There is currently a discussion at the village pump over redesigning the placeholder images:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Redesign...
May be of some importance given how many pages these images now appear on and that they are starting to appear on other projects.
At the same time I would be interested in knowing if there are any wikiprojects that think this could be useful for finding images relating to their area and are prepared to deal with the uploaded images.
A sample of the images uploaded (not all they keep disappearing off to commons) can be found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fromownerviewed
On 05/09/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
There is currently a discussion at the village pump over redesigning the placeholder images: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Redesign... May be of some importance given how many pages these images now appear on and that they are starting to appear on other projects. At the same time I would be interested in knowing if there are any wikiprojects that think this could be useful for finding images relating to their area and are prepared to deal with the uploaded images.
Yes. Some WikiProject Cricket members are rather annoyed at me for filling their articles with [[Image:Replace this image1.svg]] ... the present images are really ugly, no two ways about it.
- d.
The new ones don't look that much better.
What Wikipedia needs to do is pay a graphic designer to come up with a new skin/visual style/logo etc. etc. for us. I've been saying for a long time that Wikipedia is looking tired. Monobook came along in like 2004 (or was it 2003?) and nothing has really changed since then.
~Mark
On 05/09/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
What Wikipedia needs to do is pay a graphic designer to come up with a new skin/visual style/logo etc. etc. for us.
I would very much hope that the Foundation can find something better to spend the best part of a million dollars on.
On 05/09/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
I would very much hope that the Foundation can find something better to spend the best part of a million dollars on.
I'm quite sure they're very good at finding things to spend money on.
~Mark
On 9/5/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
I would very much hope that the Foundation can find something better to spend the best part of a million dollars on.
It's not an unimportant issue. Wikipedia design is starting to date and go stale. Design and usability is paramount for any website, especially a website of our size
This is an issue that would optimally be settled like all of our other issues, by consensus and volunteer work, but I fear that will not happen. First off all, the open source method is notoriously bad at producing good GUIs, and second the inertia of the community is staggering in this case. I mean, look how hard it was to redesign the main page!
Maybe hiring a graphic designer to do some work and mockups and things isn't such a terrible idea. I realise that we're strapped for cash, but unless we want to look exactly the same in another five years (which would make us positively prehistoric), I don't think there is all that many other options.
--Oskar
On 05/09/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/5/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
I would very much hope that the Foundation can find something better to spend the best part of a million dollars on.
It's not an unimportant issue. Wikipedia design is starting to date and go stale. Design and usability is paramount for any website, especially a website of our size
Design, in the "ooh! it looks nice" sense, is utterly irrelevant to usability.
But, fine! If the WMF wants headlines of WIKIPEDIA SPENDS $500,000 ON NEW DESIGN, it can have them.
On 9/5/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Design, in the "ooh! it looks nice" sense, is utterly irrelevant to usability.
This is the traditional geek-response, and for geeks this is generally true, but for regular folks it's just silly. People like using a good looking system! Even if a system is really usable, if it is also really well-designed it is much more pleasant to use, and you can do it for a longer time. These kinds of responses ("Design is so gay! I like CLIs!") are really unhelpful and completely untrue.
But, fine! If the WMF wants headlines of WIKIPEDIA SPENDS $500,000 ON NEW DESIGN, it can have them.
Yes, that's exactly what I was saying! Precisely that! </sarcasm>
Honestly, it baffles me how people can think that the public face of wikipedia is unimportant. We spend War and Peace sized novels discussing the tiniest bit of minutiae in policy, but when it comes to things normal people (non-wikipedians) *actually* care about, we're flippant saying "Who cares?"
This stuff is important to wikipedia, whether or not it's important to you! Sticking our heads in the sand does not help.
--Oskar
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
On 9/5/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Design, in the "ooh! it looks nice" sense, is utterly irrelevant to usability.
This is the traditional geek-response, and for geeks this is generally true, but for regular folks it's just silly. People like using a good looking system! Even if a system is really usable, if it is also really well-designed it is much more pleasant to use, and you can do it for a longer time. These kinds of responses ("Design is so gay! I like CLIs!") are really unhelpful and completely untrue.
