Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:PROPOSE" redirects here. For proposing article deletion, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion requests.
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts

The proposals section of the village pump is used to offer specific changes for discussion. Before submitting:

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for nine days.


City Vector Maps in SVG format[edit]

I invite the community to consider the following question: Do articles about cities need vector maps of cities in SVG format - editable, with a full CC-0 license, for free use in any media, publications, presentations, projects, etc.

Let me explain. I have been designing vector maps for many years. Now I have the opportunity to provide a large number of my city maps in SVG format.

I am sure that a map of streets and roads of a city is the main and most necessary content in Wiki articles about cities. In most cases - in articles about cities - there are no such maps. I tried to publish some of my maps in Wiki articles.

And I was extremely surprised that my maps were immediately removed. Reasons for deletion - some users did not like my nickname, some - my user page (and what is written there) - they considered it advertising, some - generally claim that city maps in articles about cities are not needed at all (most users) - and I’m sure that all these claims are unfounded and constitute a form of vandalism. Discuss. and all the arguments of the parties can be read HERE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vectormapper#Maps_and_promotion

LIST OF THE FREE CITY MAPS in SVG EDITABLE CC-0

[[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] [[10]] [[11]] [[12]] [[13]] [[14]] [[15]] [[16]] [[17]] [[18]] [[19]] [[20]] [[21]] [[22]] [[23]] [[24]] [[25]] [[26]] [[27]] [[28]] [[29]] [[30]] [[31]] [[32]] [[33]] [[34]] [[35]] [[36]] [[37]] [[38]] [[39]] [[40]] [[41]] [[42]] [[43]] [[44]] [[45]] [[46]] [[47]] [[48]] [[49]] [[50]] [[51]] [[52]] [[53]] [[54]] [[55]] [[56]] [[57]] [[58]] [[59]] [[60]] [[61]] [[62]] [[63]] [[64]] [[65]] [[66]] [[67]] [[68]] [[69]] [[70]] [[71]] [[72]] [[73]] [[74]] [[75]] [[76]] [[77]] [[78]] [[79]] [[80]] [[81]] [[82]] [[83]] [[84]] [[85]] [[86]] [[87]] [[88]] [[89]] [[90]] [[91]] [[92]] [[93]] [[94]] [[95]] [[96]] [[97]] [[98]] [[99]] [[100]] [[101]] [[102]] [[103]] [[104]] [[105]] [[106]] [[107]] [[108]] [[109]] [[110]] [[111]] [[112]] [[113]] [[114]] [[115]] [[116]] [[117]] [[118]] [[119]] [[120]] [[121]] [[122]] [[123]] [[124]] [[125]] [[126]] [[127]] [[128]] [[129]] [[130]] [[131]] [[132]] [[133]] [[134]] [[135]] [[136]] [[137]] [[138]] [[139]] [[140]] [[141]] [[142]] [[143]] [[144]] [[145]] [[146]] [[147]] [[148]] [[149]] [[150]] [[151]] [[152]] [[153]] [[154]] [[155]] [[156]] [[157]] [[158]] [[159]] [[160]] [[161]] [[162]] Vectormapper (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the data for these maps obtained? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My family has been involved in cartography since the 17th century. I have a huge archive of geodata. Personally, I have been designing maps for over 25 years. Much was drawn from satellite images. Vectormapper (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This a fantastic body of work but I think unfortunately they are of limited use on Wikipedia, now that we have the Kartographer extension. – Joe (talk) 07:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know about this application - Kartographer. It is suitable for creating previews, but not suitable for creating maps in vector formats suitable for use in media. And of course, maps created in the Cartographer project cannot be edited in a regular graphical environment. That is, you can look at them, but actually cannot use them. Vectormapper (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People come to Wikipedia to look at things. Wikimedia Commons is for those who edit. Many cities have so-called gallery pages there (like c:New York City), I think that's the best place to put your vector maps for people (professionals like you, I'm afraid) to reuse them. Ponor (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And on the page you indicated (gallery c:New York City ) there is also no good map of New York City.
Compare what is there now and what I offer. FREE and unlimited use.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:New_York_City_Greater_NY_US_street_map.svg Vectormapper (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said someone (YOU!) should add them there. I'd also suggest using the c:Template:Map on Commons, with coordinates added, like I did for the NYC map. That's needed for our {{Location map}} templates (examples: Category:New York (state) location map modules). Ponor (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hope that my city maps will be used by others in the community - which I see already happening. And I'm very happy about it. Vectormapper (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing why we should make an exception to either our image use policy (due to the in-image credits) or username policy (due to yours matching the website promoted in them). —Cryptic 08:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you find it strange that a username CANNOT DISPLAY HIS PROFESSION? For example, a COOK, or a MECHANIC, or an ENGINEER, OR a MUSICIAN? This is not a policy, this is a contrived restriction. And this is obviously wrong. If, for example, a COOK edits a page with methods for preparing jerboa meat in his own tears, then it would probably be correct if the user name is still a COOK, and not “CRUEL_TORMORER OF_JERBOAS” Vectormapper (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're very much allowed to have your profession in your username. You're not allowed to have a username be only the name of a company/organization/etc, or a position in a company/organization/etc, that would imply possible shared use and/or doesn't identify you as being a single person. "Cook" is extremely generic, but wouldn't really imply shared use as it doesn't make sense for an account to be shared between all cooks, but "Trade Union of the Cooks of Example-land" would imply potential shared use. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My company is registered in the USA, and the name is SOLICITY NAV LLC - there is not the slightest coincidence with the name of the company. Vectormapper (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I admire your work, @Vectormapper, but at 300px these maps are just abstract paintings in yellow and green. I'd have them printed on A0, but zooming-in to see the labels and streets (and anything) is too painful on Wikipedia. Kartographer is much better suited for that. Ponor (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you joking? These are vector files and can be scaled to any size. 300 pixels is a tiny preview. You can't see anything in this preview. Vectormapper (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So they're good for printing, but not for online viewing. Labels (and streets, buildings...) are of a decent size only when the map is rendered at thousands of pixels, and to get there you need to click on your map (served as a ~300px bitmap in Wikipedia articles), click again, click again and click again, only so you'd get the pristine svg in the browser. And then moving around the map is a pain, at least for the users spoiled by non-static Google or OpenStreet maps. Ponor (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google maps and Open Street maps are good for viewing online, and are completely unacceptable if you need to edit the map, use it in media and presentations, and, of course, for printing at any scale. And it is no coincidence that Wiki articles use SVG files for many images - (schemes, district maps, state and district maps, as well as emblems, flags and coats of arms) - their authors thought that someone would use these images in their projects . And this is absolutely correct. Vectormapper (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about that. I make them so they would look better at the scales used in Wikipedia articles, which is anywhere from 220px to 300px. What we see in articles is always a scaled-down bitmap version of an svg, never the svg itself. Readers will never get 20–40+ MB maps on their devices, even if WMF decides to switch to native SVG support. (after some manipulation, your NYC map just crashed my laptop browser!) Ponor (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all, there is a large amount of software for viewing and editing SVG files. In the maps of streets and roads I published, the amount of data is reduced as much as possible for large cities. But New York City is a big city. Nothing can be done about this. Vectormapper (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vectormapper, may I suggest that you spend a while lurking at voy:en:Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub? The travel guide usually wants some SVG maps. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks))) I do it))) Vectormapper (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are impressive maps, I suspect use on article will depend on individual discussion. One note is that given these are so specifically detailed, they should probably have a date (title or description) to note when their underlying data was obtained. Best, CMD (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a valuable point. But in general, the date of creation of the map is on the file description page. In any case, they are all spring 2024. Vectormapper (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checking my city, I see the map is at least a year out of date. So some data used to construct it was old. So I suppose we need newer versions over time. But I think the idea is good. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just indicate the city you need. I will try to update the city map as quickly as possible. Vectormapper (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Charlottesville_Virginia_US_street_map.svg Vectormapper (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saint Petersburg, Russia street map https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saint_Petersburg_Russia_street_map.svg Vectormapper (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Animations[edit]

Animations are very useful, but also distracting. As a matter of policy, the animations on Wikipedia pages should be set up so the reader can choose whether and when to run them. Running them automatically when the page is opened is not necessary or recommended, but if it is done, then there should be a simple way to stop (and restart) them. CCDobson (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T85838
@CCDobson, the problem isn't policy; most of us want that. The problem is technological. Doing this, and making it work for all the relevant file types in all the web browsers, is apparently complicated. I've linked one of the technical tasks on the side here, if you want to read a bit more about the considerations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User-info box[edit]

Proposal: Move the "user-info box" up.

The "user-info box" is currently found at the bottom of the user contributions page. See image under 22.

