We have been using templates for various management tasks for quite some
time now. Cleanup, wikifikation, deletion, all done through templates
and, sometimes, categories.
While some of these work out OK, AfD seems to be a mess, and Articles
for Creation (for anons on en.wikipedia) seems to be heading that way.
Handling of these task-tags requires editing of pages, making the page
history grow and generally being a pain (what was that template name?
did it have parameters?).
I hereby suggest a mechanism for "request management". Each article
would have a "Request" (or "task") tab, and there would be a
Special:Requests page. Through these, requests of all kind could be
handeled (added, listed, removed). Each request would get its own
"Request:" page for discussion.
A request would consist of:
* Article name (automatically filled in)
* Request type (chosen from a list)
* Comment/reason/explanation text
* Status (from a list, similar to bugzilla; "open", "solved", "wontfix")
* Other automatically filled-in information (who requested it, time of
Requests would be shown in the sidebar of the page (like "Requests:
cleanup, wikify"). Details would be shown of the Special:Request page
*for that article*. All requests, sorted and filtered, would be shown on
Special:Request (*not* for a specific page).
Optionally, a filter could be applied for the categories an article is
in. This would allow me too see all articles in "Biochemitry" that need
a cleanup, for example.
Quick, tell me what you think, while I'm in a coding mood ;-)
I am now asking the creation of a Ligurian Wikipedia, with domain:
(SIL code: lij )
since there is wide consent to its creation (16 support 3 against) and support enough from native speakers (5 in my count, 8/12/05).
I am compelled to talk about the fact that this requests, on the appropriate metawiki page, has subdued an odd history:
1) discussion, with progressive increasing consensus;
2) moved to section 5.1, 'approved, but in need of native speakers', then native speakers subscribed, and some opponent as well;
3) the page was moved back to 'discussion ongoing' (odd, by chapter about 'procedures': this fact arouse of course criticism.
4) since wiki-conditions were all fulfilled, I moved the page to 'approved requests'.
Summing up, since there is wide consensus, and wiki-rules for creation are fulfilled, I would ask this creation.
Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger
Téléchargez le ici !
In regard to the recent wave of press we had, mostly in the english
media but spreading also to France, Italy and Germany, I consider it
very urgent that every project has a press page which describes the ways
how to contact Wikimedia and ask for verification of information.
It should be linked from the main page and contain at least the
* Link to a description of what the project is about (f.e. Wikipedia
articles about Wikipedia and Wikimedia or a special press dossier like
* Link to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Press - logos and
images for press use
* Statistics, Replies to our critics or whatever you have as additional
* Link to the official Wikimedia foundation press room at
* Links to previous press releases and press coverage (if you have pages
* If you have trusted people on the wiki willing to act as local press
contact, add their name, email address and phone number there
These people should get in touch with me so I can direct local press
inquiries to them.
* general address for press inquiries is press(a)wikimedia.org
If you haven't done already, please prepare such a page and link to it
from your main page. You can use the english page as example:
The press release for the upcoming funddrive will be available soon on
meta wiki for translation. You can either distribute it locally over
your own distribution list if you have one or contact me to get an
account for the common distribution list to add your contacts and have
it distributed with a wikimedia address as sender.
elian, writing here as the press officer of the Wikimedia Foundation
I don't quite understand about why the response to people finding flaws with
us is to find flaws with them. It seems rather puerile to me. Instead, we
should try to find ways to overcome and correct our flaws.
If true, oh crap:
From: [New York Times business editor] Larry Ingrassia
To: [Business staff]
You probably saw Kit Seelye's smart Week-in-Review story about inaccurate information in
Wikipedia. In case you didn't, please take a look. Since the story ran, she has received a number
of e-mail messages about other inaccurate information on Wikipedia. We shouldn't be using it to
check any information that goes into the newspaper.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
I've been grabbed to be a last-second plug-in media whore for
Wikipedia this afternoon - BBC Radio 4 PM, around 5:40pm or so. (I'll
be taking one late lunch!)
It'll be on the subject of recent changes to Wikipedia and the current
storm in a teacup. I just chatted to someone there setting up the
technical details and mentioned the planned UK organization, so that
might get mentioned too.
If you miss it, you can get RealAudio or WMA from
So it seems everyone agrees that the current mo.wikipedia.org should be
moved to mo-cyr.wikipedia.org giving the control over mo.wikipedia.org to
people from Moldova, we will explain on the main page that Romanian and
Moldovan are the same language (with reference to wiki article on Moldovan
language) and will offer the user to continue with ro.wikipedia.org. And the
title of mo-cyr should be renamed from "Moldoveneasca" to "Moldoveneasca in
chirilica" so it wouldn't clash with the real language.
Thus the question: is there an admin here who can do this ?
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!