Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals/Archive 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals.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: 1, 2, 3, 4

MediaWiki:Addsection

Resolved
 – Change implemented -- "+" tab becomes "New Section"

I think we should change this to "comment", rather than just the "+" -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Or "Add" or "New". Yeah, I think a lot of people are still in the dark about what exactly that little plus sign means. I myself didn't realize it was even there til a couple months into my Wikipedia experience. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:46, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)
I also agree that the label on the tab should be more than a cryptic "+". However, I think "new section" would be better than "comment", because comments include adding a posting to an existing section.
One objection to expanding the width of this tab is that some editors have added other tabs to the top of their pages, via JavaScript, so there isn't as much space as there would appear to be to expand the width of an existing tab. I think that objection can be dealt with by noting that editors sophisticated enough to add more tabs are also sophisticated enough to add some css that changes "new section" (or whatever) back to "+".
Finally, I hope that editors will not make the argument that "The tab seems fine to me" or "I don't think there is any problem here", because there very clearly IS a problem - inexperienced editors start new subjects in the middle of existing sections, add new sections at the top (not bottom) of talk pages, and use the last section of existing talk pages to create a new section (which messes up the automatic edit summary). Clarifying the purpose of the "+" tab will clearly reduce such errors - not eliminate them, of course, but will clearly help. That experienced editors understand the purpose of the "+" tab, or that some new editors figure it out, doesn't make it less cryptic. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I know, I just love those "I see no problem" responses. They're so helpful. PS, I've added just about every tab imaginable, and I've still got plenty of room. I'm at a high resolution, but even with the 15 tabs I have, they barely use half the page width (that's not including the monobook side navigation bar). Equazcion •✗/C • 16:35, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Back to what the tab should actually be called, maybe a blend of the two would work: "new comment". -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 17:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree there's a problem, but I don't think "new comment" is clear enough to solve it, so I'd rather leave it as "+". Besides, "history" tab is also not obvious at first, but you're not suggestion to change it to "Past versions of this page", right? Just read the tooltips, that's exactly what they are for ∴ AlexSm 18:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I, too, didn't figure out that tab for several months. Though I can't recall ever starting discussions in the middle of another conversation or putting my new section at the top (feel free to correct me on those :-) ). I should mention, though, that in my browser (FF2.0.0.11) on Windows XP with default text size and at 1024x768 resolution (my highest, unfortunately), I sometimes run out of room with the tabs I have (defaults, Twinkle, and Friendly), and I've messed with my personal CSS to make #p-cactions as wide as possible without horizontal scrolling. That's part of the reason I created (cannibalized and basically rewrote from Ioeth's version, actually) my link changer.
Making the tab have longer text would probably reduce mistakes from new editors, and would still be modifiable by more savvy users who've added all kinds of tabs. I support this proposal. (I've also fussed with the CSS to visually combine the edit and + tabs, so it would be just a matter of adding an element to my link changer.) I might be prompted to list my script somewhere if this change is made... Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 21:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree there's a problem, but I don't think "new comment" is clear enough to solve it, so I'd rather leave it as "+". We're never going to get to the perfect solution, but since Wikipedia is all about better (as in, edit to improve, don't worry about perfection) rather than best, the question is what is better? I just looked at the Commons; they use "+comment" on their tab. I suggest (a change from my first suggestion) "+section", which is consistent with the tooltip. (As far as the tooltip being the answer to this problem, first, it's obviously not - the problem persists - and second, the label on the tab is so small - one character - that it's easy to miss, so knowing about tooltips often isn't enough) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I like "+section" too. "+comment" is misleading for new users, I think, as it could be interpreted as a way to reply to an existing discussion. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:11, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)
I've advocated a change to that tab for quite a while. All the suggestions so far are better than "+", and "+section" sounds good. --ais523 22:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This would be kind of a major change; one consideration to make is that a lot of users have instructions at the top of their user talk pages describing the use of the "+" tab. A second consideration, as John noted, is that a lot of users, esp. admins, already have quite a few tabs at the top of their pages; this would lengthen one that was pretty short. Regardless, if this change is made, first, a couple of other pumps or noticeboards should probably be spammed to ensure that everyone knows that this is on the table. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So a decision has been made: +section? If there are any against this, please come forward and speak. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
If you do it, a whole deluge of people will come and tell you to change it back, which is what happened the last time this was changed. I personally like it as +, but I agree it can be hard to understand. And not all of us have massive resolutions set. Prodego talk 03:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
We could preempt that problem by preparing some code to customize the tab back to the + sign. That way new users would get the benefit and we could still deal easily with disgruntled veterans. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:06, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)
I've created Mediawiki:Gadget-addsection-plus.js. —Random832 15:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Please, just keep it as a +, it's small and easily recognisable from other tabs (i.e. it's out of the way, but you can still see it). Even just with admin tabs, they strech across a large section of the page and we don't need anymore space taken up - it'll be even worse for people that have tabs written into their monobook. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Random :) I think it's more important to make sure new users can figure out what's what, than it is to make things easier on seasoned editors who have installed scripts already and can clearly customize the tab back to its shorter form if they so desire. Random832 has written a script you can copy-and-paste following the change, Ryan, so no worries there. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:41, 7 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Oh excellent, well providing there's there's overall support for this, you should go ahead, but make sure you advertise it a little more first, and advertise the get out clause if it moves forward. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I suppose it _can_ be copy-pasted, but I wrote it for use as a Gadget, so it'd just be a checkbox. —Random832 04:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This was already changed once thanks to a discussion here in the Village Pump (to "Leave a comment"), but there was quite a bit of criticism over it by well-established users and it got changed back. I'd propose a poll before changing it again, but I personally have no objections -Halo (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Move the main page to Portal:Wikipedia

