Wikipedia talk:Village pump

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Village pumps: Policy • Technical • Proposals (persistent) • Miscellaneous

Skip to: Table of contents | First discussion | Bottom of page

Village pump talk post

This page is for discussion about the village pump only. You may want one of the village pump subpages below, or one of the links on the village pump main page. Irrelevant discussions will be moved or removed.

Shortcut: WT:VP

Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar). Please add new topics to the bottom of this page.

« Older discussions | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

[edit] Cheesepuff

I made a template called Template:Cheesepuff but no one is using it. How can I make it more popular? Please don't ban me for editing pages because I adding wrong stuff to a page once before I made an account. Dipotassitrimanganate (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC). Dipotassitrimanganate (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC) 15:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that no one, perhaps for the exception of you, knows what it means or finds it funny? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A better way to treat certain redirects

Today I found these two redirect pages redirecting to two DIFFERENT articles:

That should not happen and I fixed it. I've seen this situation maybe a couple of dozen times before—most recently on January 23rd, 2009, when I found these two redirecting to two DIFFERENT articles:

A bot cannot decide what pages things like this ought to redirect to, if any, but I would think a bot could be constructed to

find things like this;
make a list of them so that Wikipedians can go down the list and find those within their competence and fix them;
possibly call them to the attention of the appropriate WikiProjects based on the target articles' category tags.

I know nothing about writing bots. So (1) Can this be done; (2) Should it be done; (3) Are there persons skilled in writing bots whom we should enlist to work on this? Michael Hardy (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And this is even worse: After posting the above, I found that these two went to different targets:

That's the difference between a hyphen and an ndash. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This page is actually for discussing the village pump instructions etc, you probably want to post your suggestion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). The suggestion looks like a good idea (generating a list of close matches with different redirects), perhaps you can get someone from Wikipedia:Bot requests to implement it, or contact a bot operator directly - probably someone with toolserver access or a database dump would be best.--Commander Keane (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

OK---I actually hadn't noticed that this is the talk page. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Where did Wilhelm Dilthey die?

For those familiar with the history of South Tyrol. It is certain that Wilhelm Dilthey, God bless his soul, died on 1 October, 1911, but it is less certain where he died. Did he die in

Seis am Schlern, Austria-Hungary?
Siusi allo Sciliar, Italy?
Seis am Schlern, Italy?
Siusi allo Sciliar, Austria-Hungary?

It is easy to commit an anachronism here. What do the WP regulations say about cases such as this? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You always go with the naming and ownership of the place at the time of birth/death. It appears to me that the town was part of Austria-Hungary in 1911. As for which name to use, that's a problem for the South Tyrol folks to figure out, I know there's a linguistic question there, but not (so far as I can tell) an anachronistic one. If it's anachronistic, and positively only one name was being used in 1911, then it should be a simple answer. --Golbez (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Project Idea

We have featured pictures, articles, and portals. Why not have a featured project? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Timelines

Seem like they would be good to use here and there and can be very effective. I think they are included in many encyclopedias if I'm not mistaken. Avoiding original research as far as what to include might be an issue. Have people used them? Are they best separated from articles? Integrated as image like illustrations? Used in section form? Comments, insights, thoughts, vitriol, welcome. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC) [http://www.zionmoviesandmedia.webs.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.48 (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A very old yet, re-invented - hence on a time line latest - and one of the best pumps to be used in today's developing country village pumps projects is the "Rope Pump" as all components of the pump can be made in the village, contrary to bolds and nuts. External link shows a better picture showing the working principle advantage compared to a traditional hand-crank pump. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope_pump —Preceding unsigned comment added by SvenAERTS (talk • contribs) 21:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant Policies

What's up with Wikipedia:Village pump (redundant policies)? Did somebody fiddle with the header on the VP pages? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rename village pump subpages

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Along with talk pages and archives

