Village Pump

#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Village pump

Village Pump

#redirect Wikipedia:Village pump

Village pump

#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Village pump

Village pump

''See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_maintenance#Village_pump'' *Wikipedia talk:Village Pump (Archive 1) *Wikipedia talk:Village Pump (Archive 2) *Wikipedia talk:Village Pump (Archive 3) == Archiving policy == Can I put a notice that the archive policy applied at Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29#Miscellaneous_archive also applies on all the sections of the Village Pump? Currently, there does not seem to be a clear policy for many of the sections. If I don't get any objections within a week, I'll do it. User:JesseW 05:09, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) :I'm fine with it. I don't even think the discussions should happen here. This should just be a central place to get attention. User:Dori | User talk:Dori 07:53, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC) ::Thanks for replying and supporting me. Where ''should'' the discussions happen? (So I can post there, too.) And which discussions do you mean; the discussions on the Village Pump, the discussions of what archiving policy to have, or some other discussions? User:JesseW 08:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::This is a good idea. (I didn't respond earlier because you said you'd do it if you had no objection.) User:Maurreen 08:27, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) Ok, as there were no objections, I will now do it. Let's see the s**tstorm of disagreement begin...(heh) User:JesseW 08:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) ===Discussions=== :::The discussions will happen where they are pertinent. There can't be one specific place, or else we might as well have them on the pump. User:Dori | User talk:Dori 13:54, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC) ::::I'm still a little unclear about which discussions you are referring to. :-) BTW, thanks Maurreen. User:JesseW 22:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) I think Dori means that it would be better for the Pump to just direct people to discussions on talk pages. And you're welcome. User:Maurreen 22:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) :Talk: , Wikipedia:, meta:, wherever it's appropriate. User:Dori | User talk:Dori 22:54, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC) ::/me nods. User:JesseW 22:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) ===Permanent archive?=== Do I understand this new policy to mean that there will typically be no permanent archive of discussions? -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 21:12, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC) :I think that should be tweaked to have the archives be numbered and not deleted. As long as there is no refactoring it shouldn't be that much work. What's important I think is that: :* VP should be the central page for getting general attention :* The page be manageable both in size and in archiving :** Big discussions not take place here :User:Dori | User talk:Dori 23:46, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC) ::Note that even if we do no archiving, there is a permanent archive of discussions(in the history of the page); the current system makes all messages available from the history of (VP section)/Archive also. While I wouldn't be directly opposed to creating a new, numbered page each time archiving is done, it does not seem much more difficult to require that people look through the history of /Archive, rather than look at the current versions of different numbered pages. Since topics would be moved to the archive en masse, and removed after 7 days en masse(I just look for date lines(the bold lines that should be included at the bottom of each archving) and delete sections that are out of date) the history should be pretty clean and easy to review. ::Regarding "VP should be the..."; I don't really understand what you mean. What does this have to do with archiving policy? ::Regarding "The page be manageable..."; I agree. I hope this policy does that. User:JesseW 04:11, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::Also see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_maintenance#Village_pump. Any policy changes should probably be updated there. :::My understanding is the Pump isn't supposed to keep anything permanently. :::It appears that few people are doing any archiving, refactoring, etc., of Village Pump. A simple policy, such as Jesse W has suggested last week, can make for simple maintenance. If people care a lot, they can move the discussion, do the archiving, etc. User:Maurreen 04:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::::I've updated the maintenance page. Thanks! User:JesseW 12:35, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::If you have 6 subpages, then there is no single central place to post and get attention. If you archive in separate pages as opposed to the history, you can search more easily. User:Dori | User talk:Dori 00:43, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC) == 300KB! == The Village Pump front page is 300KB! The editing problem has been fixed with MediaWiki, but seriously, this is enough to crash people's browsers. I took out the MediaWiki links. Is this better, or is displaying the entire Village Pump on one page a Wikipedia tradition? Perhaps there could be a link to display all the text on one page, as there is with WP:-), but as it is it's kind of an overload and a surprise. User:Ashibaka User talk:Ashibaka 05:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) :It doesn't have to be this way. We could very easily have a guideline of ask a question here, but invite discussion elsewhere, and we could manually archive posts more than 2 weeks old or something. If you were having the discussion here instead of elsewhere it would get archived anyway. No need for refactoring or anything. User:Dori | User talk:Dori 05:57, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC) :::BTW, unless someone objects to my proposal above before the 15th, I will add the following notice (customized for each sub page) to the main VP page (and sub pages), and do the necessary archiving.

== Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive ==
Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved Wikipedia:Village pump 
(miscellaneous)/Archive. These dicussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this 
period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the 
discussion will be permanently removed.

Please do look at my proposal. It makes me a little uncomfortable that no-one has commented on it yet... User:JesseW 07:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) :I've reverted your changes, Ashibaka; yes, it ''is'' a Wikipedia tradition to have the entire Village Pump on one page. That's why this page ''exists''. I didn't understand your changes till I saw them, but removing the main content of the page requires prior agreement, not boldness. Assuming nobody objects to my proposal above, the problem should be greatly helped by the archiving policy. User:JesseW 08:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::Well, then, I'll propose making the page smaller by simply linking to the sections, on the grounds that 300KB is far too much to be displaying on one page, and that people are usually just going to want to look at a particular section anyway. User:Ashibaka User talk:Ashibaka 01:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::The whole point of the 6 templates being included here is that some people do want to see the whole village pump on one page. Those who do not should go to the Wikipedia:Village pump sections instead. User:Angelauser talk:Angela 21:24, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC) ==Summarised sections== I don't see the point of the "Summarised sections" if what the village pump says is true and it hasn't been archived since September 30. If it's no longer done, it may as well be removed. Any objections? User:Angelauser talk:Angela 21:12, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC) :Sounds good to me. User:JesseW 22:12, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) == article title too long? == I was disappointed when I tried to add an article about the word ornicopytheobibliopsychocrystarroscioaerogenethliometeoroaustrohieroanthropoichthyopyrosiderochpnomyoalectryoophiobotanopegobydrorhabdocrithoaleuroalphitohalomolybdoclerobeloaxinocoscinodactyliogeolithopessopsephocatoptrotephraoneirochiroonychodactyloarithstichooxogeloscogastrogyrocerobletonooenosapulinaniac. The error is "Bad Title". Don't laugh, this is an actual word according to this article: [http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13382220&BRD=1918&PAG=461&dept_id=506888&rfi=6] ''According to a book of facts, the 310-letter word was used by medieval scribes to refer to someone who practices divination or forecasting by means of phenomena, interpretation of acts, or other manifestations related to animate or inanimate objects and appearances such as various animal behaviors, dreams, palmistry, wands, ring suspension and a number of other methods.'' Can we increase Wikipedia's maximum length for an article's title? : Interesting, I just checked on English_language/Long_words, and the word : ''Acetyl�seryl�tyrosyl�seryl�isoleucyl�threonyl�seryl� prolyl�seryl�glutaminyl�phenyl�alanyl�valyl�phenyl� alanyl�leucyl�seryl�seryl�valyl�tryptophyl�alanyl� aspartyl�prolyl�isoleucyl�glutamyl�leucyl�leucyl� asparaginyl�valyl�cysteinyl�threonyl�seryl�seryl� leucyl�glycyl�asparaginyl�glutaminyl�phenyl�alanyl� glutaminyl�threonyl�glutaminyl�glutaminyl�alanyl�arginyl� threonyl�threonyl�glutaminyl�valyl�glutaminyl�glutaminyl� phenyl�alanyl�seryl�glutaminyl�valyl�tryptophyl�lysyl� prolyl�phenyl�alanyl�proly�lglutaminyl�seryl�threonyl� valyl�arginyl�phenyl�alanyl�prolyl�glycyl�aspartyl� valyl�tyrosyl�lysyl�valyl�tyrosyl�arginyl�tyrosyl� asparaginyl�alanyl�valyl�leucyl�aspartyl�prolyl� leucyl�isoleucyl�threonyl�alanyl�leucyl�leucyl� glycyl�threonyl�phenyl�alanyl�aspartyl�threonyl� arginyl�asparaginyl�arginyl�isoleucyl�isoleucyl� glutamyl�valyl�glutamyl�asparaginyl�glutaminyl� glutaminyl�seryl�prolyl�threonyl�threonyl�alanyl� glutamyl�threonyl�leucyl�aspartyl�alanyl�threonyl� arginyl�arginyl�valyl�aspartyl�aspartyl�alanyl� threonyl�valyl�alanyl�isoleucyl�arginyl�seryl� alanyl�asparaginyl�isoleucyl�asparaginyl�leucyl�valyl� asparaginyl�glutamyl�leucyl�valyl�arginyl�glycyl� threonyl�glycyl�leucyl�tyrosyl�asparaginyl�glutaminyl� asparaginyl�threonyl�phenyl�alanyl�glutamyl�seryl� methionyl�seryl�glycyl�leucyl�valyl�tryptophyl� threonyl�seryl�alanyl�prolyl�alanyl�serine'' is actually linked to the article title Acetylseryltyrosylserylisol...serine : so I guess that's the convention? :''Increasing the maximum from the already overgenerous 255 bytes would require a rebuild of the database; this would make the site uneditable for a day or two. Don't hold your breath. --User:Brion VIBBER 01:17, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)'' :*I'm still waiting for the day when we can support the 64,060-letter name for Methionylalanylthreonyl...leucine. :) 12:02, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Sections== I don't like the sectioning of the village pump. User:Bensaccount 20:25, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) :Yes it blows. I used to have the VP on my watchlist