Talk:Call for proposals/en

From Strategic Planning


So rating is great. It would be nice to be able to continue to see the ratings after you have already 'voted', though, to track the status of favorite proposals. I don't know what hack produces the ratings widget, though :) -- Phoebe 04:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Duplicate ratings should replace the previous rating instead of triggering attempted vote fraud alarms, especially since proposals can change. 01:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can follow the ratings by hitting the button that says "page ratings" in the left side toolbar. :) -- Philippe 04:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need help

I do not know why my proposal pageAudio/visual Presentation Competition did not come in proposal namespace.And page moving facility is not available to me(!).

Can some one help me,please. Mahitgar 08:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal and Vision Comments

Open Community Strategy = wiki strategy

100 year plan; 2 years at a time.

The WMF vision strategy = exchange extremely broad community participation, to harvest community proposals to improve the WikiMedia ecosystem.

The People's Market

  • fast, simple proposal process (the 5 minute proposal)
  • open voting w/comments (applied to the rating/voting)
  • redesign the voting to be actually useful
  • How many votes do you get?
  • rating TAB on proposals
  • side note: open voting works for Wikipedia+, why not for Country X? (besides the physical ballot counting)
  • Is MWiki going to use the People's Vote?
  • What's the promise that the MWiki foundation is making on selected proposals?
    • immediate funding, partial, future, reject

Slightly regulated review process (peer reviewed and ranked)

I want to be a proposal evaluator. How can I be this?

3rd phase = decision cycle w/voting input

  • Funding for proposals
    • the netflix or X prize game. Good strat by NetFlix: they waiting and were patient

Fire away, Juhan


Hopefully this will help prevent proposals from being created in the wrong namespace, but feel free to revert if you feel it's unnecessary. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Many proposals do not represent a long-term strategy, are in the wrong place (proposals for new projects, languages, Wikimania bids), or are just not serious. Consider cleaning this page for it to stay readable and useful. 11:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we are currently at a very early stage in the proposal and planning process. This means that right now we are trying to encourage users to make proposals and then later we will filter out the important ones. I agree that there are many proposals which don't seem to be feasible/realistic/long-time strategies. If you think so about a proposal, mention it on the talk page, maybe the proposal can be improved. Regards, --ChrisiPK 12:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

congratulations, queries and suggestions.

Congratulations for the idea of grouping proposals by theme. Well done.

Now, how can I move a proposal to its proper group, or is there someone in charge of this allready?

It seems to me many people are just not noticing the the guideline "read other proposals before you submit one of your own". I guess now, with the number of proposals already submited (a very fast growing number!:) it's not even a realistic thing to ask of people. So there ARE proposals that essentially duplicate others. I see that grouping them by subject is already a step to adress this, but I am thinking of leaving a comment on the talk pages, as I read along, crosslinking proposals concerned with similar issues. If anyone thinks this is a good idea, help is appreciated - there is a lot to read! Saludos, Thamus 05:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a little tool at the bottom of the proposal for categorization... just hit the little + sign and type the correct category :) To remove a category, hit the - sign. Glad you like it! :-) -- Philippe 05:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I get a lot of negative comments on the discussion page of my proposal Retirement of long-time editors. I think, I should withdraw that proposal. What would be the best way? Maybe a new category or a request for deletion? --Goldzahn 15:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think withdrawal of proposals is a good idea. If a proposal fails, then it fails, no need to remove it. Regards, --ChrisiPK 21:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. --Goldzahn 22:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Chris, with one small caveat: there is no "failure". This is a discussion. Nobody and nothing failed. It seems that enough people made points against your proposal that it is unlikely to ever move beyond the discussion phase. That's okay. That's part of brainstorming. I think we should keep it, so that we remember the discussion. Documentation is essential. -- Philippe 22:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought a category "old proposals" or something similar could be created. I would change the category of my proposal so that the proposal is still there, but not valid anymore. We have got 227 proposals and it´s a lot of work reading all of them. Actually I have read only 20 or so and most of them not carefully. One proposal less to read would be positive. --Goldzahn 01:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People understood your proposal well,it brought smile to my face,we need certain light moments too,Your proposal is good for brain storming,Let it be there as is, even tagging withought as old,-or may be you have a category 'tounge in chick'- until some new proposal thread comes from there.

