Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab Miscellaneous 
This page is for discussion about the page Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) only. You may want one of the village pump subpages above, or one of the links on the village pump main page. Irrelevant discussions will be moved or removed.
« Archives, 1

The Sandbox[edit]

Whoever came up with the Sandbox was a genius. The sandbox plays a big role in allowing me to preview and practice my editing without damaging or messing up the work of others. But why does Wikipedia make our sandbox a secret place? What I mean is, when you sign in there is nothing in any menu that leads you back to it. I can't even remember how I went there the first time. I did eventually find it in my edit history and bookmarked it. But how hard is it to just add it to the menu after we log in?

If this disscussion or inquiry is in the wrong area, send me a message and I will move it. JericVgilbert (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Isn't there a link to your personal sandbox at the top of every page, next to your username? --TerraCodes (talk to me) 08:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, in your personal menu bar, top left. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC Announce: Wikimedia referrer policy[edit]

In February of 2016 the Wikimedia foundation started sending information to all of the websites we link to that allow the owner of the website (or someone who hacks the website, or law enforcement with a search warrant / subpoena) to figure out what Wikipedia page the user was reading when they clicked on the external link.

The WMF is not bound by Wikipedia RfCs, but we can use an advisory-only RfC to decide what information, if any, we want to send to websites we link to and then put in a request to the WMF. I have posted such an advisory-only RfC, which may be found here:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy

Please comment so that we can determine the consensus of the Wikipedia community on this matter. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

This RfC (now closed) can now be found at WP:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy.
— Stanning (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Accomodating multiple varieties of English[edit]

This is a non-starter. Closing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since the discussion was closed while I was typing my answer I'm adding my answer to that proposal to "the appropriate discussion page"...

Incidentally, on what grounds was the discussion closed?

Isn't that page for discussing proposals?

The only justification for closing the discussion that I could find was the word "No".

Can people just close discussions without giving anything other as a reason than "No"?

Hope to be enlightened.

Anyway... Here is my answer:

Simpler than spliting the English Wikipedia woud be nn option to display AmEng, or BrEng, or AusEng, etc.

If no option is chosen then things would display exactly as they are now. It could work like this: we start with a bit of WP text that contains say the word "jail". Now an editor who prefers the British alternative "gaol" would be able to edit this to: {Eng|jail|Br=gaol}}. If a reader chooses the option "British" they will see "gaol". If they choose any other option that does not have a specific alternative in this case or choose no option it would display "jail". If some Australian wants specific Australian variants or wants to indicate that "gaol" should also be used for "Austrlian English"" they could would edit that thing to: {{Eng|jail|Br=gaol|Aus=gaol}}. The default should be what is already present in the text. For example if somewhere else you've a bit of text containing the spelling "gaol" someone who prefers the spelling "jail" could indicate that with {{Eng|gaol|Am=jail}} which would be displayed to anyone who would have chosen the option "American" while "gaol" would continue to be displayed to everyone else.

Basemetal 17:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I think this is a perennial proposal, which people get tired of responding to. I do kind of agree with you that that doesn't justify rudeness. I think the reasons it's never gotten any traction in the past are still perfectly valid, but let's trot them out again and make sure.
  • Splitting en.wiki: I'm completely opposed to this. The differences among the English varieties evoke strong emotions, but that's not a good reason to cut our collaboration by 50%.
  • Different spellings rendered automatically: That addresses only spelling; there are still other differences that can't be handled so mechanically. More to the point — what for? Are any of us so fragile that we can't handle the fact that other English speakers spell a word differently than we do?
  • Is it broke? I really don't think it is. ENGVAR is not a perfect solution, but it's worked pretty well for, what, a dozen years or so now?
Bottom line, I say we keep muddling through with ENGVAR. --Trovatore (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Addendum: When I said the perennialness of the proposal "doesn't justify rudeness", I was relying on my quick reading of Basemetal's characterization of what happened. When I looked up the actual discussion, I didn't see anything particularly rude (and Basemetal didn't explicitly say it was, for that matter; that was my interpolation). --Trovatore (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
A clearer close statement would have been "No, per WP:SNOW." The proposal had unanimous opposition and the very experienced closer (and admin) decided quite correctly that it lacked enough merit to discuss further. In this context, anybody could challenge the close by reverting it with explanation, but that would be a bad move in my opinion. That proposal and your alternative proposal are to develop sledge hammers with which to drive thumbtacks, and they both have considerable downsides that you both have failed to consider before making them. Meanwhile, the encyclopedia has more important long-term initiatives that are being neglected for lack of editor time.
This page is not for discussion of proposals. It's for discussion of the operation of its associated project page, WP:VPR, which is why it's rarely used. For example, if one wanted to suggest a change to the auto-archive parameters used for VPR, that could be done here. ―Mandruss  03:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I give terse closing statements on occasion when it’s something like this. Sometimes less is more and drives home the point that the community is not willing to consider some proposals. I normally reserve it for stuff like starting the American English Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, IMO the plain ridiculousness of it should make it self-explanatory, but apparently not Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Finding archived discussions[edit]

I recently wrote a script called User:SD0001/find-archived-section that makes it easy to find an archived discussion whose link (link before archival, I mean) you followed. Since archiving occurs quite fast for village pump threads, thought I should post here as it'd be useful for the regulars here ... SD0001 (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)