins" (unless they are vandals, that is). And since I am mostly in watchlist watch, I don't really need others to be aware I am one. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The counterargument to wanting to keep a low profile is that admins have access to some tools that are unavailable to others. Thus, it's good to let others know you're an admin so that folks can call on you for help when they need it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The counter-counterargument is that processes like WP:AFD, WP:RM, WP:AIV, etc. provide mechanisms to request those tools be used without needing to seek out specific individuals. Not to mention that there is no shortage of admins who do advertise, so it's not an argument for all admins needing to. Dragons flight (talk) 03:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Some admins don't even have user pages. For an accurate list, use Special:Listadmins. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:LOA is plenty IMO. If an admin does not want to promote him/herself as one, I see no reason to force them to. Saying that "When people visit your userpage they must clearly be able to identify you as an admin" seems like a pointless, and somewhat bureaucratic and / or "instruction creep-y" idea.. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What I am reading here are some very unconvincing arguments supporting avoiding scrutiny from other users. Being an admin is a position of responsibility and trust, and public scrutiny and openness come with the job. This lack of openness is a constant irritation and needs fixing. It should be obvious and easy to determine (without any special effort) whether an editor has any special powers or rights. Their user page should provide that information. Unless we are starting a new category of "undercover" admins, then they should "wear their badge." -- Fyslee / talk 05:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does it matter? You shouldn't be treating admins fundementally differently than other users and both admins and regular users should treat you with the same respect. Dragons flight (talk) 05:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course. To experienced editors that goes without saying. In this case it's a straw man, because that's not what I'm talking about. -- Fyslee / talk 05:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you say it is important that admins be more easily identified. I'd like to know why you think it is important? Vague statements about lack of openness seem unconvincing to me. Dragons flight (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Undercover admins? That isn't possible, as it is very simple to verify any admin status. Takes 5 seconds. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

True enough for experienced editors who want to go to the trouble, and even many of them don't know how. It should be obvious and easy for everyone, including (and especially for) newbies. -- Fyslee / talk 05:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when I don't, it causes me a whole bunch of embarrassment when I ask to nom them for RFA. bibliomaniac15 05:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be a bit embarrassing. I'm sorry, but it is fairly simple to do a quick check. Sometimes, I even have more respect for the admins that do not advertise as such, as they must realize being an admin is "no big deal", and it certainly isn't a trophy, so there shouldn't be anything to display, on a mandatory basis, that is. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would check logs before asking to nom them (mainly the upload log) which would reveal if they are an admin. Also, the main reason for this seems to be so that admins are more open to scrutiny. If you are scrutinizing them for an admin action, obviously you know they are an admin. If you are scrutinizing them for edits, it doesn't matter, an admin is just an editor with extra maintenance tools. If you are scrutinizing them for behavior, I can't see why it would matter either. Are there any situations, that don't involve the use of admin tools, where you would want to complain about an admin, but not any other editor? I can't imagine seeing someone do something wrong, and considering mentioning it to them but deciding not to because they weren't an admin or treating them more harshly because they were. Mr.Z-man 07:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that admins should be treated harsher for avoiding and disobeying guidelines. The community has entitled them with a privelage, which was earned by their trust. That privelage comes with a responsibility, and they must not abuse that trust. Of course, they are editors just like anyone, but they have the title of being an exceptional Wikipedian; and they surely can't make the community lose their trust in them, and make them regret ever instilling adminship over them. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 18:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

