Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals/Archive 3

< Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) | Persistent proposals
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Zhulia in topic Bookmarks page
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This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals.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

Proposal: Move the main page to Portal:Wikipedia

Latest comment: 16 years ago129 comments43 people in discussion

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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page instead of http://en.wikipedia.org/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://en.wikipedia.org/ , 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 en.wikipedia.org, 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 en.wikipedia.org 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)

Arbitrary break at restoration point

  • Restored section I don't really think that Christopher Parham's comment destroyed the proposal. He says that portals are user-facing pages. Since this proposal is currently to move Main Page to Portal:Wikipedia, it would not affect the "reader-facingness" of Main Page/Portal:Wikipedia. Also, Main Page is basically a portal to the whole encyclopedia, so it should be in the portal namespace. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a portal. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
      • We are not talking about Wikipedia as a whole, we're talking about the Main Page, which certainly is, as Imperator3733 says, a portal to the whole encyclopedia. Cheers,--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, but how would new or unfamiliar users know that? The title is problematic. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Please consider a few things: 1) From the end-user perspective, the only thing that will change is the URL. There is no title on the Main Page, so there is nothing obvious that will indicate that a change has happened. 2) New/inexperienced users will have a better chance of learning about portals and their role if the first page that they get when they go to en-wiki is a portal (although of course it may still take quite a while). 3) Main Page is more like a portal than any other possible type of page. As WP:Portal says, "In essence, portals are useful entry-points to Wikipedia content." The Main Page is definitely a "useful entry-point to Wikipedia content." -- Imperator3733 (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
            • There's no title on the Main Page, but we call it that. So whatever the new url is, will be the "title" of the Main Page. The issue of learning about Portals is moot, because Portals are already linked from the Main Page. The name Portal:Wikipedia is problematic because it gives the impression that there are two Wikipedias. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
              • What are the "two Wikipedias" that you mention? The Main Page is a portal because it is a "useful entry-point to Wikipedia content." From my perspective, the current links to portals aren't really obvious, but maybe that will change with the redesign. Regardless, once new users learn about the portal namespace, I would think some of them would wonder why Main Page is in the article namespace. We should try to keep things consistent. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
                • There's Wikipedia, then "Portal:Wikipedia", which could be confusing for some people. Not mention, "Portal:Wikipedia" would imply that Wikipedia is a portal. "Main Page" is so much simpler, more accurate, and has served us well for so long. The Main Page is neither an article nor a portal, but rather the Main Page of the website. That's what the Main Page is. Although, it functions more as an article than a portal, because it prominently displays articles, and mostly links to articles. The "useful entry-point to Wikipedia content" that you describe is already there in Portal:Contents, prominently linked from the Wiki sidebar and the Main Page. Therefore, I see no reason to move the Main Page. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
                  • I would hardly call the Portal:Contents link "prominent". When someone goes to en-wiki, they see the Main Page. They will then either look at things one the actual Main Page (Today's featured article, In the news, Did you know..., On this day...) or search for something in the search box. Just because something is listed in the sidebar does not mean that people will notice it. I've been editing for about a year and a half and I only noticed that when you said something. IIRC, one of the things that we should try for is to get it so that every article can be accessed from links on the Main Page (without the search box). Also, you say that the Main Page "prominently displays articles, and mostly links to articles." Portals are meant to link to articles, unlike project pages which are more about coordination of the project. The Main Page is therefore a portal. Portal:Wikipedia would be the portal to the whole encyclopedia. Also, remember that the proposal is to transclude the contents of Portal:Wikipedia onto Main Page, just like how Main Page is currently transcluded onto Portal:Wikipedia, for a while and then redirect Main Page to Portal:Wikipedia until there is some need to use Main Page for something else. You will still be able to go to Main Page -- it will not be deleted. More information is at the top of the proposal. Another thing to remember is that just because we have done something a certain way for a long time, that does not mean that we shouldn't change it if something better is available. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
                    • For someone who is so gung-ho on portals to not have seen Portal:Contents in the sidebar or the top of the Main Page strikes me as particularly odd. You say people should learn about portals, yet it looks like you have some learning to do. If you want, you can push for the portal links to be more prominent in the resdesign than they are now. As for accessing every article from links on the Main Page, that's already possible, and can be done by clicking on the portals. Yes, portals also link to articles, but the Main Page links to more articles (ITN, OTD), because portals contain mostly links to subportals and wikiprojects. Portals are for people who are looking for info on a particular subject, a "gateway", whereas people frequent the Main Page to read the articles that are featured. This is why I say it functions more as an article than a portal (not saying it doesn't have portal-like characteristics, but it's more of an article than a portal). Now, keeping in mind that portals are used by people looking up a particular subject, "Portal:Wikipedia", in addition to being confusing to some people, would technically be a portal on Wikipedia topics, not the Main Page, as King of Hearts mentioned. Moving the Main Page to "Portal:Wikipedia" is not "better". That is your opinion. Keeping the Main Page where it is now is better and more accurate. It is the main page of the website, after all. --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I've thought the page has needed moved ever since I joined. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
    • You must tell us why you think that way. This is not a poll, but a discussion. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't think that it completely necessary for Shep to give more information. There have been plenty of comments (both support and oppose) that don't give much information/reason for that position. Shep says that he thought Main Page should be moved since he joined. If he doesn't have anything else to add to the discussion, then that's fine. He is simply another person who took the time comment on this proposal, which is good. That said, his comment, as well as all other short comments with no explanation/suggestions/ideas should count less than other comments when determining consensus. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Clarify I believe that the Main Page should be moved out of article space and into Portal space simply because the Main Page is not an article, look at the page and now go look at a portal they have a very similar layout, yes? If it look like a duck and walks likes a duck... §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm tempted to move it just because of the spurious discussion this proposal has generated over the years. The reason they haven't done it yet is that it's simply not a priority, and has little impact on usability either way. Not to condescend, but this is really a case of "everyone has an opinion on trivial matters." Dcoetzee 18:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
    • The Main Page of the site is not a trivial matter. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
      • It is when nothing would change except for the URL.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Agreed, let's get it right if nothing but the URL changes. There's nothing to loose and there's no eyesore. -- penubag  (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Exactly. The only thing that would change is the URL. Please remember that the URL is the only thing that says what the name of the page is - there is no title like on all other pages. Old bookmarks would still work until someone writes a book called "Main Page". At that point in time, we would just need to have something at the top (like all other disambig notices) telling people to change their bookmarks. The only arguments against this boil down to "this is how it's always been so we should keep it like this." That is never a good reason to not change something. As far as the name, the previous discussion resulted in the proposal of moving Main Page to Portal:Wikipedia. Other suggestions were Wikipedia:Main Page (which lost out because Wikipedia space is meant for mostly editors) and Portal:Main Page (which doesn't really sound the best). If anyone has any other suggestions, please make them. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
            • "The only arguments against this boil down to "this is how it's always been so we should keep it like this."" No. You obviously haven't been reading the comments. You ignore the fact that "Portal:Wikipedia" is the name for a portal about the topic Wikipedia. There's nothing to "get right" here. Just because there was a previous discussion to create the Portal:Wikipedia redirect does not mean we have to go all the way. Infact, that just shows that the editors got it wrong and that we shouldn't be moving in that direction. All I see from the proponents are dubious opinions of it being "more logical" and whatnot, and that's because there's no real reason to move the Main Page. Should we be doing something if there's no reason to? --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
              • I have read every single comment throughout this process. Perhaps I should have said that almost every argument against this change falls under the "we've done it this way so lets not change it" category. There have certainly been other points against it made, but they have all been addressed to the best of my knowledge (except for your comments). It seems to me that your only problem with this proposal is the name Portal:Wikipedia (which please remember already exists and simply transcludes Main Page. If you do not like Portal:Wikipedia, then do you have any other suggestions? I am willing to support a different name if someone comes up with one better than Portal:Wikipedia, but once again that was the best one proposed during the previous discussion. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