Mahitgar 05:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mahitgar totally: that's essentially the same as deleting it, when you remove it from the list. Part of the beauty of this is that it might trigger another idea for someone else. Or, rather than someone else suggesting it, they can see that it's already been proposed and decided not to implement. Leave it there, please...-- Philippe 22:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals requiring attention

I changed that. Is it OK? Does the new solution need to much processing time? By the way, I found that. --Goldzahn 01:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improving content subcategories

The "Improving content" section seems to need splitting into subcategories the most at the moment. How about these?

  • Coverage
  • Quality 19:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done That took much more time than I expected.... 01:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outreach and new things

For Outreach, I added subcategories:

  • Collaboration
  • Multimedia
  • Money
  • Text
  • Time

"Time" probably should have been "Events" but there was already a couple Proposal:Events (the other in another language) so I didn't pick the best subcategory name. Although, "outreach time" has a nice ring to it. Renaming categories should probably be done, but it probably needs bot support to keep from getting so screwed up that it's not worth the effort.

Well I renamed the header to "Events" but the cat is still Category:Proposals for outreach time which upon reflection doesn't have a very nice ring at all. Someone please rename categories if you are good with AWB. 08:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done 20:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"New Projects" needs subcategories but since it's a merge source -- for -- I'm not going to bother. There are probably a few more subcategories in new features, too, but that's also a merge source for ... but it already has sub-categores. Well, maybe later. 07:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals that belong on meta-wiki

We have several types of proposals here that would be better addressed on meta-wiki, where we have active processes suitable for these. For example, proposals of new chapters, Wikimania host cities, new language Wikipedias or new wikis that are obviously more suited to Wikia or Wikispaces. Unless a proposal is breaking new ground in some way, it probably would not belong in the central listing; I exclude from this the new project proposals, because although meta-wiki does technically have a mechanism for this, an actual new Wikimedia project has not been added for 3 years now.--Pharos 05:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hence Proposal:Synch with Meta. 00:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of proposals that probably will be shifted at some point to places where they can be actionable; but for now, it makes sense (I think) to allow proposals to be submitted in a central location and then possibly distributed. Clearly, some people aren't familiar with all of the many places that they could be submitted; it would be interesting to figure out why that is. -- Philippe 20:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal rating

Can we add a "proposal rating" feature please? Some proposals are clearly superior than others, and we need a way of distinguishing those quickly from the others. 10:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a proposal rating tool at the bottom of each proposal. :) -- Philippe 20:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When showing the results of the voting on the "Call for proposal"-page it would be helpful to explain what numbers 1 to 5 mean (1=very low, 5=very high). --BambooBeast 07:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continue with the project

I think that if we continue with the project and build it on a solid base maybe the members of WIkimedia and the community will realize it's possibilities. Actually is a very ambitious project and many companies would like to participate as a way to promote their brand. Just create an account and start editing... ;)--Biris 09:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


What I'd like to add is not one concrete proposal but a philosophy, which is missed a little on the proposal page.

Just suppose, Wikipedia is at its limits. No new users, no new articles (except some at the actuality level). Users are just capable of maintaining what is. Look at what's there now. Anglo-American: 3 million articles. German: 1 million. French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Dutch: half a million. Eighty percent of all the world's native/2nd language speakers can be reached with that. Chinese, Indian, Russian will take care of their own. The Babel Tower has been built anew.

Still, we're in danger of losing it all. If not enough users can be raised to maintain the building, it could fall down like a tower of Pisa or crumble. If not enough users can be made enthusiastic to replace the workers that resigned, we might lose the building that has been made by hand with the help of so many users worldwide. We need a renewed belief.