These pages are subpages of Wikipedia:Village pump, and should be named accordingly. Just like we don't have Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (incidents) (we do have Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents), the subpages of Wikipedia:Village pump should be named in a similar manner. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - It is standard naming, and leaving them at an incorrect name is pointless. I'm sure people will argue that they are really-quite-used-to the old names - these people will get used to the new names, no big whoop. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose for now, til someone can give me some sort of reason for doing this. Firstly, I kind of like that they're not subpages. I don't think of "Village pump" as a parent grouping that splits off into mere sub-topics. Village pump pages are special. I think of these pages as very different from each other, and each important and unique enough to be at the top level in the namespace. Besides which, what would be the actual practical benefit to making this change? Equazcion •✗/C • 07:02, 4 Mar 2009 (UTC)
Tend to agree with Equazcion; these are not really subpages. The parenthetical naming style is very common in Wikipedia space anyway, probably more common than the one with slashes: WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), WP:Naming conventions (use English), and many similar. Though if this were part of a comprehensive effort to standardize the way we name pages in project space, then I'd be sympathetic. --Kotniski (talk) 08:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Also agree with equazcion. I see no good reason for doing this. Garion96 (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
If the page moves facilitate easier searching, eg it would be possible to put an internal search box at Wikipedia:Village pump that searches all the subpages and archives, I think it is a good idea.--Commander Keane (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
But why would you want to search all village pumps at once? Unlike AN, ANI, AE, AN/3RR, etc etc, the village pumps do not form a contiguous whole; they cover fundamentally different issues. Besides, since you can just put "intitle:Village pump" into the search bar to search all village pumps and archives (AFAIK) this is not relevant anyway. I don't see any other reason to do this. Happy‑melon 11:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
If "intitle:Village pump" allows equivalent searching to the subpages scenario then the page moves may not be needed. Although the different Village pump pages should deal with different issues theoretically, in practice, for example, there are "technical proposals" that can end up in tech or proposals and "policy proposals" that can end up in policy or proposals. I think an overall search is desirable, but maybe I'm the only one :P --Commander Keane (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If you mean keep the pages where they are and search all at once I have to agree. rdunn PLIB 12:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