I would like to propose that we move the Main Page to Portal:Wikipedia. Currently, the main page is in the article namespace, which causes lots and lots of little problems. Moving it to the Portal namespace instead would offer a number of benefits, including:

  • The top-left tab would read "portal" instead of "article".
  • People who want to make copies of Wikipedia, such as people who provide computers to schools in Africa that can't get Internet access, would have an easier time separating actual articles from project content which they don't want to copy. Because the content of the main page changes dynamically from day to day, it would take quite a bit of work to make the main page work and keep working on an offline copy of Wikipedia. Thus, since the main page won't actually work by default, it's probably best to exclude it from copies of Wikipedia article content by default.
  • The "cite this page" link in the sidebar would be hidden from screen readers and text-only browsers, and the sitewide CSS would no longer have to contain a special declaration to hide it.
  • The article count shown at Special:Statistics would be accurate instead of being 1 higher than the actual number of articles on Wikipedia. {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} would also be accurate instead of being off by one.
  • Statistics about Wikipedia articles would be more accurate and not slightly skewed by statistics about the main page that are likely to get mixed in.
  • It would be generally easier to write bots and other automated scripts because developers would not have to worry about having to write special code for the main page, ever.

Here's how the proposal would actually be carried out:

  1. The main page would be moved to Portal:Wikipedia. Portal:Wikipedia would be temporarily transcluded back into Main Page, so that the two pages work identically while we move the links to the main page to Portal:Wikipedia.
  2. After the links have been transitioned and everyone is comfortable with Portal:Wikipedia (perhaps a month or two after step 1), Main Page would be changed to a simple redirect to Portal:Wikipedia.

Please remember that the main page appears as simply "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", so the only thing that will change for readers is the URL, and in any case they will be able to continue using http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Main_Page instead of http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Portal:Wikipedia as long as they like. In the long run (think years), users will access Main Page less and less until it is used so infrequently that we can delete it altogether.

Interestingly, the German Wikipedia has already done something similar. They moved their main page to the Wikipedia namespace (de:Wikipedia:Hauptseite), and it is working fine for them.