My mention of avoiding "scrutiny" may be a bit misleading, because I wasn't thinking of negative things. I just find it irritating that admins, who are volunteer "employees" of Wikimedia, who are entrusted with powers and rights, and who are doing a valuable (and often thankless) service to this great project, aren't required to wear their "uniform and badge", i.e. identify themselves as admins. I still haven't heard a legitimate reason for them not to do it. Other jobs require it, why not here? As editors we are all equals, but in other ways I have no problem with there being a sort of well deserved status that is recognized. After all, admins have been chosen by their peers and found to be worthy of trust. That's great! Admins who wield their tools and mops properly earn my respect and deepest gratitude. But all this about status and worthiness is an aside. My basic position is that the job comes with a badge that should be worn. I am definitely not impressed by most of the responses I have found here, Raymond Arritt's excepted. I had hoped that great wisdom would flow out of this village's pump, but I guess I'm wasting my time. -- Fyslee / talk 07:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because you don't agree with the views here, you're calling it a waste of time? I'm still saying, adminship is no big deal (you may have heard that once or twice), and adminship is not a trophy, and there should be no mandatory displays of such. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Straw man. That's not the reason I am asking for a simple display of accurate identification. It comes with the territory. You accept the position, you allow people to easily know it. -- Fyslee / talk 18:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It is extremely hard to make a policy forcing people to do something, especially something like this. Most, except for some style guidelines, are basically of the form "Don't do X." They may say "Do Y instead" but we have very little way to enforce or encourage Y. We can say "If you are uncivil, you can be blocked" but we have no system to reward people for being extra nice. Encouraging admins to identify as such on userpages would work, but how would we enforce a requirement? Also, admins are in no way volunteer employees of Wikimedia, no more so than any other editor. Most of admin work is being a janitor, cleaning up the crap that people seem spill all over the place. Acting as cops is a small part of being an admin and not even an expected part. Much of what people ask admins to do on boards like WP:ANI does not require an admin to do and many requests for help are turned down because of that. People expect that if an admin comes in and gives an opinion on a content dispute that that will solve the dispute. But all an admin can do in such a situation is give his opinion on the dispute and say "follow the rules", just as any other editor could do. Mr.Z-man 08:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Barring it being a requirement, a request to all admins would be appreciated. As to "forcing", sure, that doesn't sound very nice, but if it came with the job description as part of the territory, then it shouldn't be any problem. In that case the very few who might refuse to become admins because of that little requirement, well, we can do without them as I would be rather suspicious of their capabiliies. I don't mean "suspicious" as in "assuming bad faith." Not at all. Only that maybe they aren't up to dealing with the public scrutiny that can come with a job where one occasionally needs to administer and use the authority one has been entrusted with. Maybe my use of the word "employee" was incorrect. My point is that they are doing volunteer work and represent, in some way, the arm of Wikipedia, if such exists. They have the power to enforce policies and deal with those who work against the purposes of Wikipedia. Some don't get involved in any enforcement issues, while others do function as "cops", which is a very necessary function here. As to content disputes, yes, we are all equal. It's the content and sourcing that count, not the status of the editor. Yet, in editing situations, I have seen some beautiful examples where that very status does command a certain amount of restraint from otherwise disruptive editors and such admins then calm the storm, even without issuing any threats. Those editors know that this person does have a right to deal more effectively and promptly with bad behavior, than the other editors at the table, and they are more prone to behave properly. In this sense the admin is functioning as an unofficial referee. I wish that such a "referee" position and job description were created for those admins willing to do it. -- Fyslee / talk 18:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Being an admin is a position of responsibility and trust, and public scrutiny and openness come with the job. This lack of openness is a constant irritation and needs fixing. It should be obvious and easy to determine (without any special effort) whether an editor has any special powers or rights. Their user page should provide that information.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. When you come to a user talk page to discuss an editing matter, an admin is just another editor. It's against the rules for an admin to use his/her admin powers in a content dispute in which he/she is involved; done repeatedly, that will lead to de-sysopping. Unless you're suggesting, somehow, that you'd behave differently when commenting about something to an admin than to another (experienced) editor, it's unclear why a user talk page or user page needs to declare adminship. (Me, personally, I check the date someone started editing, not the user page.) Similarly, when an editor who is an admin edits an article (unless it's fully protected), he/she does so as an editor, not an admin. If an admin were to (say) add info to an article without citing a source, that would be poor editing practice - worthy of a polite note, perhaps - but it wouldn't be any grounds whatsoever to argue that the person should be de-sysopped, or is a poor admin, or whatever.

Another possible misunderstanding here: public scrutiny and openness DO come with the job - when an admin does something that only an admin can do - block, protect, delete, whatever - the admin's name is on that action. That's about as transparent as it gets. And you can filter block logs and other logs by user name, so you can - if you see an admin action that you question - easily see what else that admin did, as an admin. There is no "lack of openness", unless you're arguing by definition - that failure to declare adminship is a "lack of openness", ergo a problem (by definition). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

John, we are actually in agreement. There is no misunderstanding since I'm not talking about admins as editors. I think I mention that above. As editors it's all about the editing, sourcing, etc.. In that regard we are all equals. I have known admins who (wisely) have clarified during their editing that they are definitely not editing as an admin, but as an ordinary editor. That is information that should only be necessary for newbies, but even more experienced editors can forget that we really are equals at the editing table.