How about just one Village pump, which is surely the point of the whole idea (villages don't have separate pumps for discussing different subjects). Whether an issue ends up at VPP, VPR or VPM seems to be pretty random anyway. VPT is rather different and could be renamed to Technical issues or something. Just a thought.--Kotniski (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea in theory; however, I think that a village pump of 439 K isn't such a good idea. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point, but it would be great (regardless of whether we have 1 pump or several) if a bot could be trained to remove threads to a subpage when they got above a certain size (leaving a note, obviously), and then move them back into the archive when they conclude. That way the pump page(s) wouldn't get too large, and we could watch them without our watchlists being overwhelmed with large discussions that we've already decided we're not interested in.--Kotniski (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: As Happy-Melon pointed out, all VPs and archives can already be searched at once, since all their titles have the same prefix. In fact, the search box at the top of this very page will do that for you already. As for having all of VP on one page, we've already got that too: Wikipedia:Village pump (all), which displays all the current VP threads on one page. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:27, 4 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Well, you learn something every day. It's not very useful though, as you can't edit it directly.--Kotniski (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per Equazcion (Aggreeing espescialy on with Equazcion on the subpages). rdunn PLIB 11:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment - with all this side tracking... Is there a reason that VPM isn't just "Village pump"? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 15:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Probably simply to encourage people not to use it unless their issue doesn't fit in one of the others - essentially, to make it the obvious last-port-of-call rather than the first. ~ mazca ^t|c 10:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - it would be way more trouble than it's worth, especially considering that for consistency, everything linked from Wikipedia:Village pump archive would also have to be moved. That would be an incredibly messy process, because all the archives made before October 2004 are not subpages of the village pump. Per equazcion and Kotniski's arguments, there is very little point in this action. Re: merging all the sections of the village pump, it was split in September 2004 due to page size concerns. At that time, the village pump was the main forum for discussion in Wikipedia, before WP:AN and WP:ANI]] took over that role. I oppose unsplitting, because it allows people to specialise; for example I prefer to read the technical village pump and only rarely read the other sections of the pump. Graham87 11:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If this section is what's worrying you - I would be willing to deal with it (it would require exactly 1 edit; most of the work can be done using any text editor). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, that's not the section that is worrying me; replace all is your friend for that one. this is the one that would seem to take a helluva lot of effort to sort out without help from some kind of bot. There are also odd village pump pages like Wikipedia:Village pump sections and everything else listed at Special:AllPages/Wikipedia:Village pump and Special:AllPages/Wikipedia talk:Village pump. A lot of it is in subpages anyway but it just feels weird to categorise something like Wikipedia talk:Village pump/Agora at the same level as Wikipedia:Village pump/Policy. It's 12:40AM here so I can't quite articulate why ... I just don't understand the point of changing long-established page names without a very compelling reason. I've done quite a bit of cleaning out to make sure old archives, old page histories, etc. make sense on the VP, so maybe I feel a bit attached to the present, somewhat quirky and a bit old-fashinoned, way of doing things. Graham87 15:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see any links from these pages to other relevant VP pages; these are already subpages of the village pump. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Weak support, You are right that it should be moved to the proper naming standard, but it will create quite a hassle with archives (and they do have quite a big of use not being subpages) but then again you do bring up a good point that Wikipedia should try to follow its own naming convention.Smallman12q (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Does it have one that would cover this? Where is it documented?--Kotniski (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I really can't bring myself to support or oppose this. It's not, in principle, a bad idea but it seems to be little more than change for change's sake - both Village pump (policy) and Village pump/Policy are logical names for the page, and as it's already at the former there don't seem to be any compelling reasons to change that. As mentioned above, both brackets and subpages are used in this situation elsewhere, there is not a strong or necessary precedent. ~ mazca ^t|c 11:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose The retitling has no utility. There is no overarching naming standard that the proposed change would function to make consistent. WP:VP does not function the same way as WP:AN does vis-à-vis its subpages. Instead, WP:VP is an information page that no one posts to, which is just shy of functioning as a soft redirect to the four main pages identified by topic.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
OpposeThis retitling would make Wikipedia different from Wikimedia Commons and other Wiki sites. Although only recently very active, I find the discussions in Village Pump helpful, and the replies to my postings prompt and informative. Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Dthomsen8
Neutral I don't personally have a strong feeling one way or the other on this one. While Wikipedia doesn't normally use sub-pages the way that Citizendium does in namespace, I can understand the AN/I argument in that the pump is somewhat it's own identity. To some extent it does seem like a lot of extra work for minimal gain, but since I'm not forced to do "the work", it doesn't matter to me. — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 23:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Weak support I just did a similar reorganization at the WP:TYPO project. You gain the nice links near the top that help navigate the tree. Plus it just makes the project feel better structured. It would be tedious especially for Village pump but if somebody is willing to do it, more power to them. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not tedious. If an admin moves a page which has subpages, the possibility "Move subpages (up to 100), if applicable" appears as one of the move options. This should deal with the various archives. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Support I'm not sure why we should care about uniformity across projects or why we should treat the current titles as 'special'. I think the name changes are reasonable. Protonk (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - very limited (if any) benefit, large upheaval. The current system "looks and feels" better, too. Brackets are snazzier than slashes. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 15:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - Seems to be trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist, this works fine, lets not cause any confusion, potential or otherwise. — neuro^(talk) 21:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, solution in search of a problem. Tempshill (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Any behind-the-scenes Wikipedia project page should be about usability first, an anything else later. Renaming would merely result in the page meeting some policy with no improved benefits for its users. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Why? If they are fine as they are, then there really is no point. They are just like news, not subpages. Not exactly much gain from changing them, way I see it... If it ain't broke, don't fix it!! AND it seems to me there are 3 people who actually support this, and like 20 who oppose it. Let's just remove the tag to this page, leave the village pump alone, and get on with our lives.173.48.223.2 (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Mojara