This seems to be a backwards argument. As I see it "regular folks" like things to be stable and predictable while geeks are the ones who are always pushing for "improvements". It's not the regular folks who are going to be talking about "CLIs"; most would not know what you are talking about with that abbreviation. I've never understood why some sites put so much effort into having a wide choice of skins.
But, fine! If the WMF wants headlines of WIKIPEDIA SPENDS $500,000 ON NEW DESIGN, it can have them.
Honestly, it baffles me how people can think that the public face of wikipedia is unimportant. We spend War and Peace sized novels discussing the tiniest bit of minutiae in policy, but when it comes to things normal people (non-wikipedians) *actually* care about, we're flippant saying "Who cares?"
This stuff is important to wikipedia, whether or not it's important to you! Sticking our heads in the sand does not help.
You have a vivid imagination if you believe that "normal people" really care about these superficial trappings of fashion. People come to wikipedia because they are looking for information about a subject that may concern them at the moment. They don't come because we have a prettier skin. Sticking one's head in the clouds is no improvement in comparison to those whom you say stick their heads in the sand.
Ec
On 05/09/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
This seems to be a backwards argument. As I see it "regular folks" like things to be stable and predictable while geeks are the ones who are always pushing for "improvements". It's not the regular folks who are going to be talking about "CLIs"; most would not know what you are talking about with that abbreviation. I've never understood why some sites put so much effort into having a wide choice of skins.
Well in the case of wikipedia it is because some of us still haven't gotten around to getting to grips with monobook.
On 05/09/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/5/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Design, in the "ooh! it looks nice" sense, is utterly irrelevant to
usability.
This is the traditional geek-response, and for geeks this is generally true, but for regular folks it's just silly. People like using a good looking system!
Do we have any evidence that Wikipedia fails this test?
Even if a system is really usable, if it is also really well-designed it is much more pleasant to use, and you can do it for a longer time. These kinds of responses ("Design is so gay! I like CLIs!") are really unhelpful and completely untrue.
A straw man of the highest order.
But, fine! If the WMF wants headlines of WIKIPEDIA SPENDS $500,000 ON NEW DESIGN, it can have them.
Yes, that's exactly what I was saying! Precisely that! </sarcasm>
Honestly, it baffles me how people can think that the public face of wikipedia is unimportant. We spend War and Peace sized novels discussing the tiniest bit of minutiae in policy, but when it comes to things normal people (non-wikipedians) *actually* care about, we're flippant saying "Who cares?"
This stuff is important to wikipedia, whether or not it's important to you! Sticking our heads in the sand does not help.
I think you over-estimate the general public's wants.
I'm simply opposed to change for change's sake -- especially if it costs money.
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
Maybe hiring a graphic designer to do some work and mockups and things isn't such a terrible idea. I realise that we're strapped for cash, but unless we want to look exactly the same in another five years (which would make us positively prehistoric), I don't think there is all that many other options.
Among our thousands of editors, I'm sure there are a bunch who are also good graphic designers - do they know that we'd be interested in somebody volunteering to do a new design? Not to mention other professional designers who would leap at the chance to add "designed Wikipedia's overall look" to their resume, and would do the work gratis. In fact, we should be able to announce the opportunity and then pick from several competitors - not every day that a graphic designer gets to do a makeover for one of the world's best-known websites.
Stan
On 05/09/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Among our thousands of editors, I'm sure there are a bunch who are also good graphic designers - do they know that we'd be interested in somebody volunteering to do a new design? Not to mention other professional designers who would leap at the chance to add "designed Wikipedia's overall look" to their resume, and would do the work gratis.
Actually no they didn't. The reaction was rather more hostile.
In fact, we should be able to announce the opportunity and then pick from several competitors - not every day that a graphic designer gets to do a makeover for one of the world's best-known websites.
Stan
We tried it. Given the response if I didn't know better I'd say you remarks were calculated to be undiplomatic.
geni wrote:
On 05/09/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
In fact, we should be able to announce the opportunity and then pick from several competitors - not every day that a graphic designer gets to do a makeover for one of the world's best-known websites.