I'm talking about the position itself, so your last sentence about "openness" is precisely what I'm getting at. It is openness "before the fact" that should be a given with the territory. When a police officer graduates, they get a badge, when someone gets a job, it may come with a uniform. Even if an admin isn't wearing their "badge", it should be easy to see from their user page that they in fact are admins. Why the user page when other places list all the admins? Because everybody, from newbies to readers, should be able to find that information easily. I see no justification for this not being the case. If someone isn't willing to declare up front that they are an admin, maybe they shouldn't be an admin. I can think of a number of reasons why that might be the case, and those reasons apply to other editors as well, especially if they have revealed personal information. -- Fyslee / talk 04:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think "not stating on their userpage that they are an admin" equates to "unwilling to declare it upfront" which suggests that they are hiding it. But even if they were hiding the fact (which would mean that they also weren't doing any admin actions) why is that necessarily bad? Since an admin is just a regular editor when they are not doing an admin action. Mr.Z-man 05:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there are any odious motives going on here, but some comments above indicate an unwillingness to making it easier for editors and others to find out if an editor who is an admin actually is an admin. I have numerous times (daily?) use for that information since I often need help (or other things that only an admin can provide) from another editor on the article I'm editing or visiting. It is irritating and confusing to not have that information readily available. It is during this thread that I first learned of the WP:LOA link, and I've been editing here for nearly three years. I may have happened upon it before, but I certainly don't have it on the tip of my tongue whenever I need it, and newbies and readers certainly don't either. Are we going to be service minded or not? -- Fyslee / talk 05:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Admins who want to display that they are admins will; admins who don't, won't. The accurate list is available at Special:Listadmins. There are user page guidelines, however, this is beyond the scope of them. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, admins should make it clear on both their user and talk pages that they are admins and I think we should say something official to that effect. The list is too remote, too many clicks away. When I get good advice or see a good edit, it does not matter whether it comes from an admin or not. But I also occasionally get warnings, scolding, utter misunderstandings of policy, closing or deletion of discussions, contentious edits and reverts, and other nonsense from editors. When someone does that you want to figure out who they are and why they did that, both to figure out what the possible consequences are of holding your ground, and on the remote possibility that they may even be right. Whatever the theory may be, admins are considerably more hazardous to cross, and get more respect than non-admins in the event of a dispute. If you don't think so, take a look at the difference in how admins versus non-admins are treated as either complainants or complained-about parties on AN/I. Not to mention admins blocking people for not doing what they demand. Wikidemo (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I should add on the positive side that I do give admins some extra benefit of the doubt if they make an edit I initially don't undestand, particularly when it's a statement about policies, guidelines, and behavior. That's not giving them different status or two votes in a discussion, it's simply knowing where someone is coming from when they say something. If an admin doesn't want to claim that credit for themselves, fine, their choice (and perhaps the project's loss). It really is when an admin does something questionable that they should not be obscuring the fact that they are an admin. Wikidemo (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

On both the positive and negative points Wikidemo is right on. I have the same attitude and experiences. Wikidemo, we need to share a bottle of Sin Zin from Alexander Valley Wineries! -- Fyslee / talk 06:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I don't want the extra benefit of the doubt, Wikidemo. If any edit I do is controversial, undo me and request an explanation. That is why I do not disclose my status in my page. In fact, when Interiot and W.marsh were going to nominate me, I pointed out that I would apply for adminship only if that didn't mean me to renounce to my wikignome status. And part of that means appearing just another user. I understand Fyslee' feelings, and would add me to such category if necessary. However, I think it would be better to just make the list of administrators more prominent, so that even those spending little time here get to know where to check for administrators. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support the proposal that admins be required to disclose on their userpage that they are an admin (with the minimum of an admin category or userbox). This should go without saying. Badagnani (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• I love watching people assert that adminship is no big deal. While that is the ideal that wiki goes around promoting, everyone knows that the reality is very different. If it was truly no big deal, we wouldn't even need RfA, which was one of many proposal made on a recent RFC about adminship and RfAs. Many called the process broken. Defending it as "no big deal" seems a bit antiquated. IvoShandor (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support - May as well have admins be tagged even if it doesn't usually matter. I had one editor get upset about my reverting their changes because I was reverting an admin. I had no idea the person was an admin and it didn't matter because they were just article edits. I wouldn't have checked the user's page anyway, so wouldn't have known an admin as present, but it does make sense for admins to be labeled. (SEWilco (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

• Disagree - I don't see a valid reason yet to make it mandatory that admins be 'badged.' There are no undercover admins, the lists of things difficult for newbies to recognize is approaching infinity and such a newbie can learn just as well from an experienced editor as from an admin. Any other editor can find the lists of admin just as s/he can find any other existing policy on Wikipedia. In the end, involuntarily badging someone removes rights from admins seeking to not be seen as special. Thanks, --LeyteWolfer (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Before we all make this a policy & figure out the best way to enforce it, has anyone thought of simple education? What I mean by this is to find these "undercover Admins" & explain why they should identify themselves. Write an article for The Signpost explaining why this is a good idea. I'm certain most of these "undercover Admins" simply have never considered doing this: I only started doing this two years ago when I belated noticed other Admins had been doing it, realized it was a good thing, & made the necessary modifications. No one ever took a moment to suggest the idea to me, & it's been many, many moons since I read the documents & policy about how to be an Admin. Who knows? Perhaps a lot of these types realized what a pain being an Admin is, & have been looking for a way to be relieved of the bit. -- llywrch 20:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Special:Listadmins lists every administrator. Simply type the name there, and you will know. There can be no secret admins.

Now that everyone can see that, I direct you to WP:USERPAGE. Prodego ^talk 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)