and I'd look it up regularly. Now I don't bother anymore. A shame, since it was nice having a central page for getting attention. It seems that people are now shifting this to the RC page, which is an even bigger shame as that page has another purpose. User:Dori | User talk:Dori 19:39, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC) :: Why don't you like it? Why does it blow? I don't lurk around the VP often enough to know what it ''should'' look like. What exactly is the problem? --User:Diberri | User talk:Diberri 03:14, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC) :::My guess is that the sectionin was done because of the size. User:Maurreen 03:52, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) :::::Exactly, size. (1) I now find myself with seven pages on my watchlist to monitor what I used to be able to do on one. I suppose the size issue is legit, but I find this annoying. (2) What the heck is "RC"? -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 20:18, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC) :::::: I still don't see how the sectioning presents a problem. So you've got seven VP pages on your watchlist instead of just one. What's the deal? If anything it helps concentrate discussions and gives others the option of only watching the VP topics that interest them. Oh, and I'm guessing "RC" means Wikipedia:Request for comment. --User:Diberri | User talk:Diberri 19:03, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC) I think "RC" means recent changes. User:Maurreen 19:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) :I much prefer it - you couldn't monitor the changes anything like as easily when everything was posted on one page. I can't say that people are shifting away from it because it's still very popular and, if anything, encourages you to write things more. User:Violetriga User_talk:violetriga 22:08, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) == A soln. to the size (?) == I had once proposed having separate village pump sub-pages with dates in the title, e.g. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) (Dec 27, 2004). The date represents when the page was started. Once that page gets too large (say on Jan 5, 2004), we could start using Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) (Jan 5, 2004). The people who were having discussions on the previous page can continue doing so since that page hasn't been deleted, but those starting a new discussion need not be bothered about the page being too long having older discussions as well. For continuity, both N (probably 2) most recent pages could be transcluded in Wikipedia:Village pump. The only other maintenance this requires is to update the link to the current page in Wikipedia:Village pump, Wikipedia:Village pump sections and probably a few more places. This could be simplified if all that is absorbed into Template:Village pump, so that only that whenever a VP subpage gets too long, only that template and the transclusions in VP have to be modified. If enough people are against sectioning the pump but are ok with dated pages, we could have things like Wikipedia:Village pump (Dec 27, 2004). In such a case probably we'd get enough discussions every day so as to have a page for everyday. If we agree to have one page everyday (whether or not with sectioning the pump), the "current page links" mentioned above can be made to require zero maintenance, if we make them always point to today's page by using , , etc. e.g. almost all links to Wikipedia:Village pump would become Wikipedia:Village pump ( , ). I'm not sure if I should be copying over my original proposal or its entire thread here. So I'll instead just link to it: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29&oldid=7504791#How_about_adding_dates_to_subpages_for_easier_archival.2Fremoval_of_old_discussions_.26_smaller_pump_subpages.3F] -- User:Paddu 19:17, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) :I'd like to propose that a similar scheme be used for WP:VfD, WP:RfD, WP:CfD, WP:HD, WP:RD, and other such fast-changing discussion pages too. And if anyone is opposed to spliting a project page because of watchlists, please be clear what the issue(s) is/are. AFAICT spliting causes no problems with watchlists (see my response to the #Sections) -- User:Paddu 19:41, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) == Wikipedia:Multilingual statistics == The ranking table in Wikipedia:Multilingual statistics was last updated in December 2004. It's end of February already. I wish someone had time to update it. ;( I really liked it. Seeing and tracking progress of different languages... --User:Rydel 12:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Changing user name == Is it possible to change my user name while keeping my password, settings, contributions and homepage? --User:Tobymarshman 18:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Answered at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance).-User:Gadfium 02:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Weirdness == What the hell is going on? Instead of saying "Article" it says "cabal conspiracy", instead of "discussion" it's "groupthink", instead of "history" it's time travel, instead of "move" it's "teleport", and instead of "watch" it's "stalk." Is this the work of a hacker, or is it just an April Fool's Day prank by a developer? _JarlaxleArtemis">User:JarlaxleArtemis 05:12, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC) *I don't see that on my computer. I think it's just you. Better run virus checker. -- 05:14, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Check the date, April 1, hello? —User:Wahoofive | User talk:Wahoofive 05:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) *I believed its demon possessed!--User:Jondel 12:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) : I saw some of this yesterday ("vandalize this article" tab) - pre-April 1. - User:DavidWBrooks 14:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Access disparity == Maybe I'm posting in the wrong area, but I couldn't find anywhere to inquire: why is it it takes absolutely an eternity to access some pages, but lightning quick to access others, these requests all taking place at the same time? There's a piece of vandalism I've been wanting to revert now, but it keeps giving me no response errors when I can easily edit everything else. Any reason for this? -- User:Natalinasmpf 18:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC) :The larger the page, the longer it takes to spool to the cache. Pages with images require the images to load to the cache as well. Also, until a bug I report recently was fixed, media objects also had to spool as well. User:Raul654 19:03, May 14, 2005 (UTC) == Making the Village Pump a Portal, not a dumping ground of 697.8 KB! == Following the recent changes to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion that were a great success, I am going to follow suite here and be bold, though realizing that: * A few months ago there was a comment over the 300kb page Wikipedia:Village pump is, ** But noting that this was before the VfD change was made * Acknowledging that some people do wish to view the long page * It seems to be a bit of tradition The move will mirror what happened with VfD. *Wikipedia:Village pump will be severely cut down, with links to the sections and... *Wikipedia:Village pump (all) will be created with the express purpose of displaying all Village pump messages at once. *Template:villagepump will be edited so that it makes more sense in the new context. For some strange reason, all the village pump sections link to it via a period. I have yet to uncover the reasoning for this. Fortunantely, there will be no need for bot rewrites because unlike VfD, the Village pump already has the advantage of being physically seperated. Why should the Wikipedia:Village pump page be seperated? The VfD page was seperated because people who came to talk about VfD would be more interested in links to appropriate sections and instructions, rather than a whopper page that was full of text. The same can apply for Village pump. Those coming here for discussion that are unfamiliar with the concept will undoubtably end up on the main page (talk page on the Main Page, for instance, links to Village pump directly). They will want to have ''links to appropriate sections and instructions, rather than a whopper page that was full of text''. I'm being bold, but precedent is at my side. This edit is comprimising of page edits and page creations across several areas, so it may be difficult to revert. See the list above for affected pages. I'm hoping that the response to this change will be similar to that which greeted the VfD change. Feel free to comment. User:Ambush Commander 00:41, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) :Argh! There seems to be something wrong. Edits for three of the four pages have gone through, but not for the main page itself! Argh! I keep on getting a URL error. User:Ambush Commander 00:46, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) ::Okay, it's gone through. Four pages edited. Lots of chaos to ensue. ;) User:Ambush Commander 00:59, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) :::Yay! Thanks for being bold. I like it. (And I second AllyUnion's suggestion, if it could be implemented... User:JesseW 06:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) === Suggested improvement === It would be nice to have some kind of summary or overview on the Village pump... like the TOC from each page. --User:AllyUnion User talk:AllyUnion 07:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Village pump

#redirect Template:Villagepump

Village pump

==Archiving== Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved to a sub page of each section (called (section name)/Archive). These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed. Wikipedia community forums bm:Wikipedia:Le lavoir br:Wikipedia:An ti-chopin bs:Wikipedia:Kahvana ga:Vicip�id:Halla baile gu:Wikipedia:ચોતરો hi:विकिपीडिया:गाँव का पम्प la:Wikipedia:Taberna li:Wikipedia:De kaffee mi:Wikipedia:K�rero minnan:Wikipedia:Chhiū-�-kha ms:Wikipedia:Kedai Kopi nah:Wikipedia:Tlatlahtoaloyan roa-rup:Uichipedia:F�nt�na scn:Wikipedia:Circulu simple:Wikipedia:Simple talk sq:Wikipedia:Kuvendi su:Wikip�dia:Padungdengan th:วิกิพีเดีย:สภากาแฟ vi:Wikipedia:Thảo Luận

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

V