Stan
We tried it. [...]
When was this? The last episode I can think of was many years ago, before many people even knew of WP. I just find it hard to believe that we can find thousands of talented people to do writing and photography and mediawiki programming for free, but not a single one to do page design.
Stan
On 05/09/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
When was this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Design_overhaul,_2006
The last episode I can think of was many years ago, before many people even knew of >WP. I just find it hard to believe that we can find thousands of talented people to do writing >and photography and mediawiki programming for free, but not a single one to do page >design.
Stan
http://www.markboulton.co.uk/journal/comments/wikipedia_and_bowing_to_the_br... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Design_overhaul%2C_2006#Possible...
geni wrote:
On 05/09/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
When was this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Design_overhaul,_2006
Interesting. Was it ever publicized? I didn't hear of it at the time, and the lack of links to it from anywhere else suggests that very few people got the word. If one were serious about soliciting design entries, one would want a main page note and a WMF press release at least.
The last episode I can think of was many years ago, before many people even knew of >WP. I just find it hard to believe that we can find thousands of talented people to do writing >and photography and mediawiki programming for free, but not a single one to do page >design.
Stan
http://www.markboulton.co.uk/journal/comments/wikipedia_and_bowing_to_the_br... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Design_overhaul%2C_2006#Possible...
Well, this is the same self-justifying drivel we've seen from professional photographers grumbling about the existence of free photos and Robert McHenry dissing WP itself. The best part is the attempt to suggest that it's somehow unethical to work for free, ha ha ha. I don't think we want any participants who think of the very concept of WP as fundamentally wrongheaded!
Stan
On 9/5/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Well, this is the same self-justifying drivel we've seen from professional photographers grumbling about the existence of free photos and Robert McHenry dissing WP itself. The best part is the attempt to suggest that it's somehow unethical to work for free, ha ha ha. I don't think we want any participants who think of the very concept of WP as fundamentally wrongheaded!
Some of the criticisms are more intelligent, though; they accept the validity of working for free (as they point out, pro bono work has been done by professionals forever), but they are down on contests; the point being all the wasted effort. It's one thing to work for free if your work is going to be used, it's another to work for free for your work to be thrown out.
Personally I think the amount of crap that a designer would have to take from fractious Wikipedians deserves pay. No matter what changes get proposed, someone loud is going to hate it.
-Matt
On 05/09/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
No matter what changes get proposed, someone loud is going to hate it.
Wikipedia is scarcely unique in this...
On 9/5/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/09/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
No matter what changes get proposed, someone loud is going to hate it.
Wikipedia is scarcely unique in this...
Hardly. But this is one of the reasons why designers want to be paid!
-Matt
On 05/09/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Some of the criticisms are more intelligent, though; they accept the validity of working for free (as they point out, pro bono work has been done by professionals forever), but they are down on contests; the point being all the wasted effort. It's one thing to work for free if your work is going to be used, it's another to work for free for your work to be thrown out.
Personally I think the amount of crap that a designer would have to take from fractious Wikipedians deserves pay. No matter what changes get proposed, someone loud is going to hate it.
Worse than that. They stress the importance of working with the customer. The problem is that in this case in order to get reasonable results the customer would have to be the community which looks ok until you realise to get a simple question answered will take months and the answer will be long messy and written in the kind of language that a political spin doctor would probably think of as going to far.
On 05/09/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/09/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
In fact, we should be able to announce the opportunity and then pick from several competitors - not every day that a graphic designer gets to do a makeover for one of the world's best-known websites.
We tried it. Given the response if I didn't know better I'd say you remarks were calculated to be undiplomatic.
Lots of people do customised MediaWiki skins - we could easily pick a replacement for Monobook from almost anywhere.
As for the joys of graphic design competitions around Wikimedia, I commend to you the following page, which explains in pictures why graphic designers are paid money:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/International_logos_%28overview%29
Mind you, we did get three really good ones (the puzzle globe, the Wikimedia logo and the Mediawiki logo) out of it. But hoo boy.