I know that this has been discussed before, but I feel that it is important to restart the discussion so that people won't have to sift through the previous discussion, which turned into a convoluted mess. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Most of these reasons are completely ridiculous. I wish this issue would just die. --- RockMFR 01:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Some of them may seem ridiculous, but only if you ignore the real issue and focus on the tinier secondary effects. The Main page is not an article, it does not belong in the article space. End of story. --NickPenguin(contribs) 02:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggestion - I've been a web master since 1995 and ever since I first saw the Wikipedia main page in 2004 I have thought the name is wrong. There is a long standing tradition on the world wide web what the main page of a web site should be. Most of the major organisations on the Internet including the web and Internet standardisation organisations follow that tradition. The main page of the English Wikipedia should of course be http://wiki.riteme.site/ , nothing else. And for database technical purposes such as what name magic words return inside templates and so on the name can be for instance Portal:Wikipedia or whatever people prefer. Thus making the talk page be Portal talk:Wikipedia. --David Göthberg (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd like that too, but I don't think the wiki software is designed to do that. And like you said, moving the page to a different namespace doesn't prevent us from shortening the URL in the future if that becomes possible. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment You are conflating two proposals here. The first proposal is to move main page to the Portal namespace, and the second—to name it Portal:Wikipedia. The second should be discussed only if the first is supported. Ruslik (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
    • In the last discussion, several alternatives were proposed and the one that was most supported by far was Portal:Wikipedia. I'm trying to consolidate the proposal down to focus on this idea, but if you have a better one that hasn't been discussed before then by all means propose it. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support There are a large number of advantages with this proposal and no real disadvantages. The Main Page is not an article, therefore it should not be in article space! It belongs in portal space. As mentioned, the only thing that would change to most users is the url, and the old url would still work! As far as I know, every single problem with this suggestion has already been addressed. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 02:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I oppose the move and the proposed name. Main Page is not in article namespace, and indeeds predates namespaces. Rather, the software mistakenly acts like it is an article. We should correct the software rather than a perfectly adequate page name. Nor is the name "wrong" just because other websites choose differently. Superm401 - Talk 07:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
As was pointed out in the previous discussion on this proposal, the developers gave a resounding "no" to writing some sort of hack to make the page name display properly. How is it easier to modify the Wiki software rather than move the page to it's proper location? --NickPenguin(contribs) 14:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I asked for no hack. Superm401 - Talk 20:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Why do you say that Main Page is not in article space? Pages in article space do not have prefixes, and neither does the Main Page. Also, take a look at this page. Main Page is in article space. The devs are not going to change the software to accomodate this, especially since everything can be fixed by moving the page. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
You are pretending that the prefix system has always been here, which is not true. Superm401 - Talk 20:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
But that doesn't change the fact that from the software's perspective, Main Page is in the article namespace. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I gave my support in a previous discussion. I'll give it again, here. SharkD (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Copied from archive since really all issues have already been addressed. This discussion should continue. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The kind of people who don't like Main Page being in article namespace also won't like Main Page being a cross-namespace redirect to Portal:Wikipedia. This necessary redirect might be deleted at some point, leaving thousands of dead links across Wikipedia and the World Wide Web. There are some good reasons for the change but none are compelling enough to justify moving a page that's remained in the same place for seven years without serious problems. 67.187.76.80 (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Better to have a cross-namespace redirect than to have the page itself be in article space. In any case, the redirect isn't going to be deleted for a long time (years). There will undoubtedly be an RFD for it at that time where we can discuss whether or not the impact is low enough to justify deletion. —Remember the dot (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - For multiple reasons. 1) You say "The top-left tab would read "portal" instead of "article".". 'However, if you look now, the tab on the main page says "main page", not "article". In my opinion, even if it gets changed to portal, main page would still be a better tab. 2) Regarding your second point, it's not difficult to remove Main Page from the list. 3) Your comment about the article count has 1 problem: The article count changes every couple of seconds, so it's usually inaccurate anyway. 4) Other than interwiki bots, I can't think of any bots right now that need special code for the main page (and the code is already written). 5) Excluding wiki.riteme.site, there are thousands of links on the web linking to the main page. Combine that with the Main Page links, and eventually, there will be thousands of dead links. Not to mention the thousands of people with the main page bookmarked. IMO, this is a solution in search of a problem. X! who used to be Soxred93 16:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The tabs across the top of the Main Page are "article," "discussion," "view source," and "history." Foogus (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