Now the philosophic part: belief consists of several elements.

One's the mystical part. I don't think we could ever control that, but that doesn't mean it hasn't got importance.

One's the part of idealism. Maybe, maybe, we could maintain that ultimate dream of all the world being nurtured with free knowledge. What do we need? Well, partially that's not in our hands either. It consists of $100-dollar laptop programs, micro-financing programs and the like. The only thing the Wikimedia Foundation could do is to support that kind of programs.

One's the part of enthusiasm. There's a lot to do out there, by renewing our own presence, reaching out to young generations all over the world and making sure they're going to work with us for their own future. That could be anything from new features to new content to new presentations to educating other people outside.

The last part is the realistic thing. We need to realize the importance of what we've got, maintain the fundamentals and teach those newcomers to maintaining what is and helping them out.

Good luck, - Art Unbound 19:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't the Babel Tower supposed to be an actual building to reach the heavens, not a collection of knowledge? 17:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's the same thing? -- Ryk V 16:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"... A large group of adolescents used to contributing to Wikipedia would of course result in a group of adults who might like to continue on that path, at least now and then. That should solve most problems related to community stagnation." --Fasten 13:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Is there a deadline for submitting proposals? Will there be voting on which one to materialize first?--Kozuch 15:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, it's ongoing. The proposals proposed sooner have better chance of materializing first. 17:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Someone needs to take a comparison pass through because I think we have about a half dozen more. 21:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. It would be wonderful if someone added links to relevant proposals here under the appropriate "References" subsection. --Eekim 17:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