- d.
On 06/09/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
As for the joys of graphic design competitions around Wikimedia, I commend to you the following page, which explains in pictures why graphic designers are paid money:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/International_logos_%28overview%29
I propose we change our logo to this one:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia-rainbow-logo-small.png
Or, if that one's too gay, maybe this one:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Calvin80Wikipedia.png
~Mark Ryan
On 9/5/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/09/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
As for the joys of graphic design competitions around Wikimedia, I commend to you the following page, which explains in pictures why graphic designers are paid money:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/International_logos_%28overview%29
I propose we change our logo to this one:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia-rainbow-logo-small.png
Or, if that one's too gay, maybe this one:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Calvin80Wikipedia.png
~Mark Ryan
That Einstein one... kinda hurts to look at. It's not professional and doesn't lend itself well to a serious mission. The rainbow one isn't bad, but it's dated. Reminds me of several 1980's era tech companies. I wouldn't be adverse to changing the logo, but neither of the ones you've put forward would be acceptable.
On 05/09/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/5/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/09/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
As for the joys of graphic design competitions around Wikimedia, I commend to you the following page, which explains in pictures why graphic designers are paid money:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/International_logos_%28overview%29
I propose we change our logo to this one:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia-rainbow-logo-small.png
Or, if that one's too gay, maybe this one:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Calvin80Wikipedia.png
~Mark Ryan
That Einstein one... kinda hurts to look at. It's not professional and doesn't lend itself well to a serious mission. The rainbow one isn't bad, but it's dated. Reminds me of several 1980's era tech companies. I wouldn't be adverse to changing the logo, but neither of the ones you've put forward would be acceptable.
-- -Brock
I suspect that Mark was being less than entirely serious. Given it's current recognition I doubt the wikipedia logo will be going anywhere any time soon. Other logos are probably more open to changes.
On 9/5/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/09/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/5/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/09/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
As for the joys of graphic design competitions around Wikimedia, I commend to you the following page, which explains in pictures why graphic designers are paid money:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/International_logos_%28overview%29
I propose we change our logo to this one:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia-rainbow-logo-small.png
Or, if that one's too gay, maybe this one:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Calvin80Wikipedia.png
~Mark Ryan
That Einstein one... kinda hurts to look at. It's not professional and doesn't lend itself well to a serious mission. The rainbow one isn't
bad,
but it's dated. Reminds me of several 1980's era tech companies. I
wouldn't
be adverse to changing the logo, but neither of the ones you've put
forward
would be acceptable.
-- -Brock
I suspect that Mark was being less than entirely serious. Given it's current recognition I doubt the wikipedia logo will be going anywhere any time soon. Other logos are probably more open to changes.
-- geni
Errr.... right. My bad, should get the sarcasm detector fixed :)
-- -Brock
On 06/09/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect that Mark was being less than entirely serious. Given it's current recognition I doubt the wikipedia logo will be going anywhere any time soon. Other logos are probably more open to changes.
I always forget that my sarcasm doesn't translate well across the internet :)
Wikipedia's logo is quite distinctive, changing that would probably be a step backwards. But Monobook could do with a change.
I remember seeing a screenshot on meta somewhere of a new skin someone designed for Wikinews, that never got used. It wasn't entirely bad, in concept.
As it stands at the moment, I think Monobook is too complex, because over the years we've been using it, little links have been added here and there, making it a bit of a patchwork quilt.
On 05/09/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia's logo is quite distinctive, changing that would probably be a step backwards. But Monobook could do with a change.
Our logo is an INCREDIBLY powerful brand. I hope we can start selling 3-D puzzle globe keyrings soon ...
I like Monobook a lot, actually. I used Classic before, but I think Monobook is fundamentally well-designed. Flashy is not a virtue.
As it stands at the moment, I think Monobook is too complex, because over the years we've been using it, little links have been added here and there, making it a bit of a patchwork quilt.