? It used to be main page... It was set in some javascript. X! who used to be Soxred93 22:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • This proposal has come up dozens of times over the years (I'm surprised it's not on Wikipedia:Perennial proposals). It'd be disruptive to no apparent end other than consistency. If you really want to get it moved, write a famous book named Main Page. :-) Dcoetzee 00:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. When newcomers type in wiki.riteme.site and see "Main Page," they know what it is; but when they see "Portal:Wikipedia," they might not know what a portal is with respect to Wikipedia. After all, don't bite the newbies with jargon. While "Portal:Wikipedia" is more technically correct, "Main Page" does the job fine. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Excuse me? The phrase "Main Page" appears only in the sidebar, where it is perfectly appropriate. It does not appear in the title bar or at the top of the page, and neither would "Portal:Wikipedia". —Remember the dot (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
      • The problem with "Portal:Wikipedia" is that it doesn't fit the mainstream definition of a portal. When you go to Portal:Mathematics, you expect to find articles about math. But the articles featured on the Main Page aren't about Wikipedia (i.e. Jimbo Wales, Nupedia, etc.); there's a variety of content. A more accurate title would be "Portal:Everything" (which wouldn't do, of course). So there isn't really a good way to name the Main Page a portal. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support changing Main page to Portal:Main Page. We should definitively strive for accuracy on all aspects since this is what our main goal is; if the Main page is a portal, call it one, don't be shy or scared to for any possible reason. In regards to "It's too hard for newcomers", I disagree. Newcommers may actually learn more about Wikipedia when we show them what a portal is. Besides, Portal:Main Page will only be visible in the URL, so definitely calling it what it is would be a good idea. I also agree with what Imperator said above, "There are many advantages with this proposal and no real disadvantages. The Main Page is not an article, therefore it should not be in article space". -- penubag  (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • If people don't like having the Main Page in article space, maybe we could move it to Wikipedia:Main Page instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Main Page was the original suggestion, but since Wikipedia space is supposed to be for pages related to the project, the proposal was changed to moving it to Portal space (which is what the Main Page really is). Portal:Main Page doesn't really sound that good so someone suggested Portal:Wikipedia, which is what is currently proposed. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I, and many other users, have always known the face of Wikipedia to be the Main Page. Not "The Wikipedia Portal", or some other similar name. While it may be technically incorrect, exceptions to every rule or policy must be made for certain unique cases. This is one of those cases. If I was a new user, and I saw myself looking at Portal:Wikipedia, I very well might have absolutely no clue what a portal is, what this page is for, and where I find the home page (not knowing this was the home page, per se). Main Page is plain and simple, and neither too confusing nor too uninformative. There is no reason to fix something that ain't broken. Calor (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Please see the extensive list of technical problems this currently causes, and please realize that you will still be able to call it the main page, front page, home page, whatever you like. The only place "Portal:Wikipedia" will appear is in the URL. The title of the main page will, as before, appear as simply "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". This proposal is about changing how the main page is stored internally, not about revolutionizing the main page's name or role. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support the move to the Portal namespace which is more aesthetically correct and logical. No strong opinion on the name. While some of the opposes present real concerns, i.e. backward compatibility issues, many boil down to "we've never done it that way before" which is not a strong argument. Eluchil404 (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Support because I don't see the reasons in favor of this proposal as being very strong, but none of the objections raised have had any substance, either.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Teemu Leisti (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - something tells me this would cause a lot of problems when all that needs being fixed are minor "issues". Wikipedia is the 8th most visited site in the world, I'm guessing millions of people visit the Main Page everyday, things are going to be really weird when people suddenly think they're not actually on the Main Page. Additionally, are these minor problems with the Main Page in the article namespace such a big deal that it completely needs to be moved? No.   jj137 (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support on account that it would make the Number of articles accurate, and I don't see any real reason to oppose. Plus, what if it turns out that there's a notable book or band called Main Page? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support more accurate and would generate more interest in portals. Plus TenPoundHammer's point about other things called "Main Page". -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 15:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • comment Portal:Wikipedia is already an exact replica of the Main Page. So the only thing that would change here is that the Main Page would become a redirect to Portal:Wikipedia.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the mainspace is jammed with non-"articles" already (lists, dab pages, etc.). The important distinction is between reader-facing and non-reader-facing pages and that is not threatened by the existing location of the mainpage. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Pardon my ignorance, but what do you mean by "reader-facing"?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Generally, reader-facing pages are content pages that are intended as part of the "product" (e.g. articles, portals, and most categories and images) and non-reader facing pages are those which do not contain content and are intended to support the editorial community and editorial processes (e.g. userspace, project space). Christopher Parham (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, thanks. I hadn't heard that terminology before.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Persistent_proposals/Archive_1&oldid=1138369336"