overzealous removal of proposals from Category:Proposals

Please see User talk:Brya for the details, but Brya removed many proposals from Category:Proposals and although I was trying to be as welcoming as possible, I now see the clear need for all proposals to remain in that top category. Could someone please figure out how to find the set of proposals removed from Category:Proposals? Can advanced search do that? 17:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the good news is, they're still here somewhere, because all the proposals are in the "Proposal:"namespace. Let me ask around and see if we can figure out how to get a list of the ones that aren't in the category. -- Philippe 17:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we've got a bot that can do it, but it can't happen until tomorrow. It's not the end of the world, just gonna look like they're not there for a day or so. -- Philippe 18:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content quality and ending anonymity is clearly the most popular perrenial proposal, probably because people haven't read it. I know a bunch of people who have looked for opposing evidence, but they always end up agreeing with it when they do. I want to be as nice as possible, so I suggest merging and de-categorizing it under "Enable existing features" for board discussion. Then again, maybe they just require attention? 18:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold. :) It can be in more than one category if it fits there. What were you suggesting merge with? -- Philippe 18:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence that ending anonymity would improve content quality, and plenty of evidence that it would harm content quality. Why does it keep getting back under "improving content quality"? 09:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposals are categorized according to their declared purpose or type. There's no evidence for the proposals for improving content or usability that if implemented they would achieve that result, but they're there because this page is only a catalog, not a judgement. The discussion on the consequences of the implementation of a proposal must be on the proposal talk. Nemo 23:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously suggesting that filing those proposals under "improvement" isn't just an endorsement, but in this case it's an endorsement against a Foundation Issue without any evidence in favor, and a lot of evidence against it. I think the Foundation needs to make it clear that just saying something doesn't make it true. 06:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No action here can be taken as an endorsement, unless it says so (i.e. "I endorse this proposal"). Lots of these proposals are counter to the basic purposes of the Wikimedia Foundation, or of the individual projects. Evaluating the proposals is something that presumably will happen in a later stage. At this stage they should be categorized according to purpose, no matter how unrealistic. The only shift that should happen now is between proposals that are understandable and those that are not understandable (and there are plenty of the latter kind). - Brya 07:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have chosen to refrain from answering this question about reliable sources, I am left to conclude that you know very well filing proposals under "improvement" when there is ample evidence as part of a longstanding Foundation issue ("the Encyclopedia 'anyone can edit'" necessarily includes those who chose to not divulge their identity) that ending anonymity would hinder content quality by admitting more religious beliefs and mob-held false beliefs. The only hint you have given as to your motivations in this regard is that discussing which sources are the most reliable would be a "religious debate." It is no secret that religions of all stripes have long used threats of shunning, pillory and torture, all of which require the exposure of identity, while science depends on blind review and double-blind experiments to maintain integrity. Can you assure us that you are not a religious person hoping to advance your religion with the benefits that loss of anonymity might confer upon it? 03:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that these proposals have nothing to do with, as that deals with IP's. Another matter entirely. It is rather tiresome to see users respond to mere words that push their buttons. How about actually reading a proposal before taking drastic action? - Brya 10:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain the distinction you are trying to make and why you have chosen to refrain from answering questions about what you consider to be the most reliable sources. Why do you believe that such an answer would be a "religious debate," as you put it? 03:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be clear: proposals are filed under their declared purpose or the closest fit. To file them under the actual or believed outcome would be to make judgements about their outcomes which are inappropriate and impossible without data. -- Philippe 04:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a double standard. We have had several proposals with declared purposes having no more to do with what they would actually accomplish than these -- such as the one about firing Jimbo -- and those were justly deleted because they were seen as unfit. The problem is that ample data supports the fact that ending anonymous edits would harm content quality. MediaWiki has long had the option to require email-verified and other forms of authenticated logins, and that is in fact the Citizendium model, which really isn't doing so well in terms of coverage or any better on accuracy on topics they do cover. You have asked for boldness on this issue, so I am going to move those proposals back from under "improving" content quality to "enable existing features" where they are not so offensive to established evidence or Foundation policies. I would also like to ask, that since this particular issue has been recognized for most of the past decade as within the purview of the Foundation exclusively, that you please consult with Board officials about this point. Thank you. 05:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal about firing Jimbo was the only one that has been deleted thus far, and that was deleted not because it was seen as unfit, but because it was posted by a known troll who has since been banned. Let me reiterate what others have said already: The purpose of these proposals and their categorization are to solicit ideas without judgement. There's ample opportunity to give feedback, either through the Talk page, the ReaderFeedback extension, or simply by ignoring the proposal. --Eekim 15:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just clarify that is the only proposal with substantive content to be deleted; there have been some that are essentially empty or obvious jokes that have been deleted. -- Philippe 16:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am with Philippe here. It looks self-evident to me. - Brya 10:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to it being in both categories, if that would satisfy you... -- Philippe 12:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here, I am not with Philippe. moving it into "Enable existing features" still presupposes that these proposals intend to prevent IP-addresses from editing, and obviously that is not the common factor for these proposals. However, I should probably note that the "Enable existing features" and especially the "Existing features" are aberrant here as categories in that they do not categorize by purpose, but that judgement has indeed been rendered on these proposals (rather prematurely in my view).
        That Citzendium is failing in many respects is not of any particular importance. Wikipedia is also terrible in many respects, as there are very many users who neither understand, nor care about, NOR, NPoV, etc. - Brya 12:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right about the "Enable existing features." Some of the proposals there seem miscategorized, and in general, it's a category that doesn't make a huge amount of sense. I think there should be a category, "Deprecated," that allows proposal creators to deprecate their proposals. For example, in Proposal_talk:Article_modification_alert, the author seems to agree that the proposal should be deprecated. --Eekim 15:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone intend to answer the question about whether there is any evidence that ending anonymous edits will improve content quality? 20:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that bait. There is no clear evidence - and no clear evidence either that ending anon page creation improved content quality on en:wp. A useful and relevant proposal would be to run effective studies on the topic, since it is one of such tremendous interest to many contributors and readers. However the categorization of proposals is not by whether they achieve (content quality or what have you) but by what they intend to do. We have some truly ridiculous proposals at the moment, classified by the intent of their submitters. If a thousand people all think that paying experts to produce -ND articles is the way to improve wikipedia's quality, it is worth noting this simply for the sake of the historical record! we should not try to hide this information by pretending those thousand people weren't interested in improving WP quality. assume good faith, recognize they are trying to improve quality... and that they have missed the current point of the projects completely. So either the current projects are deeply flawed and would benefit from this sort of radical change, or we need to help better explain to newbies the essential pieces of what make wikipedia work. Sj 06:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to that question is irrelevant (for present purposes), even if the question meant what you thought it meant. - Brya 10:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do the present purposes include improving content quality or not, then? To whose purposes are you referring? What did you think I meant? 17:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can only suggest you take some training in elementary reading skills. - Brya 19:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that the greatest part of this discussion should be moved to the relevant proposal talk. Nemo 14:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are about five of them, and the question has to do with the category membership of all of them ("would ending anonymity improve content?"), so it's probably better here. 20:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this discussion does not really belong anywhere, as the question that is repeated here again and again ("would ending anonymity improve content?") is not relevant here, as proposals are categorised by the purpose they aim to achieve and not by the effect that some passer-by feels they will have. In a sense this this is very reminiscent of all too many articles on Wikipedia, where an editor or group of editors insists on the 'real deal' (The Truth), instead of on providing factual information. This violation of the NPoV and Verifiability-policies is all too common, and one of the big problems of Wikipedia. - Brya 16:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A step back

