Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump archive 2004-09-26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.94.82.245 (talk) at 18:47, 23 August 2003. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

[[da:Wikipedia:Landsbybr%F8nden]]

Click here to post a question fast (without waiting for the whole page to be loaded). On the other hand, please also have a look if your question wasn't asked (or even answered) by other people already. So maybe you should wait till the page is loaded.

Related pages: Mailing lists - IRC - IM a Wikipedian - Talk pages - Wikipedia talk:Software updates

File:Village pump yellow.png

Welcome, newcomers and baffled oldtimers! This is where Wikipedians raise and try to answer Wikipedia-related questions and concerns regarding technical issues, policies, and operation in our community. However, if you have other questions about anything else in the Universe or life, try Reference desk. If you wish to raise a bug report, or suggest a feature, try bug reports.

To facilitate ease of browsing and replying, please:

  1. Place your questions at the bottom of the list
  2. Title the question (by typing == title ==)
    • If you use the edit link above, just enter a subject
  3. Sign your name and date (by typing --~~~~)

See also: Wikipedia:FAQ, Wikipedia:Help, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers

Moved discussion

Questions and answers, after a period of time of inactivity, will be moved to other relevant sections of the wikipedia (such as the FAQ pages), placed in the Wikipedia:Village pump archive (if it is of general interest), or deleted (if it has no long-term value).

See the archive for older moved discussion links. For the most recent moved discussion, see Wikipedia:Village pump archive#August 2003 moved discussion.

Conference WP 2004

I remember seeing a page on a conference to take place next year (or maybe later) a few months ago in the United States. Some Wikipedians will give speeches, like Brion I believe. Where's that info page? --Menchi 05:04, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

Better find it, or I won't know where to go! ;) There have been a number of vague 'we should have some sort of event' pages, but nothing's ever been solidified. m:Wikipedia meetup is the only one I know off the top of my head. --Brion 05:08, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
It is a page completely in Wikipedia. It listed only half a dozen Wikipedians and their speech title, like:
  • Hjianmi -- "The significance of Wiki in a ..."
  • Deloru -- "..."
  • ..
(None of whose speech or name I remember now, only that they are well-known here)
That's all I remember. I got the link from the Pump. It was probably written in early 2003 or late 2002. Maybe it's just some Wikipedian's joke which I completely didn't appreciate. Maybe that particular conference idea was long dead.
--Menchi 05:30, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
That sounds like a joke page I vaguely remember. The date given was much later than 2004, and there was something about Britannica putting their material under FDL or something. :) --Brion
m:WWN sample? I saw that too, but I didn't mean this one. If the speech conference page creator posted here once, maybe s/he'll be back again before this msg get archived. :-D Otherwise, I'll live without knowing a single already obscure meeting. --Menchi 05:41, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
Wikivention was announced in March 2003. (You can see the announcement at Wikipedia:Village_pump/March_2003_archive_4.) —Paul A 06:37, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Ok, I didn't know Dietary then (I still don't, only his reputation), and I obviously didn't get a good look at those topics then. :-D --Menchi 06:41, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

Recent changed sidebar

A nice idea I found at the CapitanCook Wiki is the possibility to have the Recent Changes as a sidebar (at least for the Mozilla browser, don't know which others supports this as well). This seems to be only a stripped-off version of the full recent changes page, [1]. I don't know how popular the sidebar is, but it might be a nice feature for us Wikipediholics. Any comments? -- andy 12:19, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Astronomy and astrophysics

Can an admin move back the Astronomy and astrophysics article from Stupidpedia?. Thanks. -- Looxix 15:55, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This has been sorted. Mintguy 17:05, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Contest Idea

While looking around on this site, I like to see how far off topic I can go from a starting link. Like, starting at, say, heroin, end up at Star Wars exclusively using in-text links. I think it'd be fun to see who could go from one topic to the other in the shortest amount of legitimate links (no making them up). Does this sound fun to anyone else? -- Moros

It sounded fun to at least one other person, so they made Wikipedia:Six degrees of Wikipedia. --Camembert
Thanks a lot.Moros

Edit empty articles and newbies

Hi, I find that a lot of the deleted articles containig only rubbish appear to have the form of questions about specific subjects. Maybe the edit an article page for new entries should link to Village Pump / Reference Desk with some text like: "If you want to ask Wikipedia a question, go to ...", so that unanswered questions don't end up in junk articles by clueless newbies? -- till we *) 21:39, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

Hello, I am new to this web-site. Could anyone provide any pointers? -- CSguru

Replying on User talk:CSguru Dori 01:13, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Just to make more clear what I'm talking about: All the time you get entries in the Recent changes looking like this:

(diff) (hist) . . Wikipedia:Deletion log; 13:17 . . Ams80 (Talk) (deleted "Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma": content was: 'Some body please inform more about Chithira Thirunal Maharaja', no edit history)

It seems to me that somebody mistakes the edit field for articles that don't exist for a question field. We should take this into account! What do you think? -- till we *) 11:34, Aug 18, 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps a link to WP:RA would be useful? Angela

Children's Wikipedia?

Discussion moved to Meta.

Robert Heinlein

Robert Heinlein should be moved to the name he published under and is best known by: Robert A. Heinlein (currently a redir with an edit history.) Mkweise 20:26, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'll delete the redirect, give me a minute. Btw, this request should be @ VfD. --Menchi 20:29, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)
Done. --Menchi 20:33, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)

Fictional characters

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies.

Redirects and Deletion

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/redirects

TOC "back to top"

The new 'Table of Contents' is very nice. But why not also have a 'Back to Top' button from each of the sub-headings? If you use the former for going directly to a subtopic, you would definitely need the latter to pick another sub-topic again.I am sure its obvious and probably it has not been done for various valid reasons, anyway I just wanted to point this out:-).KRS 06:40, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Clicking on "Back" arrow button works on all browsers I know. --Menchi 06:44, Aug 17, 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion, it worked. But there are 2 problems 1) you have to move your hand more:-) 2)If you scroll down while reading then you get a different 'back', and sometimes only onceKRS 08:18, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
True enough, there's a certain distance between the scroll and the arrow button. :-p And I'm so used to using the "Top" link on other websites that I sometimes mistake [Edit] for [Top]. :-}
I guess it may look more stuffed than it already looks if we have [Top]. But fuctionality-wise and browsing-wise, it may be good. --Menchi 08:41, Aug 17, 2003 (UTC)
I use the Home key on my keyboard. - Patrick 09:46, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

User:Saddam Hussein

moved to user talk:Saddam Hussein

Skeptic influx?

Did that skeptic recruitment program of ours work? Tim was working on the letter, right? Did it get send? --Menchi 09:28, Aug 17, 2003 (UTC)

No response from sci.skeptic, and the interest generated from the CSICOP mention remains unknown. The response from our post at the JREF forum was very good in comparison. There were maybe 4 or 5 people who came over to have a look, and made a few contributions. I don't know if any of them are still around. User:Lord Kenneth was especially enthusiastic, but he only made about 40 edits and then lost interest. -- Tim Starling 09:47, Aug 17, 2003 (UTC)


American or "international" names on videogames

The user WhisperToMe is moving all videogame systems to their Japanese rather than English title. I checked on Google "Super Nintendo" returns 373,000 hits, while "Super Famicom" returns 32,700. I think they should stop and return the pages to where they were originally to avoid creating confusion. M123 16:50, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This is the English language wikipedia. The names he is using are the correct international names used in most of the English speaking world. For example, I'm English and I am used to the names he is using (in most cases). CGS 17:02, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC).
  • I've never heard of Super Famicom. If the page exists as Super Nintendo, it should be left there and Super Famicom set up as a redirect. There is no need to create extra work by moving pages around. Angela 17:10, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I've followed the video game market a little, and have heard of Super Famicom. I'm fairly certain that in Japan, only, was the SNES marketed as the Super Famicom; almost everywhere else in the world, it was marketed as the Super NES. I think it should stay at its old title, with perhaps a mention of the Super Famicom name. Same for Famicom and NES, and any others that had different

Japanese market names. -- Wapcaplet 17:58, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Since almost the entire world (except Japan) calls the system SNES, the article should be Super Nintendo Entertainment System and not Super Famicom. Marknew 19:25, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Super Famicom is only one example. A better example is moving Genesis to Megadrive because that is the name most people know it by. CGS 18:12, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC).

  • The terms Famicom and Megadrive are unknown in North America. As for Genesis/Megadrive. Google gives 196,000 for "Sega Genesis" and 47,200 for "Sega Megadrive". Whisper is moving pages from where they've been for years to new places, which I think is unneccesary. M123 18:16, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Just moved "Mega Man" to "RockMan" a quick googling 109,000 '"Mega Man" Nintendo' vs. 1,660 '"RockMan" Famicom'. M123 18:48, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
One of the problems created by these moves is that throughout the entire article it apparently becomes necessary to say "Mega Man/Rock Man" or "NES/Famicom", which makes it pretty hard to read. I don't have a problem with articles being moved to a new name as long as the majority of the English-speaking population knows it by that name, but I disagree with moving Mega Man to Rock Man. Every gamer I have ever met, and even a lot of non-gamers, are familiar with Mega Man. Only the more dedicated gamers are aware of the name Rock Man. -- Wapcaplet 19:37, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
That's gamers that you have met. Unless you have travelled a lot, that's just your neck of the woods. CGS 20:35, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC).

I think the Google counts are a good indicator of which name is more popular in the online English-speaking world. We are not interested in English speakers who are not online because they are not reading Wikipedia. Therefore, let us bow to the majority, and put everything back to their US names. --Nelson 00:20, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, Google counts are a good indicator of which name is more popular among those who are involving "English web-site creation"! The first change is not necessary, but a revert maybe equally unnecessary. wshun 01:33, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I seriously think that English pages on the WWW are definitely skewed towards the United States. So it should be no surprise that most names would be the American version. I myself know MegaMan as RockMan. --seav 05:00, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)

Is weasel terms really a good term?

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel terms

Different pages for different meanings of the same word/ phrase

Getting too long for the Village pump so moved to Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

Just to bring this issue back into mainstream discussion, the problems in the Creationism page constitute another set of excellent demonstrations [though for different reasons than the one I had pointed out]for the necessity of a master page concept with all definitions of any word/ phrase. In the above instance there are two sets of ongoing tussles -one between the generic meaning and the specific meaning, another between the historical meaning and the current meaning. I have seen all four viewpoints represented in the past one day, and there is no way in which they can be reconciled in a long article. An essay connecting all these has to necessarily have a structure which should be individual effort at consolidation, albeit from a neutral viewpoint ; and I don't think it is possible for this to happen in a collective effort with inflamed debates(see talk page).Wikipedia should offer a platform for all legitimate meanings- I am just taking at face value the claim to legitimacy of the viewpoints of the different participants--KRS 18:45, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Protected pages

Help? I just protected Homelessness because User:JoeM continues to vandalize it. I know I'm supposed to list that the page was protected somewhere, but I can't find the page to do it. Can somebody point me there? RickK 23:52, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protected page --Evercat 23:55, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Ugh. I tried to do a search for "protected" and it wouldn't come up. :( RickK 00:01, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The quick search only searches the actual articles. To specify that you're searching for a Wikipedia: page, you have to use the search form with all the checkboxes at the bottom of the search results page. —Paul A 06:12, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Workaround for Mozilla Bug no longer necessary

I noticed that in Mozilla Firebird 0.6.1, there are serious problems with the handling of <hr> in general, and in an especially obvious way on the Postal Service. Apparently this is due to a workaround for a bug older versions of Mozilla had in displaying <hr>, there's a temporary hack that reverts to quirks mode for Mozilla browsers. So the people on the Mozilla Forums (http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=20420) told me to tell you guys that the bug is fixed. --Nelson 00:02, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Not exactly vandalism

The discussion on removing dates that can not be verified can now be found at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Dates.

Past tense vs. present tense

Over at Talk:Nikola Tesla, a disagreement over whether history should be written in the past or present tense has resulted in an article that alternates between past and present tense in a very ugly fashion. I've started a discussion at Talk:Nikola Tesla; if there is an authoritative answer, please post there. Mkweise 16:45, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I posted a link to How to Write History from Brown University, which I assume is authoritative enough. I couldn't find any arguments stating that history should be written in the present tense except from Reddi. I'd appreciate any further input, either for or against present tense (with evidence for stance). Reddi's objection to past tense is that it is "passive." I countered that both present and past tense can be passive, and he countered again. I still hold that history should be written in the past tense, but as Mkweise notes, the discussion should be furthered on the Talk:Nikola Tesla page. —Frecklefoot 17:20, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
My wife, who was a History major, says that it can be either past or present tense (but obviously it shouldn't be both in the same article); apparently there is no standard among historical writers about which is better. I personally find it strange to read about past events in the present tense, but it can be pulled off convincingly by skillful writers. My preference is past tense for historical subjects; the only potential problem with it is how to transition from events of the past to events of the present; it is probably for this reason that the policy for adding to the Current events is to use present tense. Anyhow, I would find any arguments regarding the passivity of either tense to be specious; it's very much possible to use an active voice while using past tense (consider how you would write a resume!). Anyhow, I have no solid evidence for either, but I strongly oppose the intermixture of the two. We should pick one and stick with it. -- Wapcaplet 19:43, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A lot of the problem is that people are switching back and forth between tenses in the same article. I've also run across the future tense -- "He would go on to ..." form. I change those to "He went on to ..." whenever I see those. RickK 02:12, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Since it's clearly the consensus, I suggest we make it official Wikipedia style that historical articles be written in the past tense. While we're at it, how do you all feel about past vs. present tense when describing legendary and mythological events? I personally tend towards describing legends and mythology in the present tense. Mkweise 23:39, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Spelling

Can someone post a link to a free, English English dictionary? I don't want to pay the $550 the OED wants. I usually will correct spelling mistakes i run across but I don't want to mistakenly use American English spelling for an acceptable British English spelling of the word. I'm aware of words like colour and programme, etc. Today it was "likelyhood" that I sorely wanted to change to likelihood but didn't want to start an across the pond dispute. Thanks, StinKerr 22:27, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Webster has American English as main entries, but include British English as See-also entries. But it has no redirect. :-) --Menchi 22:36, Aug 18, 2003 (UTC)
Thanks, Menchi, I usually use Webster and have noted the "middle English" entries but I want to be sure I don't miss anything. I've already offended by making an entry to a link from the U.S. Constitution too "U.S.-centric" StinKerr 02:04, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

On the general topic of spellings, can I add an appeal for people to check for variant spellings with a dictionary, e.g. http://www.onelook.com/, and in general not change spellings if it's an acceptable one? Sure, if you see "Pearl Harbour", then it's probably OK to change that as i) it's a US topic, and ii) that's not the normal spelling. But some of those of us who use British spellings would rather the rest of you not implicitly accuse us of being illiterate morons by "correcting" our spellings. Thanks! Noel 18:50, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I second onelook.com as a good site for spellings and definitions. Martin 19:03, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Thanks Noel and Martin. That is exactly what I want to avoid. Onelook.com is now on my reference list. StinKerr 06:53, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)


Possible spam?

...at Abstract interpretation; see talk. I want someone else's opinion before I delete the offending links. k.lee 00:27, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Default settings for Table of Contents

Is having "Show table of contents" OFF the default setting? I hope it is. Kingturtle 02:06, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's not, and it shouldn't be. If you see a broken TOC, fix it.—Eloquence 02:30, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)
I think he means that we should have an option for having our TOCs show up either shown or hidden -- I already put it on BriansTDL. -戴&#30505sv 04:58, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)

The use of Lists

For the last couple of days I have taken a break from writing articles and have concentrated on compiling lists of business articles. The following lists cover all the business articles that I have been able to find:

I have placed this at the end of about 20 articles as an experiment. My objective is to make every business article easy to find and available with only two mouse clicks.

My questions to the wiki-experts are “Will appending this list to articles conflict with the new category system being developed? If so, how should I modify it to prevent future problems?” mydogategodshat 06:06, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

My answer is: I think it's a very bad idea to place a whole slump of often little significant links on the bottom of pages, whether we have a category system or not. A single link to an encompassing subject, I can imagine, but 14 categories when it belongs to one or two? You may be happy that I'm not much on the English version or on business topics, as I'd delete them on sight. Andre Engels 14:08, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
You have stated your opinion that having easy access to these lists are a bad idea but have given no reason why you feel this way.
You then state that there should only be one or two lists. It is true that all of these lists could be compiled into one or two lists but the list would be so long and so diverse in scope that they would be useless. Who can find what they are looking for on a list of 1000 entries? That is why I subdivided them into the catagories that are taught in business schools. Business schools offer either majors and minors in all these the fields (with the exception of lists of people, of course). When someone tells me that these are all one topic, what it says to me is that the person is not familiar with the depth or scope of the topic. It is equivalent to a non-scientist saying that all science topics belong on one list. The number of subdivisions we include reflects the level of expertise we have in the field. I do not feel we should revert back to a time when Wiki was a project by and for geeksmydogategodshat 15:52, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I am not saying that they are all one topic. Rather the reverse. I am saying that they are rather different, sometimes closely sometimes less closely related topics. And because of that, if you put this whole list on a page, most of the links will not be closely related to its subject. The reason I think it is a bad idea, is that a page with subject 'X' should be about subject 'X'. Some links to subjects closely related to X are good. But a long list of links of subjects that are often of just little significance to X are not. One page will probably fall under one or two of the topics above. Add links to the lists for those topics, and leave out the rest. Andre Engels 18:06, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
We seem to be starting from different first principles. You seem to be starting from a category scheme that you feel is ideal (or at least optimal) for organizational reasons. I am trying to create a user-freindly environment and I feel this first principle takes precidence over categorical or organizational conciderations. Being from a business background, I see customer satisfaction (or user friendliness) as the prime driver of all decisions. If a venture is to be sucessfull, all other considerations, no matter how important, must first pass this criterion.
That is why having easy access to the lists are so important. As you are aware there are currently two ways of using Wikipepia ; Seaching and browsing (the "see also lists"). Using the search engine is effective if : 1) you know exactly what you are looking for; 2) you know the term commonly used to describe what you are looking for ; 3) there is only one or two common terms for the item you are looking for; 4) you know how to spell the terms involved. Browsing or surfing is useful when you do not have a specific goal in mind. Unfortunately, in most cases these criteria are not met. That is why most people find specific online searches so frustrating. You know that the information is available somewhere but finding it can take hours. What these lists do is address this void. They provide access to related topics so that users can find what they want without having to do ten or twenty searches. And do it with just two mouse clicks. I have yet to hear a sound argument for why this additional functionality should not be used to make Wiki a more user friendly place. mydogategodshat 22:06, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Apparently I am the only one against here, and seeing that I am less active on at least the English Wikipedia, I'll bow my head here. I'm not happy, though. Andre Engels 06:40, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think could be a good idea but in a sligter shorter form like the links to other languages. Jensp 07:09, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC) Like this:

Lists of business topics: management, marketing, human resource, economics, finance, accounting, information technology, production, business law, ethics, political economy, and philosophy, theorists, economists, corporate leaders, companies

I think that the lists should be easily accessible from the articles but not in this way. Firstly, it's too big. Secondly, and more important, imagine that you want to add new list to the list: you'd have to do so in all articles with the list and there could easily be hundreds of them. I think that the right solution is to make List of business lists (List of business topics has already been taken and has another purpose) and link that to the articles. Nikola 07:49, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I prefer the streamlined version too. The only reason I used the "title and bullet" format is I thought that was the direction Wiki was going with the new TOC format of multiple edit points. Having a single link to a list of lists is not a bad idea. However it has two dissadvantages. It reduces flexibility. We should be able to modify these to suit each page. Articles in the information technology management area, for example, would benefit from the inclusion of list of computing topics and list of Internet topics. The other disadvantage is that it would require three clicks each time rather than two. mydogategodshat 09:05, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Personally, I'd add the list of lists only to the lists themselves (as the box on List of people by name).
On the article, I'd just link to the list(s) (or the topic) it belongs to. Once (if ever) a category feature is available, I'd suppose it might be possible to use the lists to add that to the articles automatically. Of course, you'd better ask a developer about this.
-- User:Docu
So I'm not alone in my opinion after all. Good to hear. Andre Engels 17:18, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Video on wikipedia

I seem to remember a discussion about using video media on wikipedia, but can't find it. Does anyone recall where it is? I have some .avi files that I think would be a welcome addition.. what (if anything) can I do with them? Pete

Well you can transcode them for a start. We would have to look at open video standards. I think Xiph (people behind Ogg Vorbis) has an open video codec. CGS 11:40, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC).
Given the load on the Wikipedia server, the bandwidth costs of making video available, and the various format issues (in terms of freeness, availability, video quality, and required bandwidth). I think some extended discussion might be wise before people start uploading videos. --Robert Merkel 11:38, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

it.wikipedia.org instead of .com

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:Software_updates#Software_update_of_the_other_Wikipedias, Fantasy 20:45, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I know that A, B, C have Microsoft puny font sample. What's exactly is the copyright limitation on font size or how much "sample" (i.e., must be under 20% of the entire character database)? Is there any? Many fonts have to be bought, would the company be happy that we do whatever we want to GNU-ize the pictures of it once we bought it? (I'm thinking of doing an article on Eight Principles of Yong using the Chinese calligraphy fonts). --Menchi 18:01, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)

I thought that one can't copyright a typeface (a legacy thing), only the file that produces it. If it's a rasterised image of a font, I think you can use whatever you want. I may be very wrong... CGS 18:27, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC).
IANAL, but I think CGS is dead-on. I've run into this a few times in the past. You can't copyright a font, but you can sell typefaces. But the user can do whatever they want with the font, with the exception of giving the typeface away for free (or selling copies of it). —Frecklefoot 19:12, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
This is potentially much more problematic than that, especially given international issues. In the United States, font design is not copyrightable, but it is patentable if novel enough. As far as I can find, Stone and Lucida are the only two patented typefaces, and this may not hold up in court. However, the situation is much worse in Europe. Europe used to have the same "can't copyright typefaces" laws as the United States, but Germany (in 1981) and the UK (in 1989) have passed laws making typeface designs copyrightable. The UK law is even retroactive (!), so designs produced before 1989 are also copyrighted, if the copyrights wouldn't have already expired (the German one is not retroactive). --Delirium 09:29, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)
On the other hand, we may include hi-res pix of the characters, but that is still not the font information (i.e. hinting, the bezier curves, etc.). A font licensed for use in publishing should be unproblematically used here, as long as we don't include the "source-code" of the font, but only pictures of it. Or how would one use a font for, say, newspaper headlines, if large pix of the font aren't allowed in the license? -- till we *) 10:57, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)

Is Fox News a real news source?

The discussion was getting too long for the villapge pump, so has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/News sources. Angela

Wikimedia article naming

Discussion moved to Talk:Akhenaton/rename

Why were the interlang ln in preview removed? I'm sure most people don't feel its existence or non-existence, but I sometimes used them to make sure my inter-ln is correct when linking to and fro Chinese and English WPs. --Menchi 00:29, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)


It's not disabled, but it doesn't interact well with section editing. If you're editing a full page, it should work fine. --Brion 01:12, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
It was at top, before the edit box. But it isn't there anymore. And I searched "Other languages" and "Svenska". And they aren't there. If it's still there, it's really hard to find for clumsy me. --Menchi 01:39, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)
They're right there, at the top, where they always are. Here's a screenshot. --Brion 03:32, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
m:Image:No_interlanguage_screenshot.png in Win98/IE6. Exactly the same in Mozilla 1.4b. Then again, same in Chinese WP. They really aren't there. --Menchi 04:27, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)
Ah, I see from the screenshot you posted on meta that you're using the Nostalgia skin. It appears to be missing the fix to show lang links in special pages and previews (so you'll also see no language links in Special:Recentchanges, for instance). I'll see about fixing that. --Brion 04:28, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Fix installed. --Brion 07:51, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

WikiFiction

This discussion and the other recent discussion of fictional characters can now be found at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies/Fictional_characters#Village_pump_discussion_2:_WikiFiction

Requests for summaries

Speaking of boredom, those of you interested in quality reading material may want to check ot Wikipedia:Requests for summaries, a new page for requesting summaries of reports, studies etc. freely available online to be integrated into Wikipedia. I think it's a cool idea, but it will only work if people actually adopt some of the listed documents, otherwise it will merely be a random link collection. So please choose something you find interesting, or add your own requests to the page.—Eloquence 14:28, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

Sounds great. I will currently not have the time for this, but If I read public available reports in the future, I will try to summarise it immediately for Wiki. (Boredom... who was speaking about that?... ;-) Fantasy 14:47, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Naming question

I have a number of articles elsewhere (Everything2) about various types of British railway locomotive that I'd like to put here. Should I create 'British Rail class NN' articles for them (all have two-digit numerical classification)? Or would it be better to stuff them all into a smaller number of pages, given that most of the more obscure ones are only going to warrant a small number of paragraphs? Or indeed, any other suggestion?

Read:Wikipedia:Guide for Everything2 noders-戴&#30505sv 23:49, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)
Read already. I guess I'll just do it the way that seems good to me, and then let you all disagree with me! Probably easier to tell me the right way to do it once you've all got a concrete example in front of you. -- Morven 23:57, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
We aim for larger articles than E2 writeups, on average - see wikipedia:page size. That help? Martin 09:22, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Yes. E2 users don't like long writeups and show their displeasure; maybe Wikipedia renders them more readably, or the sectioning helps. Here, I suspect it might be best to write one article for each of several major sub-groupings and maybe break out seperate articles when there's a LOT to say. -- Morven 23:21, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Funky. I edited Wikipedia:Guide for Everything2 noders appropriately :) Martin
Also the user ranking scheme on E2 encourages more short writeups. The XP system, as an unfortunate side effect, encourages the (even unconscious) 'gaming' behavior of optimising for score not quality, and one long writeup will not garner the XP of two shorter ones. -- Morven 06:33, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Question regarding a user

I've noticed a user who has, in the last 48 hours, focused on a couple of pages and made 20-30 edits on them, many of them minor. They don't seem factually inaccurate to me, but it does seem to me that this approach of seven minor edits in ten minutes takes up server space and bandwidth to store old copies of articles that could easily be prevented. Should I drop a note to this user? Is there a procedure? I'd appreciate advice. Jwrosenzweig 23:11, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It wouldn't do any harm to mention it on his talk page - in a "here's a useful tip for you" way rather than a criticising way. Angela 23:31, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
When I first started, I used to make lots of these edits -- mostly beause I didnt understand the value of the preview button.-戴&#30505sv 23:47, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)
Thanks to you both! I've chatted with the user and they were very open to being slower to hit "Save Page"--sorry for taking up the pump's time on such a minor matter that is so easily resolved. :) Jwrosenzweig 23:55, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Don't people do this to up thier number of contributions? Sorry to be cyncical. CGS 18:00, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC).
I know one reason I do a bit of this when working on large existing articles is that on several occasions I've lost ~15 minutes worth of work because I somehow accidentally hit some key that emptied the entire edit area, with no way (that I've found) to recover. So I tend to do more saves because of that. No doubt people will say that I should copy the whole article into an editor and edit there, doing interim saves on my local machine, and in principle they are right, but alas the editor I use (Epsilon) is bad at dealing with run-on paragaphs, so it's really painful to do that (have to convert when moving text to and fro). Noel 19:11, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)


On W32-systems Ctrl-Z does an undo in the edit window for IE and Mozillas. -- till we *) 10:51, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)
I guess Noel is not using a very up-to-date machine. Every newer OS has a notebook-like program which is better then Epsilon, I believe. --wshun 03:04, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Stop the Stubs

Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Find_or_fix_a_stub#Stop_the_Stubs, Fantasy 20:28, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Am I Being Needlessly Nordic-Centered

Moved to Talk:The_Little_Mermaid Fantasy 20:20, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Discussing Wikipedia Software Updates

Wikipedia talk:Software updates
Shouldn't there be a permanent link to the above page from here? Dori 14:22, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Now it is ;-) Fantasy 14:40, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
PS:I think, a lot of questions regard the software updates, so this could redirect some to the right place...

Can we move discussions from the Mailing lists to Wikipedia?

moved to Wikipedia_talk:Mailing_lists#Moving_discussions_from_the_Mailing_lists_to_Wikipedia?, Fantasy 06:56, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Recipes

Do cooking recipes really belong in an encyclopedia? Has there ever been discussion of a separate wiki for them? It would seem a good idea to me. -- Viajero 07:58, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

For non-famous ones: Culinary arts textbook @ textbook.wikipedia.org. --Menchi 08:06, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)

Teaching with the WikiPedia - curriculum development project

Hello all. This is my first post here.

I'm thinking about developing a "Teaching with the WikiPedia" curriculum. It would be aimed at kids from about grades four through eight (US). The idea is for the kids to use the WikiPedia as the main reference source to complete their assignments, but also to understand the special issues associated with it. For example They might look up civil rights on the Wiki. What do they see? How to the entries in the Wikipedia differ from what they may see in a mainstream encyclopedia? Is it better or worse? Does the ability to edit other people's work improve the content, or is it a chance for personal opinions and political philosophies to creep into the entries?

I think this could be a great teaching tool because of the classroom discussions it would inspire. But this prompts two questions.

1) I don't want to re-invent the wheel. Is anyone else working on this?

2) I worry that kids, being kids, will quickly figure out they can add to the Wikipedia, and they will make a mess of it. (Swear words, spam, etc.) I know that’s the way I would have behavved if left unsupervised back in 7th grade. So I'm thinking of creating a read-only version of the Wikipedia just for use in this curriculum. That would solve potential vandalism, of course. But it would sort of also change the way The Wiki operates for them. (Though this might be a necessary compromise.)

Thoughts? --Shawn McCarthy 

 service@diagonalmediagroup.com
Regarding your second question, I'd have to say that this would be wrong. If they're using a pedia they can't edit, they might as well use some other (and officially approved thinking about school) pedia. I think there's a kid-wikipedia being made somewhere, I read about it here not so long ago. Maybe you could use that instead? I want that everyone can edit, but I don't want 11 year olds spamming the place, either. - Sigg3.net 15:36, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I think we can handle a class-full of kids trying to muck about with articles. We've had far worse! There's a textbook wiki project, that might be what you're looking for -- Tarquin 17:12, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Yeah, you might want to try finding that kid-friendly Wiki. In addition to academic subjects, this 'pedia discusses some subjects you may not want kids delving into. For an example of what I mean, you probably wouldn't want kids following all the links from human sexuality. —Frecklefoot 18:04, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
That's the web. -- till we *) 18:14, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)

User:Seav posted a question on Wikipedia:Copyright issues about a month ago regarding copyright violations on history pages. I also have this question and could not find any other discussion of this issue so I started a new metapage: Wikipedia:Copyright violations on history pages. Sysops and other volunteers are very vigilant to remove copyright violations from the actual Wikipedia content, but that content may still remain on the history pages. I found one such example today at I have a dream. Queare: If copyright work can be found anywhere on Wikipedia isn't Wikipedia retaining a copy of that work and allowing further infringement? I understand that the history pages are a implicit requirement under the FSF GNU FDL as author attribution is still necessary as the only thing granted to Wikipedia is a non-exclusive license. Alex756 16:14, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia Case User:RK

Is there a reason why this is in the article space? It has quite a Page History so I didn't want to just move it. Suggestions anyone? -- Ams80 17:05, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Of all places, it should definitely not go there .. I moved it on. IMhO redirects like [[WP: ]] from the article namespace to Wikipedia namespace should also be avoided. -- User:Docu
Why? I love those WP redirect things. Angela
Its there to be rid of /ban pages altogether- see recent wikien-l discussion. Since RK is still here its rather rude to be discussing his ban on his user pages -- since its a community "case" - it deserves community attn. Though I think it might be better on meta, let us see what people think. It has substantial linkages already, and I (as uninvolved in any of the voting, etc) took it upon myself to clean up the mess, to be fair to RK, and to get this stuff aired as openly as possible. -戴&#30505sv 17:22, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)
(In the meantime, Stevertigo moved it back). It's just that Wikipedia:Article about is in the Wikipedia namespace, and Wikipedia Article:about in article namespace. I'm not sure where it belongs, but it's definitely not for the article namespace. -- User:Docu
Thats all Fine and dandy. But I dont care about style conventions at this point -- Im just trying to clean up a big frickin mess, involving the possible banning of a user. I think the import of the latter takes precedence over the former, and since there is a huge revision history here, and its a community issue, -- how about Community case user:RK?? Would that suit the fancy -- I will move the page if you take care of all the redirects. -戴&#30505sv 17:37, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)

Stating the basics

This is mentioned elsewhere, but I think it's worth reminding the collectivity of it: remember to state the obvious -- or rather, remember that that is obvious to you is not so to the average reader. I had to add this to the start of the new article on the Ford Thunderbird: The Ford Thunderbird is a car manufactured in the USA by the Ford Motor Company. -- the authors did not stop to suppose that the reader does not necessarily know it's a car. This ties in with news style and the 5Ws. -- Tarquin 17:23, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ah, that one was mine. One forgets, also, that a reader might not have arrived from a related page and therefore have context. The word 'car' DID appear a sentence or two later, though, so it's not that it was never mentioned, just not probably as soon as it might have. What I did utterly forget to mention was this was a vehicle by Ford USA; as a transplanted Brit myself, you'd think I would know better than being so americentric, but clearly not! That's why second pairs of eyes help, to catch the first author's assumptions. -- Morven 06:26, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Agreed. Pretend an alien anthropologist from Alpha Centauri somehow understands English, and is reading Wikipedia to learn about humans. You can't assume anything. -- Wapcaplet 19:37, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I agree with Tarquin, I am not sure whether you do, it may be irony. - Patrick 20:43, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Irony? I think the word you want is sarcasm. And no, it's not :-) -- Wapcaplet 00:19, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Okay, we agree then that stating the basics is good (some people disagree and object against sentences like "A female child is called a girl, a male a boy." and "Sleeping is typically done lying in a bed"). - Patrick 06:56, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
There is a difference between including the necessary basic information as suggested by Tarquin and treating your reader like a moron. Everyone knows that one sleeps in a bed; not everyone knows what a Thunderbird is. -- Viajero 09:36, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The alien anthropologist from Alpha Centauri does not. - Patrick 09:41, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Of course he does! He understands English. He couldn't have learned it without acquiring a certain amount of basic information, like what a bed is for. -- Viajero 10:03, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
He may know what it is (seen it, felt the soft surface), but not what it is used for. - Patrick 10:16, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think a better rule of thumb than imagining your audience is from Alpha Centauri may be to imagine that our civilization is destroyed utterly, and our descendants are fortunate enough to uncover an operational Wikipedia while digging through the ruins. We have so much trouble learning about the basic details of ancient civilizations because their writers generally failed to state the obvious... let us not make the same mistake. --Nelson 13:28, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Recent changes

On Wikipedia:Recentchanges the requested articles "Ruth Barcan Marcus - Panjshir - YWHA - wage rate - Ed Fagan - modal logic -Dingle" haven't changed in about four days. Can we get rid of them and put up something else? Mintguy 18:38, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I see no reason why not. Four days is enough and it's not like you're going to run out of choice. Angela 03:39, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

How do you revert a page?

An article has been made POV and I was wondering how to revert it to a NPOV article. Moros 20:39, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version explains it all... Evercat 20:40, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Donations are now working, you can start donating ;-)

This question came up many times, I just thought people may want to know this:

There is a first way to donate money to Wikipedia (e.g. for a new Server ;-) Just have a look at Wikipedia:Donations

Thanks a lot for your support, Fantasy 22:15, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Why not put the Wikimedia Foundation mailing address on that page? As it is protected it cannot be added except by sysops/administrators/developers. Not everyone can contribute using a credit card. The official public record address of Wikimedia Foundation is:


Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
3911 Harrisburg St. NE
St. Petersburg, FL 33703
— Alex756 23:20, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Good Idea, it is now there! (And I look forward, that you can add it yourself ;-) Fantasy 08:22, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The off-site URLs listed at the bottom of those pages which have them take users away from the site (unless one right-clicks "Open in new window"). Why not have all off-site links pop up into a new window, thereby allowing one to remain on Wikipedia while still clicking the off-site link? All that would be required is the (target="_blank") tag to be added in the link. IE: (a href="www. URL. com" target="_blank"), replacing the brackets "(" and ")" with "<" and ">". I assume an administrator could set this up easily for all off-site links to work this way. -- Kaijan 00:42, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather they didn't. If I want links to open in a new window, I'll tell my browser that's what I want - I'd rather not have it thrust upon me. --Camembert
In addition to being very annoying, forcing links to open in a new window violates the W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [2]. Creating a new pop-up window without warning can be disorienting for a blind visitor using a screen reader program, for instance.
If you want to open links in a new window, your browser almost certainly gives you this ability through a menu or shortcut key. (Right-click + "open in new window"...) Modern browsers with tabbed windows are often even easier at this; if you're using Internet Explorer, give Mozilla Firebird a try. (There's also something called 'AvantBrowser' which wraps a more modern interface around Internet Explorer if you're using Windows and like that sort of thing.) --Brion
Amen to that. I used to not mind them so much (and even used them myself in many site designs) but soon came to realize they are troublesome and annoying. Let the user decide whether they want a new window. -- Wapcaplet 01:41, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Offensive user name

User:Saddam Hussein is an offensive user name and violates Wikipedia:No offensive usernames. There is no need an editor to operate under the name of a man who gassed his own people and sent tens of thousands of people into mass graves. I originally thought it would be sufficient to just note this on the user page, but, in retrospect, it's not really an issue of truth (whether or not the editor is Saddam, which is clearly not the case), but of the offending user name itself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for offensive jokes. The name should be forcibly changed. I have also noted my objection on the user's talk page. Daniel Quinlan 01:19, Aug 23, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth worrying about. I kind of find the username "Harry Potter" offensive, but I'm not complaining. Someone might just as well complain that my username is offensive because it reminds them of a particularly obnoxious character in a Monty Python skit. I think that policy is in place so we don't have users with swear words or whatever as their usernames. -- Wapcaplet 01:38, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
A name doesn't have to be offensive to everyone or even most people to require changing. I also think there's a vast difference between a fictional character (which would probably run awry of trademark issues) and a brutal dictator. Just like we don't allow user names based on offensive words, we shouldn't allow user names based on offensive historical or contemporary persons. It's hard to think of a worse person's name to pick. Maybe User:Adolf Hitler or User:Jeffrey Dahmer would be equally offensive to other people. A direct victim of one of these persons in real life would probably be even more offended. — Daniel Quinlan 01:50, Aug 23, 2003 (UTC)
The names User:George W. Bush or User:Ariel Sharon would be offensive to several Wikipedians from the Middle East. Should those usernames be banned as well, based on your standard? -- Kaijan 02:10, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Of course they should be prohibited as well. As another matter, Wikipedia may not want to allow names of famous (or notorious or infamous) people to be used unless someone is stuck with the same name as someone famous, in which case I have less of an objection to them using their real name. Daniel Quinlan 02:22, Aug 23, 2003 (UTC)
I agree with Daniel. I've only been here less that a month and it is quite evident that there are (at least) two kinds of people at Wikipedia: those who are sereious about the dream of creating a free online encyclopedia and those who are here mostly to blow their horn (personal or political). I cannot determine if both types reside in some people. The point is, I'm sure I'm more opionated than most (at least my wife tells me so), but also old enough to know that opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. The question is, how badly do you really want to poke yours in other peoples faces (a sure sign of immaturity IMHO). - Marshman 02:49, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I would like to voice my opposition to any policy that would make my username prohibited. Perhaps a waiver for famous people who have been dead for more than 500 years? No chance for confusion then. ;) --Dante Alighieri 04:22, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I thought about that and agree. I think there are a few other examples. I think 250 years should be enough removal from present-day. Offensive historical names should still be off-limits, like uhh... "Jack the Ripper". If you go back far enough, though, it gets harder to offend, I think. We should also probably grandfather in any existing account names for famous people that have been deceased for say 100 years. Daniel Quinlan 04:42, Aug 23, 2003 (UTC)

I think such names should be allowed as long as the user does not claim to be this famous/controversial person. If User:Saddam Hussein removes those pictures of the famous Saddam and replaces it with his personal info, then I think it is acceptable. That way, we know he is not glorifying Saddam and should no longer be offended.

If the existence of such a name offended someone, then this person is just too easily offended. While it is understandable to be offended by obscenities, I think it is ridiculous to be offended by a couple words in a news article. A user should be judged by his/her contributions. User:Saddam Hussein is not a vandal.

However, we should advise people to avoid such names in order to be taken seriously, but I don't think we should be making it the policy. It would be quite obvious what my screenname is alluding to if you encountered me on my regular trolling sprees on certain internet message boards. --Jiang 09:57, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Broken Redirects

Is there a quick and easy way (i.e., not involving DDQs) to find broken redirects? I, for one, wouldn't mind going around making sure that any redirect that points to a red link either gets deleted or given a stub at the redirect site. Broken redirects are A Bad Thing because people won't realize that an article doesn't yet exist if they see the link in text, because it's blue, even if it doesn't go anywhere. This makes it that much harder for people who might be inclined to write an article if they new one was needed. --Dante Alighieri 04:21, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Special:Maintenance has a tool for this, but of course all that's presently disabled to keep the server from dying. At some point these things need to get reworked to be usable. Anyone who wants to code up improvements is welcome. --Brion 04:48, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Until an online query is again available, this might easily be extracted from the weekly SQL dumps, just like Short pages, Long pages, Orphaned pages, Most referenced pages, Most wanted pages. If Brion thinks this a good idea and is willing to run the scripts just like the Statistics scripts and upload the output, I will prepare a production version (= optimized, etc) of my current scripts in a few weeks time. The scripts produce two files per report, one in html format, one in wiki format which someone can copy/paste to the Wikipedia (in order to be able to edit the lists after corrections have been made). Erik Zachte 18:22, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Brazilian rocket explosion

This is in the news right now. Does anyone know anything about this? could we get an article on the rocket itself & put it on the main page? -- Tarquin 12:12, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've found this http://www.mrree.gub.uy/iiicea/PAISES/Brasil/Brazilian%20Space%20Program98.htm & http://www.agespacial.gov.br/

Ericd

here is another link : http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/brazil/missile2000.htm

Technical term definition style

I would like to start to develop a consistent style on marking up technical terms and defined terms in articles (especially technical or scientific articles) to be put somewhere in the Style Manual. I've looked and I see only a few pointers and how to's — no style definitions. Should I just go ahead and add where appropriate in the Manual(s), or has something like this been done before and 1) I missed it or 2) it proved too controversial ? I was thinking of an intro paragraph, a list of options (bold, obique, underline), then perhaps a bulleted list that others could alter or add to until the details are solidified. Any suggestions? - Marshman 18:09, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

With term definition lists, wouldn't there be many overlaps in the same sub-field then? --Menchi 18:14, Aug 23, 2003 (UTC)
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question, but what I have in mind is a guide (in the Style Manual) as to when to put words in oblique, bold, link, or other mark up such as underline. I have my own style and I can see others doing the same sorts of markup in technical articles, but without (at least I have not) a consistent style (One consistency that seems to exist is foreign words). - 24.94.82.245
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_archive_2004-09-26&oldid=1335285"