There is that. But that's a tweaking issue rather than a new-skin issue.
- d.
On 05/09/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/09/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia's logo is quite distinctive, changing that would probably be a step backwards. But Monobook could do with a change.
Our logo is an INCREDIBLY powerful brand. I hope we can start selling 3-D puzzle globe keyrings soon ...
I like Monobook a lot, actually. I used Classic before, but I think Monobook is fundamentally well-designed. Flashy is not a virtue.
Monobook looks clean, sensible, clear. It's perhaps one of the biggest things that got us where we are today - it *makes the content look reliable*. It has astonishing levels of recognition (you'd be amazed how many people think any random mediawiki install belongs to us, "because it looks the same" - monobook default)
Tweak - sure. itwp has a nice subtly different colour scheme going on, I believe, that sort of thing is worth playing with. But throw it out and start again? You'll confuse a lot of people.
David Gerard wrote:
As for the joys of graphic design competitions around Wikimedia, I commend to you the following page, which explains in pictures why graphic designers are paid money:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/International_logos_%28overview%29
Mind you, we did get three really good ones (the puzzle globe, the Wikimedia logo and the Mediawiki logo) out of it. But hoo boy.
Heh heh. The irony is that it's not much worse than what design firms have been known to submit in competitions.
It's like with the donations - people say every year "we'll have to start taking advertising just like everybody else", and yet simply asking for money has worked pretty well, better than most imagined it would.
Stan
On 05/09/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
It's not an unimportant issue. Wikipedia design is starting to date and go stale. Design and usability is paramount for any website, especially a website of our size
Google's current look predates ours. Are there any major usability issues in the current GUI?
Maybe hiring a graphic designer to do some work and mockups and things isn't such a terrible idea. I realise that we're strapped for cash, but unless we want to look exactly the same in another five years (which would make us positively prehistoric), I don't think there is all that many other options.
--Oskar
And if we changed now we would still be out of fashion in 5 years time. Currently wikipedia look how people expect wikis to look. no need to change that.
On 05/09/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
The new ones don't look that much better.
What Wikipedia needs to do is pay a graphic designer to come up with a new skin/visual style/logo etc. etc. for us. I've been saying for a long time that Wikipedia is looking tired. Monobook came along in like 2004 (or was it 2003?) and nothing has really changed since then.
~Mark
Even if the foundation were to do that I doubt they would be involved in the placeholder images. No community is on it's own on that one.
On 05/09/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/09/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
There is currently a discussion at the village pump over redesigning the placeholder images: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Redesign... May be of some importance given how many pages these images now appear on and that they are starting to appear on other projects. At the same time I would be interested in knowing if there are any wikiprojects that think this could be useful for finding images relating to their area and are prepared to deal with the uploaded images.
Yes. Some WikiProject Cricket members are rather annoyed at me for filling their articles with [[Image:Replace this image1.svg]] ... the present images are really ugly, no two ways about it.
- d.
Might be possible to create a stumps and bat motif but it would appear they don't wish to spend the time watching out for copyvios.
On 9/5/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/09/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/09/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
There is currently a discussion at the village pump over redesigning the placeholder images: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Redesign... May be of some importance given how many pages these images now appear on and that they are starting to appear on other projects. At the same time I would be interested in knowing if there are any wikiprojects that think this could be useful for finding images relating to their area and are prepared to deal with the uploaded images.
Yes. Some WikiProject Cricket members are rather annoyed at me for filling their articles with [[Image:Replace this image1.svg]] ... the present images are really ugly, no two ways about it.
- d.
Might be possible to create a stumps and bat motif but it would appear they don't wish to spend the time watching out for copyvios.
-- geni
Obviously we don't need a damn graphic designer, just somebody who knows (a) how to edit an SVG image and (b) what a typical cricket player looks like. I'm fairly clueless on both of these things but for $500,000 or even $5.00 I'd be willing to learn quickly. Since when did we have any trouble getting things done for free...
—C.W.
On 06/09/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
Obviously we don't need a damn graphic designer, just somebody who knows (a) how to edit an SVG image and (b) what a typical cricket player looks like. I'm fairly clueless on both of these things but for $500,000 or even $5.00 I'd be willing to learn quickly. Since when did we have any trouble getting things done for free...
Actually those two are not really the problem. I could probably do them. Problem is that you have to produce a result that is aesthetically pleasing while at the same time being fairly easy for regulars to tune out. Which is rather more difficult and the reason graphic designers are paid a fair amount of cash.
On 9/6/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Actually those two are not really the problem. I could probably do them. Problem is that you have to produce a result that is aesthetically pleasing while at the same time being fairly easy for regulars to tune out. Which is rather more difficult and the reason graphic designers are paid a fair amount of cash.
-- geni
Can't one use some "display:none;" CSS to tune out specific content?
—C.W.
I just stumbled over two talk pages which contain a new message colored notices "if you are a member of X add {{X}} to your [[user page]]". WP:NOT#SOCIALSPACE or acceptable behaviour?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alpha_Kappa_Alpha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alpha_Phi_Alpha
Adrian
On 05/09/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
I just stumbled over two talk pages which contain a new message colored notices "if you are a member of X add {{X}} to your [[user page]]". WP:NOT#SOCIALSPACE or acceptable behaviour?
Sounds like a userbox to me, and a fairly harmless one. Is X is the template namespace? If so, I think policy is to move it to the user namespace.
That's unacceptable imo. I'm all for userboxes (within reason), but saying anyone should (and for new users, it could be misinterpreted as must) add a sorority or frat userbox to their userpage via article talk space is clearly a violation of "not a social space" to me. It has the distinct potential to detract from the central goal, to write a neutral encyclopedia. Not to mention that such articles shouldn't be lorded over by members and alumuni anyway.
On 9/5/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
I just stumbled over two talk pages which contain a new message colored notices "if you are a member of X add {{X}} to your [[user page]]". WP:NOT#SOCIALSPACE or acceptable behaviour?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alpha_Kappa_Alpha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alpha_Phi_Alpha
Adrian
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Thomas Dalton schrieb:
Sounds like a userbox to me, and a fairly harmless one. Is X is the template namespace? If so, I think policy is to move it to the user namespace.
The templates are in template namespace, while the notices to add them are on article talk pages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Alpha_Kappa_Alpha http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Alpha_Phi_Alpha
Steven Walling schrieb:
That's unacceptable imo. I'm all for userboxes (within reason), but saying anyone should (and for new users, it could be misinterpreted as must) add a sorority or frat userbox to their userpage via article talk space is clearly a violation of "not a social space" to me. It has the distinct potential to detract from the central goal, to write a neutral encyclopedia. Not to mention that such articles shouldn't be lorded over by members and alumuni anyway.
I agree, but didn't want to take any unilateral action.
Adrian
For the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_in_webcomics Which I am of course blocked from editing.
http://www.gocomics.com/thefifthwave/2007/08/05/
It's not a Web comic, so you'll have to either upload or record the text and date. "I started a wiki about making successful marriages, but my ex-wife...."
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (Wikia supported site since 2006)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
On 9/5/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton schrieb:
Sounds like a userbox to me, and a fairly harmless one. Is X is the template namespace? If so, I think policy is to move it to the user namespace.
The templates are in template namespace, while the notices to add them are on article talk pages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Alpha_Kappa_Alpha http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Alpha_Phi_Alpha
Steven Walling schrieb:
That's unacceptable imo. I'm all for userboxes (within reason), but saying anyone should (and for new users, it could be misinterpreted as must) add a sorority or frat userbox to their userpage via article talk space is clearly a violation of "not a social space" to me. It has the distinct potential to detract from the central goal, to write a neutral encyclopedia. Not to mention that such articles shouldn't be lorded over by members and alumuni anyway.
I agree, but didn't want to take any unilateral action.
Adrian
You could move the userbox recommendation text to the WP:FRAT project page, where it would (incidentally) serve both purposes better, and provide an extra degree of separation between the two.
Sounds like a decent compromise. Do it.
—C.W.