So, we have one person, who refuses to say why the peer-reviewed secondary literature should not be considered the most reliable (saying that would be a "religious argument") and who insists on filing the proposals to end anonymity -- perrenial proposals for which there is no evidence that they would improve content quality or coverage, and vast amounts of thouroughly documented evidence that they would harm both content quality and coverage -- who tells people that they need "training in elementary reading skills" when questioned, insists his or her changes shouldn't even be discussed here, and who has now escallated this dispute with accusations of vandalism in an edit summary.

How do Foundation employees expect volunteers to deal with the other perrenial proposals given the way this one is being treated? How is Sue going to react when a reporter calls and asks why ending anonymity is listed under improving content?

Like it or not filing proposals to end anonymity under "improving content" constutites a specific endorsement -- an endorsement that I intend to revert again, and I encourage others to revert as well, until such time as any evidence supporting the assertion is forthcoming. 03:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know who this Sue is, but when a reporter calls her she can just answer the question as detailed above (time after time). Categorizing any proposal does not constitute any degree of endorsement (other than acknowledging that there is enough text to be legible). But obviously there is one user here who is giving everybody else here a hard time and who works at odds with the process. - Brya 06:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sue is the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, and thus my eventual boss. I think she will answer exactly as Brya says above. Categorization does not constitute endorsement. Period, the end, or we wouldn't categorize any proposals that we didn't agree with, would we? I've really reached the end of my rope with this particular lame battle, and I'm protecting the page. I have no idea what status it's in right now, but that'll be the one it stays in for a while. -- Philippe 22:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe protection without evaluating the status is wise? Hope you will please reconsider your decision -- not to protect the template, but to protect it implying that ending anonymous editing would improve content. Because, I believe you protected the version which is contrary to all empirical evidence and contrary to the only statements we have on the matter from the Board and your own colleague. If there were any evidence in favor of the version you protected, don't you think someone would have come forward with it by now? I am not sure I would call strategy discussion about how best to improve content a "lame battle." 17:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the amount of time that has been spent discussing whether or not to include this single item into a category for presentation purposes is absolutely lame. -- Philippe 17:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with it being lame. It is also very typical of the Wikipedia experience, where somebody with a narrow viewpoint, belief or interest will keep arguing till he either is blocked or the Wikipedia page conforms to the narrow viewpoint, belief or interest (the latter is true of innumerable pages). - Brya 13:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify

Philippe, I have these questions:

Which version of the page do you believe Sj favored in his comments above?