←No, that was a JavaScript hack that changed the tab text. It was removed because it didn't work for screen readers, text-only browsers, browsers with JavaScript disabled, or search engines, and besides it merely glossed over the problem. It was briefly replaced with a ParserFunctions hack that the developers decided hurt performance. The JavaScript solution was in fact overall even less efficient than the ParserFunctions hack, so really neither is appropriate.

A partial solution would be to change the tab text back to the MediaWiki default of "page", which would work well for articles, disambiguation pages, and the main page alike. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Changing every article to read 'page' would be more trouble than it's worth, when there's only one Main Page. All of these proposals are more trouble than they're worth, unless of course, there's a way for the Main Page to have its distinct tab via MediaWiki software. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The tab text is not the only problem having the main page in the article namespace creates.
  • Please read bugzilla:14267, which discussed the creation of a special tab text exclusively for the main page.
  • Articles are not the only thing in the article namespace. There are also lists, disambiguation pages, and of course the main page. The tab text for all of these can be changed simply by editing MediaWiki:Nstab-main. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
How about doing the following:
  • Lists > list
  • dab pages > page
  • Main Page > page
  • Articles > article
That way everything is more accurate. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
That cannot be done without separating lists, disambiguation pages, and the main page into separate namespaces. All pages in a namespace have to have the same tab text. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
And there is no way to work around that? --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Please read [1], [2], and [3]. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a straw poll or something is necessary here. Nothing seems to be coming to a head. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Question for clarification. After the move, would a reader following a link or favorite to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page see (Redirected from Main Page) at the top of their screen? If so, I would weak oppose, as that message, above "Welcome to Wikipedia" would be unnecessary distraction and possible source of anxiety for readers, especially users of screenreaders. If not, weak support, as there are a number of minor benefits, and the main page is not an article. Most opposition arguments seem to amount to "it is too late to change it", which does not convince me as in 7 years time, I bet that the main page will be getting as many hits in one month as it has had in its entire first 7 years. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • (Redirected from Main Page) will not appear after the move. Once the internal links have been switched over, we'll have to discuss when the appropriate time to make that text appear is. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

New namespace?