Depending on individual settings it's rather cumbersome to navigate to. I have to scroll past 1000 edits to access it. I suggest it's moved up, perhaps between the search box and the edits. Hypnôs (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This week's article for improvement[edit]

The new, sixth section of the main page. There will be no editing protections on the article, or at least a very low level of protection. It will be modelled closely after Today's featured article in terms of format. I believe it will bring the following benefits:

1) Create an opportunity for more inexperienced editors to participate in the project by bringing forth a visibly imperfect article, possibly recruiting future long-term editors

2) Emphasize the participatory nature of Wikipedia

3) Improve the actual article being showcased

I would appreciate any thoughts. We could have a trial run before we implement it permanently. Bremps... 00:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an interesting idea! I've heard this proposal before, but I don't really remember how it went or why it wasn't implemented. It could also be a good way to work on systemic bias in Wikipedia. Of course, there are a lot of open questions, like how the article will be selected. Maybe voting between High-importance and Top-importance articles on various WikiProjects that are lacking in quality? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC people usually object on the basis that the main page should feature our best content rather than content we know needs improving, and possibly some skepticism that positive contributions will be able to be made in the face of vandalism. Anomie⚔ 01:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And also that it doesn't work: Wikipedia talk:Articles for improvement/Archive 5#Failure * Pppery * it has begun... 01:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like to think we're wiser than 11 years ago. Wikipedia was younger and less mature then. Bremps... 02:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the rough consensus in that discussion appears to be that the TAFI trial did show promising results but that there were problems with the format, specifically that too many articles were presented each week. – Joe (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting would be a good proposal. Or it could work like OTD, where people first-come first-serve fill in upcoming slots. Bremps... 02:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First-come-first-serve would fill in extremely quickly, much more than OTD (as any article could be added any day, and people would be quite interested in having others improve their articles). And it would make self-promoting on the Main Page incredibly easy, while not necessarily guaranteeing that the articles being shown are necessarily a priority for improvement. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting it is! Bremps... 02:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest having a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for improvement regarding restoring its section on the main page, and to understand how the project has filled its queue since it was last on the main page. isaacl (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most people on the Main Page have 0 edits, meaning they don't know how to edit. Wikipedia is reader-focused and we don't really need to be encouraging readers to convert to editors on the Main Page imo. The community portal is a better place to start. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 01:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, readers will rarely stumble upon the community portal, let alone decide that this confusing-looking page is what will turn them into editors. If we want to make Wikipedia accessible as the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it is only natural to encourage editing directly from the Main Page. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. About the portal, I moreso meant beginner editors who want to learn more. I mean it is the first link on the main page under the "Other areas of Wikipedia". We also have the sidebar links "learn to edit" and "help". In my opinion, the "edit" buttons on every single article are sufficient to recruit readers. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The focus on new editor recruitment is why it was deemed a failure the first time. If we are going to try again (and I think we should) the focus should purely be on article improvement. Taking a poor article and making it better. Blueboar (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Standardise use of Lexical sets for describing English dialect phonology[edit]

In many of the articles linked to by Regional accents of English (separate note that many should be in Category:Dialects of English but are not), there are descriptions of each dialect's phonology. However, instead of using an extended version of Wells' Lexical sets, many articles refer to the broad transcription of rhotic RP English, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation. Thus Southern American English#Modern phonology has a table where the first column reads 'English diaphoneme, /æ/, /ɑː/, /ɒ/, /ɔː/' instead of 'Lexical Set, TRAP/BATH, PALM, LOT, CLOTH/THOUGHT' (or something similar) and Indian English#Vowels contains 'Diphthong /eɪ/ is pronounced as [e]' instead of 'FACE is pronounced as [e]'. Examples of articles using Lexical sets correctly are Scottish English#Phonology and American English#Phonology (for tables and not, respectively).

The bottom line is that the whole points of Lexical sets is that we don't need to talk about dialects in terms of a 'standard' pronunciation, and we can easily refer to groups of nouns and see how they interact (it clearly makes no sense to talk about a /ɒ/-/ɒ/ split rather than a LOT-CLOTH split). Therefore it is ridiculous to keep using broad transcription when Wells' system exists and is widely used already. Citation unneeded (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Edit filter manager has an RfC[edit]

Wikipedia:Edit filter manager has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. EggRoll97 (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove a word from a article[edit]

I understand that Indian courts have no jurisdiction over Wikipedia content, I would like to highlight that Wikipedia, as a global platform, has a responsibility to ensure that its content adheres to ethical standards and respects the laws and sensitivities of different cultures and nations. Article 17 of the Constitution of India explicitly abolishes the practice of 'untouchability' and criminalizes any enforcement of disabilities arising out of it. The use of the term 'untouchable' is deeply offensive and historically rooted in discrimination and oppression. I respectfully request that Wikipedia review below article content to ensure that it does not perpetuate discriminatory language. Instead of using the term 'untouchable', more appropriate and respectful terminology should be employed to discuss this aspect of India's history and social structure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasi_(caste) 2405:201:300B:390E:E42A:45AE:34CC:F448 (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&oldid=1233192715"