Why do you believe that the argument in favor of privacy (against implying ending anonymity would improve content quality) is "lame"?

What arguments do you believe were presented in favor of the version you protected?

Have you or anyone else reviewed your decision?

What steps have you taken to try to resolve this?

Can you imagine how those of us who work as volunteers and then come against decisions in the style and substance of your decision here must feel?

Thank you. 05:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Next?

There's been lots of good conversation here and on Village pump about what to do with all of these proposals. So far, I think amazing things have been done: categorization, suggestions for merging, maintenance, and so forth.

I think the next step is encouraging action where action can be taken. A lot of these proposals are doable by existing bodies via existing decision-making processes. There's no need to invent new processes or committees to review these. In those cases, we should be proactive in identifying the right people to deal with these proposals, and pointing them to them. I know Philippe has been doing this with usability-related proposals, for example.

Another thing we can do is come up with a list called, "Taking Action," and including this list on the talk pages of the appropriate proposals.

Finally, the best thing we can do is model. For example, on this wiki, we have Process/Proposals, where we've identified proposals we're implementing and proposals we'd like to implement. We don't have to wait for Task forces or anything else. Since we can do them, we are.

If other people are modeling in similar ways, we ought to capture that here as well. --Eekim 15:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would be great but it looks that many proposals related to extra features do require strong support and involvement of Wikipedia software team. About these, it is not possible to say "now lets implement" Audriusa 17:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there are fairly few poposals that are anything near ready for implementation. Many are fundamentally contrary to the project(s) they are proposed for. Others are likely to meet with resistance. I guess this is the stage where the masterplan will come in handy that led to opening these pages and putting out the call for proposals. - Brya 06:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


There is currently some vandalism in part of this document. I was unable to find how to remove it. Can Someone with more experience remove it?

Do the peer-to-peer people have a proposal

I am hugely impressed by the scalability refactor described in -- do they have a proposal? 21:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there are several "distributed wikipedia" proposals: Call_for_proposals#Distributed_infrastracture. You could add to some of these? -- Phoebe 21:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

new category

Hi, The proposals under "new projects" seem to fall into two types -- Foundation-level projects (like the volunteer toolkit) and projects relating to starting new wiki sites with new types of content. It seems like we should split these out. Any ideas for category names? -- Phoebe 21:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/Split this page

This page seems to have 2 functions : easy creation of a new proposal and listing of all the proposals organized into categories.

They could be split into two different pages :

  1. New Proposal : it could contain the "Create Page" link with the corresponding edit box plus some guidelines on how to write a proposal and a section reminding the user to check the "List of Proposals" page to see if their idea is not already in another proposal
  2. List of Proposals : all the proposals organized in categories with the table of content at the top (maybe it's just me but the first few times I went on this page, I didn't notice the contents table on the right because that's not where I expect it)

This is obviously not of primary importance but I think this page is the only organized list of all proposals (is it?) and in that regard, its name is misleading. --Ryk V

Having just finally found and gotten to the page now, I agree it is a bit confusing. Here are a couple of proposals to intro I will be bold and do unless there are any big objections. Plus two sections that I think desperately need clarification - I don't understand them:
  • Making a new proposal now will become Making and listing a new proposal
  • First paragraph now will read: On this page you can make a proposal and have your proposal permanently listed. Please scan through the existing proposals to see if someone has already made a similar proposal. In general, we encourage you to categorize, discuss, edit, translate, merge, and fork the proposals you see below.
  • Clarify what Bugzilla has to do with implementing proposals, someone, please.
  • Clarify why What do you think of this proposal? on main page is called Community Discussion on proposal pages - and that just refers to the talk page. Very confusing. If it's just never been corrected, let's do it now! Carolmooredc 19:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newest proposals

The newest proposals created during the last few days are available at Special:NewPages & namespace=106. Teofilo 23:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]