Unclear Why aren't redirects a sufficient solution? With redirects we can keep the old names and create separate (and smaller) subpages. I think the proposal needs more thought. Phil_burnstein (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Support This exact question came up in relation to my uContribs tool: "I contribute a lot to the various village pumps, can I see all my activity in one place?" (referring to the "page family" analysis). Also, it matches the conventions used at WP:AN and WP:REFDESK. Addressing Equazcion, yes these pages are "special" but in the same way as those others. The AN page family is where to discuss stuff with administrators, RD is where to ask about stuff where knowledgeable people hang out, VP is where to throw out your ideas for discussion. The anomaly is mostly VPT, which is often an uber-advanced help desk. Franamax (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Support The sooner it's done the better. It makes navigation easier. I can just click the link at the top of the article to go to a different level, or type some extra characters in the address bar. Also, a hierarchical restructuring tends to be more toolserver-friendly in case any future bulk edits become desirable. SharkD (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment. The banner announcing this move discussion has already annoyed me far more than the titles of the VP pages ever did. - Banyan Tree 23:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, although my first instinct was to support. I am convinced by the "oppose" arguments above. I kind of like uniformity, it usually makes things easier – but I fail to see that there is any problem here, and why we should fix this non-existent problem just for the sake of it.--Ezeu (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be getting stale, with 7 supports (plus one effectively withdrawn) and 14 opposes. Time to put it to bed? Happy‑melon 12:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

- Yes! rdunn PLIB 12:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I sometimes forget the names of VP pages and get annoyed when I try to go to Wikipedia:Village pump/Technical and get this. But all that can be fixed by just making the subpagey titles redirect to the current titles. There's no need to move stuff around. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Done. Wikipedia:Village pump/Technical redirects to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  - And they all redirect. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this isn't going anywhere. Closing, no consensus to move. Happy‑melon 21:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] Huggle

Can someone tell me how to correctly configure Huggle? --♪♫The New Mikemoral^talk_contribs 20:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Huggle/Download, you need to put the text enable:true on Special:MyPage/huggle.css. If you're still having problems, you could try asking at Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback. Tra (Talk) 21:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I got. Just look at my contributions :). Best regards, --♪♫The New Mikemoral^talk_contribs 23:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Foundations, 60's English soul group. Vandalism etc

Below is a C&P from the the Village Pump archive. I have included it here so that the path of discussion can be easily referred to. There were three people on that thread. The first was Pat Pending, the next was - Tagishsimon and lastly 24.172.36.194 [1] or Dave Huffman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)/Archive_9

This is a problem that has not gone away and I fear that it may get worse as this person has now threatened to edit the page daily. What it's all about is the English Soul group, The Foundations who had the classic hits in the 1960's, Baby, Now That I've Found You and Build Me Up Buttercup In the past this person has blanked the article page and he's done it on more than one occasion. He's come back now and it's likely that this disruptive vandalistic behaviour will continue. Besides blanking the page when he can't get his own way he has popped message on it saying "come and visit us at" and he gives his website url. He has also posted threatening legal warnings on the article page as if it was a signpost outside private premises. He has also on more than one occasion put all the songs of his CD album individually as if they were single releases. He mixed them in with the Foundations discography.

I've carried on the thread and I've replied to Tagishsimon, hopefully he and others will read it and understand what's really at stake here. (George-Archer (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