One of the problems that's been pointed out but remains unresolved is that the main page doesn't really fit anywhere. It could conflict with an article title in the future, but then again it could also conflict with a portal title in the future, such as a portal about Wikipedia. Moving the main page to the Wikipedia namespace would avoid conflicts, but then people would complain that the Wikipedia namespace should not be used for reader-facing pages, and the tab text would read "project page" which is not entirely accurate. So, I really don't see an ideal solution to the problem. Maybe we could create a namespace exclusively for the main page, but then what would that namespace be called? —Remember the dot (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I think having the tab say "project page" would be better than having it say "article", since the Main Page is not an article. However, that doesn't change the fact that Main Page doesn't really fit in the Wikipedia namespace. What about creating a Start namespace (something like Start:Page or Start:Wikipedia) or a Home namespace (Home:Page or Home:Wikipedia). Those are the two ideas that I came up with really quickly, but there's gotta be some better choices. I think giving Main Page its own namespace would be the best choice. We really need to get this taken care of so that someone can write a book called "Main Page". -- Imperator3733 (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I think Start:Main Page would be the best choice, but is it really that big a deal that no one can write a book called Main Page? No Wikipedian would do such a thing, because they would fail the Wikipediholic test ;) --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe that would be their goal. Besides, you only get 300 points for writing the book, and then lose 60 for naming it Main Page (although you can get 135 more points). I do like Start:Main Page for a possible name. We could even have another page Start:Editing to help newcomers learn about editing. Good idea. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Such a Start:Editing page would be entirely redundant to Help:Editing. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll for Start: namespace

Poll - Should Main Page be moved?

A number of other projects have already moved their Main Pages to other namespaces. Some of these (mentioned by Aervanath above) are:

There seems to be some resistance towards creating an entirely new namespace just for the Main Page. Also, in this recent discussion, several people here have proposed that we should move Main Page to Wikipedia space, which had lost to Portal:Wikipedia during the previous discussion. However, I think we should look at all the possibilities again. Please indicate your preferences below (using #) so that we can get an idea of which namespace people prefer.

Yes, let's move Main Page out of the main namespace
  1. My first choice would be Portal, but both Wikipedia or a new namespace would also be fine with me. The Main Page is not an article, so it shouldn't be in article space. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. Honestly, I don't really care, I'd just like to get this settled.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  3. Likewise, but clearly it shouldn't be in article space.--Kotniski (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  4. Please, let's just establish a consensus that it needs to be moved first. ffm 15:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  5. Conditional - if someone comes up with a brilliant title for the page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  6. Don't really care, but don't see a downside. Would be nice to see this resolved either way. Protonk (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  7. I think this whole proposal is stupid and most of the problems imaginary, but the downside is minimal. I would only support Portal space though, on the condition that all we do is move it, not do anything stupid like try to "fix" all the redirects, with the exception of actively used templates. Mr.Z-man 04:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  8. I think it is clear that it isn't an article therefore shouldn't be in the article space. I'm leaning towards the Portal: space but I don't think it would be too terribly out of place in the project namespace either. I'm not sure I agree with creating a new namespace. Scottydude talk 04:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  9. While I'm not sure it's that big of a deal, of course it's not an article, so since we're going through this process we may as well move it. Random89 20:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  10. Everyone's arguing that there are already many non-articles in article space or the Wikipedia: or Portal: spaces aren't good enough. I say Wikipedia or Portal are both better than Article and the first argument isn't even an argument. -- penubag  (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
No, Main Page should stay in main namespace
  1. How many strawwpolls do we need about this? Garion96 (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Leave it where it is. Truthanado (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I know it is difficult to see the benefits when you are not a software developer. If you were, you would see that moving the main page simplifies things quite a bit and improves Wikipedia's accessibility to the blind as well. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
      • FYI, I have been a software developer for 25+ years. Making it easier for software developers should not be a goal; that usually leads to poorly-written and buggy software. What is important is to serve our customers. On Wikipedia, our customers are our readers, mostly unregistered, who come to Wikipedia looking for information. If someone could explain how moving the main page will help our readers, I could support that. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
        • For one thing, the "Cite this page" link would no longer appear when using a screen reader. Furthermore, moving towards a simpler, more elegant software design tends to make the software easier to maintain and less prone to bugs. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
          • The "Cite this page" link doesn't appear on the main page now, at least not with my Firefox browser. The words "simpler" and "more elegant" just don't go together, and from my experience (and IEEE and CENELEC software standards followed by most of the software industry), they rarely produce software that is easier to maintain and less prone to bugs, especially when most software is maintained by someone else later on. So again I must ask, how would this benefit the typical Wikipedia reader? Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
            • View the source HTML of the main page and you'll see that the HTML that creates "Cite this page" is present even if it isn't shown. Try using the Chick, MySkin, or Simple skins. On these skins the "Cite this page" link is still visible. MonoBook and Modern both use special CSS tricks to make the "Cite this page" link disappear. The remaining skins, Standard, Cologne Blue, and Nostalgia, don't appear to support "Cite this page" at all.
            • Even if you're using MonoBook where the CSS trick hides the link from your view, try pressing Ctrl+A to select all text on the page, then copy it to the clipboard. Go to Notepad or another simple text editor and paste. You'll notice that even though it's nowhere to be found in Firefox, when you paste the page's contents "Cite this page" crops up right below "Permanent link".
            • "Cite this page" also gets indexed by search engines despite its apparent invisibility: [4], and browsers like Dillo and Links are too simple-minded to hide the link at all.
            • Finally, "Cite this page" is not hidden from screen readers either.
            • It would be more elegant if instead of using several CSS tricks that don't always work to hide "Cite this page", we simply excluded "Cite this page" from the main page in the first place. This would happen automatically if the main page were moved out of the article namespace. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  3. A few points:
  1. 'Portal:Wikipedia' as the title is ugly. I know it appears in the URL only, since we use ugly JS/CSS hacks to hide it from everywhere else, but it's still nowhere near as good as 'Main Page'. Our readers don't, and shouldn't have to know about namespaces, and the role they play in disambiguating content from scaffolding. It is unnecessarily confusing to present a reader with 'Portal:Wikipedia' or whatever else, when 'Main Page' will do.
  2. Contrary to "Remember the dot"'s assurances above, "I know it is difficult to see the benefits when you are not a software developer. If you were, you would see that moving the main page simplifies things quite a bit and improves Wikipedia's accessibility to the blind as well.", there is no technical reason to have the main page in a particular namespace. If there were, this would not be a community poll – it would be a decision made by our qualified systems administrators. I should remind 'Remember the dot' that he is not a software developer, either (at least, not one with the experience to be appealing to his "authority" in this way), and that those who are qualified have given no opinion on the matter, essentially devolving the decision to be an editorial one.
  3. It is, possible that somebody might want to cite the main page, and I'm not sure that such a minor issue is worth the annoyance provided to users in any case. We can always introduce functionality to remove the link from the sidebar if this is such a big deal.
  4. This statement might be a little controversial, but I'm not sure we should be rewarding people for wasting oodles of community time on such awfully petty issues. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and we should not allow the success of people who make proposal after proposal until nobody cares enough to oppose them. This matter has been dealt with over, and over, and over again, and nobody cares anymore. Please, find something more useful to do.
  5. If you want to play the semantic game, get it right, please. Namespace 0 (that is, with no prefix) is not the "article namespace". It's the "main" namespace. That means that it includes everything publicly visible, as opposed to "other" stuff to do with maintaining the project (Project namespace), discussion (talk namespace), user stuff (user namespace), et cetera.
— Werdna • talk 02:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  1. There are tens of thousands of non-articles in the mainspace and this one doesn't cause any more problems than the others. The name proposed (Portal:Wikipedia) is not appropriate, and unlike Main Page, the page that ought to bear the name has a fair chance of being created at some point. There are no discernible benefits to the move. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
This poll is about whether Main Page should be moved out of the main namespace. No name is being proposed in this poll. If we decide to move Main Page, then we can discuss where we should move it to. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
That's an insipid way of going about things, so I ignored the instructions. Christopher Parham (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, it's the best way. There is no point arguing excessively over whether to move the main page, if we can't even agree whether it needs to move. If we get a consensus to move, then we can argue about whether to move it. And BTW, we resonably regularly get people asking on the main page talk page where out article about main pages is Nil Einne (talk) 08:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
It's an insipid way because it compares one option against every other possibility, with the goal being to eliminate that option even if its the most popular choice. But that's not the way Wikipedia works. The result of this discussion won't result in the page being moved, since there is no concrete proposal, and in any subsequent discussion keeping it where it is will continue to be an option that people raise. As you say "If we get a consensus to move, then we can argue about whether to move it" - indeed, but that process seems rather circular. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Converting User: prefix to Editor: prefix

Latest comment: 15 years ago51 comments35 people in discussion

This a proposal I have been thinking out for a while. Kind of a major one, but I would like to get the ball rolling and see where it goes. There is often much consternation (for good or ill) with individuals who edit their userspace and nothing else, often leading to needlessly wasted time in deletion discussions over content that is clearly not serving the encyclopedia.

Walton One has written a cogent essay, however, arguing that editors matter, and that making editors feel as though they are part of a caring community that does not rush to bash them over the head and delete any unencyclopedic (but harmless) nonsense in their userspace ultimately serves the encylopedia by allowing us to retain good editors--we are all volunteers after all (cf. WP:CARE).

Now countless millions of people use the encyclopedia by reading it, but many fewer individuals could actually be considered to be editors. Perhaps if this distinction were made in the title of the namespace it might discourage some of those who edit only to make a myspace-like environment and are not interested in contributing to the encyclopedia while they are at it. A new namespace of "Editor:" would better befit the true purpose of the space. It seems to me that this could be accomplished in much the same way as was the recent changes involving the WP: to Wikipedia: shortcut. Let me know what you think. I'm not terribly attached to the idea, so don't feel bad about tearing it to shreds, but I wanted to put it out there at least. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to add that there is considerable evidence from social psychology that very subtle contextual cues (such as simple changes in words) can have profound influence on human behavior. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me. Those subtle cues are a large part of why I campaigned to get "fair use images" changed to "non-free content". --Carnildo (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Editors don't matter; contributors do. –Pomte 03:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 
Michelangelo was a hack.
Sinze whne was editting not a a valuble nd usefull contrbushun? A good editor ads valu by improoving teh clearity ad acesibility of our content. By the same measure, Michelangelo was a terrible contributor; he took tons of perfectly good marble and threw most of it away. Tsk. How wasteful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You can change the official name of something long-standing, but people are going to keep acting as though you didn't. We saw this with WP:ATT: everyone was told to refer to the attribution policy instead of WP:V and WP:NOR, and they promptly commenced to ignore this and continued to use the old names. Is there really any benefit in having the official name be different from what everyone uses? -Amarkov moo! 03:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I think part of the reason that might not have worked is that "WP:ATT" as a mere text string has no semantic meaning. An individual can be exposed to that text string on a subliminal or supraliminal level all day and it won't do a darn thing to affect that person's behavior. On the other hand, the words "Editor" and "User" do have different connotations beyond the context of wikipedia (then see the external link above for my evidence about why this would work for changing behavior). IronGargoyle (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

From a technical standpoint, it's a really easy change to make. However, you'd need widespread consensus before it could be done. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be that the change wouldn't affect longtime users as much psychologically, but I agree that it's still worth it, for whatever affect it may have -- and it may have a significant effect on new users (ahem, editors). I like this idea a lot, especially if it's not a difficult thing to technically change. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:51, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)
I like this idea a lot. It could have merits as Carnildo has pointed out, and I don't see too much wrong with it. It would certainly be good to be continualy reminded that we are all editors, and that subtle cue might increase good relations between editors. Leaving a comment on the page of another editor feels a little different then leaving a note on the page of another user. The only reason I see why not to do it, is that it is a change, and communities seem to have difficulty with changes. This community however is built on changes, and I certainly hope, that this is one of the changes that makes it: that is, not get stopped by the attitude of "userpages have worked fine forever, so why change it" while a good rationale to change it is provided. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I too like the idea of substituting 'editor' for 'user'. The problem with 'user' is that it is computer jargon and we want to be friendly to people who are not computer geeks but are contributing editors. Go editor! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I can think of is the many existing links to the User: prefix. Unless of course this can modified into some sort of redirect or something? I don't know how this sort of stuff works though. Good idea though, I think a lot of people need the reminder. .:Alex:. 20:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that this would have consequences not only for english wikipedia, but for every single project, as the english version is a redirect to the local version (if localized at all), and thus there are also a lot of these links internally and externally elsewhere. That even besides the fact that people in all these communities might be used to type user:... (At least, I do if I'm on another project then dutch) :) effeietsanders 20:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Currently, there is a WP: namespace that redirects to Wikipedia:. The same could be done for a user: namespace that redirects to editor:. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of changing this, but I'll admit it's because I'm a fan of the status quo; pretty much every other wiki uses "User" (or a local translation). We are not first and foremost editors; we are first and foremost users (personally, I read more on Wikipedia than I edit). I do believe that it'd be an easy enough transition to make, though; the non-English projects already have similar redirects (ie: on the German WP, "Image:" redirects to "Bild:", "User:" to "Benutzer:", "Template:" to "Vorlage:", etc). EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
WP: only redirects locally on enwikipedia to Wikipedia:. It is, afaik, not a "global" thing. The English names traditionally "redirect" to the localized versions, but this is an automated process. That is something else then requesting a new namespace to have that redirected. Undoubtedly it will technically be possible though. As long as you put enough time in it almost everything is :).
Btw, I agree editor: is not ideal either. You can also create an account just to watch Wikipedia in the preferred layout. You don't have to be an editor for that. Actually, most user accounts have never edited a single entry :) effeietsanders 22:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Any change has to be made somewhere first. As the largest Wikimedia project, English Wikipedia seems as though it should be the leader and not the follower. This change also wouldn't have to change the behavior of anybody. If the change worked like the WP: to Wikipedia: merge, editors could continue using the User: prefix if they wished. I agree with what you say about using Wikipedia. I certainly use it more than I edit. This isn't saying you can't use the encylopedia... it just very subtly encourages people to edit more (maybe including those who are just registering an account to get a preferred layout). IronGargoyle (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If it is of any interest, the Czech Wikipedia uses the namespace "Wikipedista" (I'm Wikipedista:Puchiko). We could use "Wikipedian", which appears to be the usual term. However, it is certainly a lot longer to type than "User", so going with "Editor" appears to be the best choice. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of typing two extra keystrokes every time I want to go to someone's userpage. Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You wouldn't have to. User: should still redirect there, just as you can type WP: instead of Wikipedia: IronGargoyle (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I see no advantage of using the term "editor" over "user". They are both accurate, and "editor" may mislead someone who isn't familiar with the non-hierarchy Wiki-model. -Halo (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
How would it be misleading? I can see one making the argument that they are both fundamentally correct (although I think the semantic focus should be on editing), but I don't understand how it could be misleading. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
When "Editor" is mentioned, I tend the associate it with "Editor-in-chief" (i.e. the head of the newspaper), so it could be inferred to imply seniority -Halo (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
That is a point, but if every user (sorry, Editor ;-) has the same prefix, it shouldn't be an issue. I don't know if it's a good idea, but it would give a sense of Editors > Users (people who only "use" Wikipedia, i.e. never edit). That said, the current namespace name is just fine. No sense changing everything, really. Since anyone who uses Wikipedia can also be an editor... why not just add Editor as an alias for NS_USER? Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 22:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that's what I'm suggesting. Just that "Editor:" be the primary alias (i.e. the one that displays at the top of the screen. "User:" would still work). Carnildo's example of the change from "fair use" to "non-free content" is a fairly good analogy. This is more about subtle but cumulative behavioral change via a subtle change in the environment. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Editor sounds a lot better than user and I prefer editor, but it appears that "editor" is going to become a user group, see ([5])-- penubag  (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree per the joke about only comptuer professionals and drug dealers having "users". Listing Port (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I don't think this is necessary, and I agree with Pomte that contributors matter more than editors. Now, if you made it so that people who heavily contributed could become "Editors", that might make sense; but lots of WP users don't really do much. OptimistBen | talk - contribs 04:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no clear consensus for this, and it should be archived. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 06:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - "users" are really "editors", so that should be more noticable. It also sounds like it would be relatively easy to do (just like WP: redirecting to Wikipedia:) -- Imperator3733 (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - I honestly think that it makes more sense, we are the editors of Wikipedia. Not the users, besides, its not that big a deal, you just change the namespace and redirect User: to Editor: (or you can even go as far as making a bot that changes User: to Editor:). And all those who oppose this idea can continue to use User: if they wish. Maybe only autocomfirmed Users use the Editor namespace (fixed the giant dormant account problem).  Atyndall93 | talk  09:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Wikipedia is a website. People who use a website are users. Yechiel (Shalom) 18:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Bogus Argument - No-one denies this, but it's irrelevant. It is still better to call them "editors". — Timwi (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Have we forgotten this? The proposed change would imply that anyone who doesn't have an account is not an editor, which is contary to the very foundation of Wikipedia itself. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Bogus Argument - It doesn't imply that. Do you also think that Wikipedia currently implies that anyone who doesn't have an account is not a user? — Timwi (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Reply - Even IPs (which is everyone without an account), have red links for user pages. --Pwnage8 (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Bogus-Bogus Argument reply (like it? eh... thought I'd give it a try (;), you haven't said anything that dismisses this oppose as being wrong. Personally, I think "Editor" would confuse newbies and anons into thinking Wikipedia has a ranking system, while in truth, no editor is considered better than another, not even wp:admins. --Nezek (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - The only real arguments given - especially the one about cognitive psychology - support this change. — Timwi (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Support, per Timwi.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Support, semantics matter. I don't know the technicals, but what about a tiered system; say 100+ edits in the main namespace gets you editor status? Obviously it's nothing but a status symbol, but people work to achieve status symbols. Vrefron (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Support for all users (not selective). Remember that even IPs have a User: prefix, so they will now have an Editor: prefix. This proposal isn't leaving anyone out. This will make everyone feel a little better about their contributions, as well as possibly reminding IPs that have never edited that they are (potential) editors too. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 09:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Oppose no-one seems to be considering the developmental changes this proposal necessitates: and it isn't worth it. Not only would it leave the English Wikipedia out of sync with all other English projects, but this particular change would cause massive linkage problems and a gross overflow of redirects from the User: to the Editor: space. In addition, it would mean that many policies even referring to the User: namespace would need to be altered and even re-written. I just think that such a semantic and superficial change would cause too many issues and would generally not be worth it. This late in the game, on a project as large as the English Wikipedia, changing the name of a namespace is a very, very difficult thing to work through, from a software and an administrative perspective. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the namespace would be just like the WP: shorthand namespaces. What problem would that cause? And as far as rewriting the policies... So? Is there some drastically complicated problem that isn't obvious to me? As far as I can tell, selectively using a "find & replace" function on a few pages would take care of that. Policies are edited constantly. No big whoop. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 18:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Changing User: to Editor: would also mean we'd have to have Reader: and Uploader prefixes to fill the inconsistency between the two. I can't see anything good coming from that. I think users feel more part of a group if everyone is actually called the same - Mgm|(talk) 11:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment As the consensus over the last few months seems to be pretty strongly for this, I've filed bugzilla:16973 to request the change.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 16:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
No, consensus has NOT been strongly for it, and the bug was subsequently closed as wontfix, rightfully so. In my personal opinion, this is trying to determine the color of the bikeshed, as almost every site on the internet uses "User" to denote registered user accounts. Additionally, "Editor:" connotes increased status, since its use in real life is primarily to signify people of higher status within a publication medium. Newspaper editors make decisions over what articles make the paper and where. Film editors decide what scenes get included and how they're timed out/cut. Book editors can decide not to publish a book. Given the fact that consensus equates anonymous users with registered users, the "User:" is, in my opinion, a better prefix, as an anonymous user who doesn't understand our terminology would be dissuaded from editing if an "Editor" disagreed with him than if a fellow "User" did. Thus, strong oppose. --slakr\ talk / 04:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Makes sense. Whether registered or not we always refer to "editors" and never to "users". They renamed the "Image" namespace to the "File" namespace. The technical issues involved are the same and would not require redirect pages. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. User is a global definition, Editor is too specific. i.e. you can also be an uploader, a reader, or an anon user, and according to Wikipedia's principles there's nothing wrong with that. I don't see the point in trying to convince users to edit pages in such cunning ways. I think organizations that try to insert subtle contextual cues to influence behavior are doing so from a point of weakness -- they think their product isn't good enough on it's own, so they try and manipulate their consumers. Wikipedia, on the other hand, has strong enough foundations to atrract users into editing on its own. --Nezek (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this would just be... confusing. As has been stated before, most people with accounts don't even edit. Also, I do think that referring to users with accounts as "editors" would alienate IP users to a degree. I've seen many very valuable edits made by people without accounts for whatever reason. Some don't want to be tied to an account. Some want to prove that IPs matter. Some don't realize that they even can have/should have an account! (not to imply that they must have one, of course) But calling those with accounts "editors" does imply, however subtly, that anyone without an account is not an editor. It's too specific and has bad connotations, IMO. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress (extermination requests here) 01:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Those without accounts would be Editors too! --Editor:83.253.251.213 (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Multiple watchlists

Latest comment: 16 years ago13 comments12 people in discussion

For organizational purposes, it would be nice to be able to maintain more than one watchlist. I've been cleaning up my watchlist every couple months but I usually end up deleting things I actually want to keep, just to get the list cut down to a more manageable size. I'm tempted to maintain an external text file or something so I can move chunks of listings in and out of the raw watchlist editor depending on what I want to look at, but would it really be so difficult for the wiki have that kind of functionality already built-in? I can't see it being an additional resource hog. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:23, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

See m:Help:Watching pages#Related changes feature for "additional watchlists". Although they do have some drawbacks: such a list is not private, you have to explicitly put links to talk pages, there are less options to filter the changes. —AlexSm 15:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that is helpful. However, still, I think multiple watchlists for each user is a good idea. It would offer a lot of convenience and benefit for very little performance cost, if any at all. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:38, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I was going to propose something like this! I suggest that each item on a watchlist have a "flag" or parameter which could be a bit, an integer or a short piece of text which the user associates with the item.
Suppose you're going to be really busy for a few weeks. Then you want only the few articles most important to you to show on your watchlist during that time. But then afterwards, when you have some time and want to see what's happening in the general areas you're interested in, currently you have to start from scratch rebuilding your watchlist. Under my proposal, you'd only have to click one setting, "show all items" or "show all items with priority level of 5 or fewer" etc. If it's a text parameter, you could click "show all items that I've tagged with "medicine" etc. depending on what your interests are at the moment. You could also label things as "watchlisted during RC patrol" or "watchlisted when I posted a message there" so you'd know why the heck things are on your watchlist. It might also be useful if the date the item was placed on your watchlist could be (optionally) displayed. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, similar solution, probably even better since you'd be able to see all "watchlists" at once if you chose to, but also be able to filter based on user-defined tags. I actually like that better. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:28, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I like that, too. However, I think I ought to mention an already existing tool: the ability to monitor changes in all the pages that link to a specific page. John Carter gave me the idea, and applied it on SBS's Templates page; all changes made on pages linked to from that page can be seen in a list accessible from a box in SBS's main page. I can tell you, it helped me clear my watchlist a long way. One can create a subpage in one's userspace with all the pages one is interested in watching; one may categorise its contents as one wishes (with headings and sections) and has the ability to hide links (or, indeed, entire groups of links) whenever one wishes by turning them into HTML comments. This tool, which I have only recently learnt about, has many potentials in my opinion. Waltham, The Duke of 20:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah that's the related changes feature, see the first response to the original post above. It's a good temporary solution but the watchlist is so much more functional, easier to use and read. I think it should be expanded to include this functionality. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:30, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)
I guess I missed that. Yes, I quite agree, it is a good provisional solution, but it definitely won't cover all of our needs. Waltham, The Duke of 17:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I really like this idea. I have articles on my watchlist that I'm actively editing, but others that I just want to monitor because they've been subject to vandalism before. To have different watchlists for the different reasons you watch an article just makes sense. But in lieu of multiple watchlists, I like Coppertwig's tags idea. Elle (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Add me to the list of people who would find this really useful.Doug Weller (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been wanting something like this for a while and am glad that others do too. I like the tagged watchlist idea best. Maybe there could be an expandable list of all the different tags that you have with checkboxes between the namespace selector (has that always been there? I just noticed it now) and the most recent changes. We would have to figure out an interface for adding tags, but that should be relatively simple. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I too would very much like to have them. I would like to be able to separate a/the articles I take a personal interest in as an editor or potential editor, such as my high school, because they deal with things of central interest to me, from b/the articles with problems where I have left talk page messages or otherwise want to make sure the problems are addressed, c/the articles I have tagged for deletion or deleted & want to check that they are not reconstructed, or the articles I have rescued to check if someone nonetheless marks them for deletion, and d/the general pages where I follow discussions on policy or XfDs or clean up & administrative tasks. Of course there are multiple ways around this. Besides related changes, if there are pages I know I want to go to regularly I can simply have a list of links--or keep a list of links on an external document or use bookmarks. If there are pages I want to check whether or not they get deleted I can keep a list of them, and see whether they are red or blue. None of these are as satisfactory as multiple watchlists. I have seen a few editors using a declared additional account for this purpose, but if I did this, I would have to go back to my own account to edit them. I see no reason why it would be impossible to implement multiple watchlists. DGG (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This may or may not relate to this but how about something like this?. I still wanted to add another feature, which probably would be of greater interest to you but if there's too many changes, the whole thing will never pass. The feature would be to have a clean up button next to each change in your watchlist which when clicked, deletes the entry in your watchlist until another change is made to it. That way your watchlists is always clean. -- penubag  (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I too like this Idea. Let each user use each list for for different "levels" of monitoring, eg. "susceptible to EL SpamLinks List" seperate from my "way to often edited talkpages List". Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Tracking list

In my experience, there are two main things which I use my watchlist for: keeping "track" of low/no activity pages "in case" of editing/recreation.

Watching pages which I may wish to read/edit/be kept abreast/aware of.

So I think just one additional "watchlist" should be enough for everyone's needs. Imagine placing the first type on your tracking list. It would make editing your watchlist much easier. And entirely clearing your watchlist and starting over might not be such a concerning affair.

Yes I know that recent/related changes can be used for tracking. But there may be situations where that method may not be as useful. And to be honest, it's far easier to add something to the current watchlist, than to take the time to edit/sort/list/etc. such a list.

Anyway, I think just being able to add merely one additional watchlist, would go lightyears for ease of use. More than 2 would be more than most users would need. (Especially since the watchlists can now be sorted by namespace, among other things.) And of course, there's still the recent/related changes methods.

So what would the thoughts/concerns of having a (technically "duplicate") second watchlist, such as a tracking list? - jc37 01:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Bookmarks

In addition to my support for multiple watchlists, I'd suggest a bookmarks page. Personally, I'm terrible at remembering templates and the like, or where to find them, so I put these pages on my watchlist. I'd like the ability to bookmark these pages without seeing the changes made to the pages. I'm sure some more experienced editors have this stuff memorized, but it would be a useful tool for those that don't. Vrefron (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I would support this. Currently a lot of editors have a bookmarks section of a sort on their userpages, but it would be far more efficient for us just to have a "bookmark" tab next to the "watch" tab. This could even be implemented as a simple script, I think, with the links being added to a section of your userpage or a subpage of your userspace.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Categorised (user defined)" or "split (user defined)" watchlists; an idea previously proposed as "multiple watchlists"

Pulled out of archive see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals#"Categorised (user defined)" or "split (user defined)" watchlists; an idea previously proposed as "multiple watch lists"

Bookmarks page

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can we get this to work? There have been at least a couple past proposals for bookmarks, as well as support. What is needed in order for a proposal to turn into action? I was surprised that there was none already; the main reason I created an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhulia (talk • contribs) 14:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Persistent_proposals/Archive_3&oldid=1143357168"