[edit] The Foundations (April 2008) (Please don't edit this section

Hello, will someone please help me. There is someone from the USA by the name of Dave Huffman laying claim to the name "The Foundations" who keeps inserting his "legal claim" into the article. To the best of my knowlege, there are only two people who "own" the name in the UK - Clem Curtis & The Foundations, and Colin Young & The New Foundations. Will someone please advise. Pat Pending (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect this might be a US law versus UK law type issue ... neither jurisdiction can bind the other. That said, I agree that the person adding the US claim is misusing wikipedia. I've deleted a section on trademark ownership (complete with shouty captal letters) and will look at the article again this evening, probably to shorten it and try to prevent it being a battleground. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This person is not "laying claim" to "The Foundations" name but has legally owned the name and all performance rights to "The Foundations" in the US since the mid 70's. This was obtained when both Clem Curtis and Colin Young left the group after breaking ties with their management company in 1970. Both left the group under their own free will to pursue other projects. All of the other "original" UK members of the group also returned home and gave up any rights to "The Foundations" name at that time. I really appreciate you ignoring the legal aspects of this discussion. I have been performing with and recording with the group legally longer that any of your so called "original" members. This is my last statement on Wikipedia as I have learned that this website is a total farce not at all interested in the true facts and they are as follows:

Clem Curtis left the group even before Buttercup was recorded. Colin Young left the group shortly after. The group did not disband in 1970 as stated but was reorganized in the US and has been recording and performing ever since. Believe what you wish but there are apparently three "Foundations". One owned by Clem Curtis? One owned by Dave Huffman One owned by Colin Young?

The question marks are there due to the fact that I have not checked to make sure that they have legal rights in England but I'm assuming that they do.

You seem to be willing to accept the English groups but not the American group that has been in legal existence longer that either of the British groups. That is your God given right to hide your head in the sand and ignore the facts but it is my God given legal right to state the true facts and you, Sir have taken that right from me. Hope you're satisfied. I'm through trying to have the facts stated correctly on Wikipedia.

Dave Huffman The Foundations US www.thefoundations.us

[edit] The Foundations: Continued discussion from April 4 2009

Tagishsimon, firstly the main issue is accuracy of history. Dave Huffman's claim that the Foundations were kept going is only backed up by him. To the best of my knowlege there is no fact and nor any kind of reference anywhere else except for what he has put on his own personal website that can back up what he says. I've seen a couple of experienced wikipedia users actually interacting with his claims as if there were some foundation to them. From what I can see there is absolutly none. His claims conflict with everything that has been written in books about the Foundations. From what I can see his claims about his connection originate soley from himself. Anyone anywhere can make a claim that they were a member of a band and there have been some that have gotten away with it for a while. But this one in particular seems to be the most inane outlandish of claims that one has to pinch himself to see if he's dreaming or not. So what's the point in all of this ? Why is he an American, claiming a connection with a British soul group from the 1960's. Why is he claiming that his group is the Foundations ? Why has he threatened to sue Clem Curtis or Colin Young, the original members of the Foundations if they dare step onto American shores as The Foundations ?

Besides the continued outlandish claims from this person and his camp, we've had to witness an arrogant and insulting claim that has been directed at the original Foundations members. Huffman and or co have made the claim that Clem Curtis and Colin Young both failed in their solo careers so they have tried to cash in on the name and fame of the Foundations. He's basically saying here that he is the rightful leader of The Foundations. How can this be ? He makes accusations that more or less translate to a claim that these men who recorded those hits are nothing more than hangers on, and cashing on to the fame of The Foundations. Well isn't that what he's doing ? And what makes it worse, he's hangin on and cashing in on the fame of a band that he has never had anything to do with ? (George-Archer (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

[edit] "Persistent" vs. "perennial"

Is there supposed to be some kind of discernible difference between "persistent proposals" and "perennial proposals"? Why on earth are their two links to two different pages about the same concept? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Stretton-on-Fosse

I made this page and, at the time of me posting this, has a no references tag at the bottom even though, I have added it in like I should and always do.De Mattia (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed it. You were missing the closing ref tag.-gadfium 06:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Edward Flower

The same thing has now happened again. I don't know if it is just appearing like that on my computer or if it appears like that everywhere around the world, but it's weird because I have put in the approriate tags at the bottom and the stub thing 'please help Wikipedia by expanding this article etc' hasn't come up either for me. De Mattia (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Look at what I did for the other case and see if you can fix it yourself.-gadfium 06:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Another user before

I was another user before and I need a banner or a javascript box to show this thing on my user page. --TudorTulok (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with w:Requests for comment

Surely the village pump should be merged with w:Requests for comment? They seem to completely overlap. Same goes for all the subpages, ie. w:Village pump (policy) and w:Requests for comment/Policies. Note also Requests for comment has the alternative interface of w:Community portal. ··gracefool ☺ 17:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mistakes made with AWB

Help? I made a really bad mistake using AWB. Because of a mistake in the creation of a regular expression I changed and unknown number of level three headers to become level two headers. There might be over a thousand pages involved. Is there a way to roll back that may edits. Waiting is only going to make things worse. I'll watch his page. --droll [chat] 00:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all who responded I think I can handle it. I've fixed about 700 already. Only about 1 in 12 of the articles have a problem. I want to get it done ASAP. I should have it done by late tonight. --droll [chat] 02:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Where'd the Technical section go?

When I click Wikipedia:Village pump (all), the Technical section is blank. Of course I can go to it directly, but why doesn't it show here anymore? Ntsimp (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

These tags seemed to be messing with how the page was transcluded. Tra (Talk) 00:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Creation portal:Lyon

We are creating a new portal portal:Lyon it's my first experience so everybody can give his help Lulu97417 (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hidding stubs

I'm working on an article and the subject of the article falls under 5 stub types. As I don't really want 5 stubs to show up on the article (the sub list would be longer than the article info), is there a way to hide the stub comment but still have the stub be active (not using a hidden comment)? I haven't been able to find any info in a short search. Thanks. OlYeller^Talktome 14:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe just adding the category added by the stub would be the best way as the rest of the stub template it just for show anyway. OlYeller^Talktome 14:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been in such situations also. Why don´t you put scroll-bar boxes or collapsible wiki-templates (like this one) for such cases? - Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{__ΞΞΞ_} . -- 19:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The {{asbox}} template is fine for this, the main intention is not to have a lot of stubs in one page, nor keep icons, but have the correct categorization of the respective stub category. --Woglinde 02 (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A possible error?

Hi,

Checking my account history brings up several entries which I am positive I have not had a hand at. For example, I received a message from a member here in Wikipedia telling me I have repeatedly blanked large sections of various articles without consensus. Not being confident in my editing skills, I have only ever done some paraphrasing and spelling corrections, yet my history clearly shows this is not the case.

Is there some sort of error here?--85.64.46.148 (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That message was from 4 years ago, which is a wiki-century. ;) Don't worry about it, just keep doing good stuff! Franamax (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Red Links

Is there a portal/category that shows which pages have the most red links to it? For instance, if person X is referenced in many article but still doesn't have one made for them, I'd like to make that page. So I'm basically looking for a list to see what uncreated page was the most links to it. OlYeller^Talktome 15:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There's Wikipedia:Most wanted articles, but it doesn't seem to have been updated since October. —JAO • T • C 18:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Today's featured picture

The page is protected from editing and I have no idea where one is supposed to go to point this out, but the text appending the photo of Gerald R. Ford is wrong. It reads, in part:

"...the Watergate scandal, which began an attempted break-in..."

When of course it should read:

"...the Watergate scandal, which began with an attempted break-in..."

Hopefully someone here is cleared to edit the page or can forward this to the appropriate page. If someone would note on my talk page where that is, so I know where to go in the future (I've noticed a similar error on the main page in the past), I'd appreciate that. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved, I think you found the right place to report at Talk:Main Page--Commander Keane (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cab Kaye

dear Wikipedists,

who can help me translating the additional information in the dutch article on Cab kaye at http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cab_Kaye to the English one? --NorbertvR (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Three millionth article pool

Guess the topic of the three millionth article at the wikipedia:three-millionth topic pool! Stevage 05:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Photos at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry

Does anyone have a photo of the Travel Air Mystery Ship "Texaco 13" that is on display at the museum. I would like to use a PD image to illustrate an article on Frank Hawks. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC).