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 Jrincayc (talk | contribs) at 21:19, 14 January 2004 (Watchlist down). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

[[da:Wikipedia:Landsbybr%F8nden]]


Post a question or make a comment now if you don't want to wait for the whole page to be loaded. But consider skimming to see if your question was already asked. Also, do not push the "save page" button multiple times when posting this way! Even if the server temporarily slows down it will almost always respond eventually and repeatedly pressing "save" will then post the question to the page as many times as you pressed "save"!

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:

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#January 2004 moved discussion.

Requests for help and comments

  1. Daniel's redirect project still needs your help with fixing thousands of broken links
  2. Muriel Victoria and Bmills urge you to vote at Wikipedia:Refreshing brilliant prose
  3. mav invites you to discuss expanding the focus of the Sep11Wiki at meta:Wikimorial
  4. Jiang requests comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries
  5. Adam suggests every American Wikipedian visits List of Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and contributes a short biography of their local Congress-person (see also public domain congressional biographical directory)
  6. Dysprosia requests comments on the new login text
  7. Viajero asks for your help in expanding the Guidelines for controversial articles
  8. moink wants help with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fluid dynamics.
  9. Gentgeen has started Wikipedia:WikiProject Games.
  10. Use {{msg:inuse}} to avoid edit conflicts. See MediaWiki talk:Inuse
  11. Eloquence requests feedback and comments on the changes to the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial
  12. Jmabel wants help with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups (see especially the talk page).
  13. Alex756 asks for comments and criticisms regarding Wikipedia:Submission Standards (proposal).


List of United States Highways

I'm a map nut, so I love sites like this one -- it lists every US highway, past and present. I've updated the List of United States Highways article with the information, and I am considering creating an article for each highway -- at least the current endpoints, and adding more information as I have time.

However, I came across a discussion of problems caused by the Rambot-generated list of all US cities and towns. Personally, I like these articles, and I'm happy to do what I can to add more information to towns I know something about (see Hazard, Kentucky). But adding a Wikipedia article for each US highway may cause some of the same problems -- such as filling up the "Random Page" option with special-interest topics.

Would appreciate the advice of seasoned Wikipedians! Thanks. --Robertb-dc 17:34, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm seasoned. I say go for it. Yes, the cities and towns of the U.S. are somewhat cluttery, but it's also nice to be able to have a completed link where possible. Anyway, I say "Yay!" to the highways, but the only thing maybe worth noting is how many different ways the names of highways can be phrased. There will probably be a lot of redirects too, but anyway: Go for it. jengod 20:37, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I've created a few sample articles for folks to check out, if they're curious. The main features I'm trying to include at this point are:

  • An introductory paragraph with at least one sentence of interest to road geeks like me.
  • Termini, with links to the endpoint city and highway. If the town doesn't show up in Wikipedia, I'll use MapQuest to find a nearby town to reference. This happened with US 380 -- it ends in San Antonio, New Mexico, which seems to be a small junction south of Socorro.
  • List of states traversed by the route.
  • Links to "parent/child" and "sibling" routes.
  • Link to the matching Endpoints of US highways page. Each route has its own page on his site, and he goes into much more detail than I'm attempting!
  • Stub boilerplate: {{msg:stub}}

Here are the samples:


Not surprisingly, I'm already wishing I didn't have to type United States Highway xx over and over! I wonder what would be the effect of changing to a shorter convention, perhaps US Highway xx -- or even US xx (not likely)?

Suggestions and comments welcome. Thanks! --Robertb-dc 00:29, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If you want it short, it should be U.S. Highway xx (with the full stops), since this is an American topic. --Jiang 00:35, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It looks like it's pretty easy to "Move this page". If there aren't any objections, I may go ahead and move the United States Highway xx pages that currently exist to U.S. Highway xx. By the way, does the capitalization still appear correct? Or should it be U.S. highway xx? Are any other countries' highway systems documented in Wikipedia? --Robertb-dc 17:35, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
There might already be some such articles about. I know I stumbled on Interstate H-3 located in my neighborhood, and was able to expand on it. Whoever set up the original Interstate articles had a layout format developed - Marshman 02:37, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Comparing my page with the Interstate pages, I think I'll incorporate some of their design concepts -- especially breaking up the page into sections. I can't quite use the same section headings, because some information (mileage in particular) isn't as readily available or reliable for US routes. But thanks for reminding me to look at existing examples! --Robertb-dc 17:35, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by "used with permission?" Anthony DiPierro 03:09, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I asked the owner of the Endpoints of US Highways page for permission to use his information in Wikipedia, and he said it was fine. Would there be a better way to express this concept? --Robertb-dc 17:35, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Since there's no objection, I will begin moving the United States Highway xx pages to U.S. Highway xx. I'm using this capitalization because it distinguishes "a specific route" from "a route in the United States"

Meanwhile, I've been refining the template. Here are some examples:

Comments welcome! --Robertb-dc 16:56, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Server downtime on January 13

Due to reorganization of the database servers (distribute load to several servers) there will be downtimes during the early hours of January 13 (UTC). During database downtime, access to wikipedia is restricted, and might become read-only. -- JeLuF 23:33, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

Is this why the upload page is currently returning a blank page? RedWolf 05:04, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
Is this likely to allow the end of the URL redirection to en2...org which screws up cookie management and seems to confuse the heck out of our Proxy Server? Phil 16:51, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

Academie francaise

Could I solicit some opinions on whether Academie francaise ought to be moved to French Academy? Other editors argue that it is usually known in English by its French name, and therefore should be exempt from the English-headings convention. Adam 23:54, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think that as a proper noun, it's usually known in English by its French name, and that its French name is sufficiently close to English not to be confusing. Obviously, appropriate redirect from French Academy is in order, though. -- Jmabel 00:18, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
If it is known in English under its French name, then leave it there. Our "use common names" policy prevails. --Jiang 04:41, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think it's commonly known in English by its English name. I've typically seen news articles refer to the French Academy making pronouncements rather than the Academie francaise. Google shows ~4300 hits for "Academie francaise" when limited to English results, and ~11500 hits for "French Academy" -science -sciences (to avoid getting the French Academy of Sciences results mixed in). So I'd say go ahead and move to French Academy. As an additional data point, the English title is where the current articles in the Columbia and Britannica encyclopedias (and the 1912 article in the Catholic Encyclopedia) are located. --Delirium 04:58, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
Normally, I like the Google test, but one look at the Google results and the problem with the logic in this case becomes apparent. Among the first ten supposed "hits" in googling "French Academy" -science -sciences are references to the "French Academy in Rome", the "Mary W. French Academy Elementary School" (twice), and the "Arden O. French Academy for Leadership Studies" none of which are the "Academie francaise". It is possible that the pattern is different farther down, but I've only got so much patience. All this particular test case proves is the unsurprising fact that the English word "French" is often followed by the word "academy", not that it's the more common name for the Academie francaise. -- Jmabel 06:16, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
In UK usage I've never seen anything other than Academie francaise used, so I would urge leaving it where it is. -- Arwel 10:11, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I"ve also never seen French Academy except in the context of schools for teaching the French language, which may be where the Google majority comes from. I'd leave it. Maybe add a French Academy redirect. Is Academie francaise a proper name which should be Academie Francaise? Jamesday 12:02, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This should stay as Academie francaise. The Academie itself prefers the lowercase "f" and to English it makes no real sense. Bmills 13:01, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It may be useful to point out that the web site also uses French diacritical markings on its name: Académie française, not simply Academie francaise (which is a redirect). --Robertb-dc 19:13, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Reading Software

Considering that we usually don't put some punctuation (; . , :) after headings (section titles), List items, See also listings where a list is utilised, etc etc... I am afraid to say that the current Wikipedia style seems to be unfair to Reading Software (software which converts text into voice, Example: Adobe 6). Reading Software uses the punctuation to make pauses, and cannot get into account the document's markup and format (headings etc). Lately I started putting : after headings and ; or . after list items, but I found the visual result disgusting and hard-to-read. If I don't use the punctuation, the problem is that Reading Software cannot recognize the necessary pauses and as a result the listener has trouble understanding the meaning. I would like to find some way to incorporate some hidden punctuation into the articles, which will be used only by reading software but will be invisible to the user who reads the text on the screen or paper. Do you have any idea on this? If impossible, I propose to think about the issue of reading software and decide on whether punctuation should be used and what kind of punctuation, as an effort to optimise our writing style for Reading Software. Thank you and may you have Peace Profound, Optim 01:25, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Headings in Wikipedia are marked as headings using the relevant standard HTML markup. List items in Wikipedia are marked as list items using the relevant standard HTML markup. (Assuming the contributors use the correct wiki-markup, of course.) If the screen-reading software can't correctly interpret standard HTML markup, I don't see that it's our problem. —Paul A 01:56, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I too would say this is the job of the reading software, but you can do this with the CSS, hiding the offending items for visual formating and showing in the @aural[1] ~ Mlk 03:16, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)~

Horizontal line divisor on articles

I have noticed that apparently using HRs on articles is against the MoS guidelines. My question is, what about external links and references? should they include an HR if the article and the links or references are too long? --Maio 02:21, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

No. The only place to use an HR (IIRC) is if there is an alternate meaning, see for example London. --snoyes 03:20, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Watchlist timeframe

Trying again, as I didn't even get an answer from a developer last time. Can you please reduce the ridiculous 12-hour watchlist default? Those who want a long watchlist could still get it with one click. But why force it on everyone? It takes an eternity to come up. --Wik 03:43, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

I suggest making it an option in the preferences. I prefer having a 3 day watchlist so that I can track changes over the last couple days (for those rare days when I might be out). →Raul654 03:47, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I have always wanted a 1-day watchlist. Apparently everybody needs different length. Some want 1 hour, Raul wants 72, and some may want a week. --Menchi (Talk)â 04:28, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
How often do I have to refute this nonsense? No one is harmed by a short default. If you want a long list, you click on My Watchlist, the short one will quickly come up, and then it's just another click to get whatever length you want. But as it is now, those who just need a short one have to wait pointlessly for the long one to come up, and repeating this waste dozens of times a day slows down the whole Wikipedia for everyone. --Wik 04:37, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
Previous discussions suggest the best way is to make a bookmark or shortcut to your preferred time period. Then it is irrelevant what the default is. Wik, please don't be rude. It is unnecessary and unhelpful. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 07:41, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I am not rude. This is not the best way. Few people want to use bookmarks so there will be no change in the overall speed. Set the default to one hour, and let those who want the longer ones use bookmarks (though they won't need bookmarks, they might just as well click on the (short and fast) watchlist and then on their desired timeframe - two clicks, just as many as they would need for the bookmark). Give me one good reason for the 12-hour default. --Wik 08:02, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
I always use the bookmark. I have use the link the sidebar less than 10 times in the past year. --Menchi (Talk)â 08:16, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Thanks Pete! That tip is very handy. Now whenever I go to Watchlist, I get my desired 24 hr instead of 12. Wee! --Menchi (Talk)â 08:16, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Not all users have such a long watchlist as you. The last time you asked for this change you got enough answers from users want to keep the default as it is, as it is more suitable for their usage of the watchlist. And you even got the suggestion of the bookmark. As long as there it is not possible to set it in your user preferences (I guess the developers have more pressing problems to solve than this one) I vote to keep as it is. And if you make a bookmark with the watchlist in your preferred timeout it will be one click for you and for those who like the current default. andy 10:22, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I also vote to keep it the way it is. And Wik, sentences like How often do I have to refute this nonsense? are rude. Bmills 10:28, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Not if it is nonsense. This is slowing everything down. Reducing it will be better for everyone. Those who prefer a 12-hour period typically also click on the watchlist only once in 12 hours. Someone who clicks on it 50 times a day typically doesn't need more than the last hour each time. So the vast majority of watchlists that have to be prepared by the server wouldn't have to be longer than 1 hour. Instead virtually all are 12 hours (the number of people who actually set up a bookmark is probably negligible). That is an incredible waste. Not all watchlists are as long as mine, true, but for me it takes minutes every time - that's time the server could better use to serve pages. --Wik 11:35, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
You have a serious problem accepting other people's viewpoints. Noone denied that for huge watchlists a long timeout is not useful, but declaring it nonsense to use a longer default timeout is not a good way to discuss the topic. With the same reasoning I can declare having long watchlists nonsense and ask for a watchlist limit of 100 entries. As only experienced users have long watchlists, these user should be able to create the bookmark to the timeout they prefer. andy 11:46, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Not the same reasoning at all. Long watchlists are not nonsense per se, since there would be no problem with a short default. And as a second best solution I wouldn't oppose a watchlist limit of 100 entries either. But that would have to apply to everyone; unilaterally cutting down my watchlist wouldn't help the overall situation, that's a typical tragedy of the commons situation. The problem is not just caused by the extremely long watchlists, but also the medium-length ones (and most of those users will not create bookmarks). Remember the default was reduced to 1 hour before, and not without reason, and it should be reduced again until the server situation is improved. Surely it's more important for anyone to improve the overall speed than having to do one extra click to get a longer watchlist when needed. --Wik 12:39, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

I currently see three days. That's about right for me. When it was less I always had to change it to a longer time to see enough to be useful. Most contributors are not as active as Wik and appear to use it somewhat differently. I tend to look at it once to see what I need to review and once more when I've done all I want during the day, leaving the first one open until I've finished with it. A week default for new users seems likely to be suitable and those of us who are more regular contributors get to deal with it, exploiting our better knowledge of how to do things. And yes,it looks as though a preference is the way to go, as developer time allows. Jamesday 12:09, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

When it comes to fast watchlist refreshes, I wonder whether checking 50 times a day is harmful, given the way slowing arguments down is one of the best ways to decrease tensions and let others intervene. There may be merit in caching the results and only generating a new report once an hour or two. Should help server load as well.:) Jamesday 12:18, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This should be a user preference setting. When it was 1 hour, it was useless (for me). 1 day is what I need. I have a bookmark to workaround it, but ideally it should "just work" as I want it. In fact what is slowing everything down here is the abysmal state of the server and associated hardware. I can't believe that this has been in this decrepit state for several weeks now with no resolution. Did the sys admins waste their (our?) money on a super new server only to have it die within a month? Very poor. I hope they are complaining bitterly to the supplier/manufacturer/whoever to GET IT SORTED. Personally I suggest they buy a rack of XServes and have done with it. Currently these seem to offer excellent price/performance as well as complete reliability and no stupid licensing fees. I'd be very willing to contribute to the funding if they decided to go this route. As it is, as I said, seems that the fund raising effort was wasted. This is not meant as a flame/troll to whoever is trying to get this thing up and running - it's just that from a contributor's/user's perspective, WP is just about unusable right now, and I would like that to change ASAP. Graham 03:01, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Check the wikitech mailing list - there's been intensive discussion of configurations, and so Jimbo only sent the order today. On top of that, the big database server is having still more hardware problems and won't go online again until they're resolved. Patience... Stan 03:45, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I have patience - just about ;-) I'm sure that nobody is standing idly by watching this whole thing go tits up, but it's a bit disappointing that a brand new server is having hardware problems just one month in. It doesn't bode well for its long term reliability, though I suppose it could be put down to "teething troubles". Let's hope so. Graham 03:55, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Wik on this one. Given that we have a serious issue with response time, especially at peak usage periods, an important question is, "How can we improve the response time with now with minimal expense and effort?" I'm not familiar with the implementation of the software, but it seems to me that a change in the default should require either very little or no developer time. I also don't know how large an impact chaning the default would have on response time, but it seems that we're at a point where we need to consider even marginal improvemenets.
So, even if the current default is the most popular compromise default, it may not be the best default in our current situation. This does seem to be a case where community benefit should prevail over any individual or sub-community benefit. Remember, using a bookmark works equally well for those who want a longer watchlist period.
We should also consider setting a maximum watch-list length. However, as I see it, this should rank below changing the watch-list period. First, the period will affect everyone who uses the watchlist feature, and thus will likely have a greater impact. Second, it could easily require more development effort to implement (though I don't know this for a fact).
The long-term solution is probably to have it be a user-preference. But this will certainly require more development time, and is unlikely to be available to us in the short term. Even then, there's still the question of what the default setting should be, and I'd argue that it should be set to a short period, as long as there are response-time issues.
If I recall, we recently had a period when the watchlist feature was entirely disabled in order to improve response time. I would be in favor of using this solution (until the hardware issues are resolved) if no other solution can be agreed upon.
-Anthropos 13:46, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Although I'd ideally want 3 days, frnkly I'll live with any temporary measure that improves response time. Tired of redoing lost work, etc. Bmills 15:20, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

How to redirect to Wiktionary within Wikipedia

How to redirect to http://wiktionary.org/wiki/Condemned

Thank you, 169.207.112.223 09:33, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Interwiki redirects are generally considered a bad thing. See m:Redirected user pages considered harmful for a related discussion. You can link to Wiktionary using Wiktionary:Page name. Angela. 11:56, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

Time Zone

In the User preferences page, there is an option to offset the UTC time to your own time-zone by specifying the offset hours. This field does'nt seem to take decimal values. My time is ahead of UTC by 5.5 hrs. How do I set myself to this time? Or indeed if this is a new software request, can somebody move this to the appropriate area please? I guess it should permit offsetting by a difference in multiples of 15 minutes if one goes by the listing here.(Chancemill 11:13, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

The best place is to go to SourceForge to submit feature requests. There are instruction at Wikipedia:Feature requests. I've submitted this for you. You can find it here. Angela. 11:56, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)~
Thanks very much. Chancemill 13:19, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
This has already been requested. -- Tim Starling 13:28, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

Is there "official" policy on when to link and when not to? I assume when a word should be linked, it should only be linked at the first occurence. What about years, though? Should they be linked more than once if they refer to completely separate events in the article? Is there a page with such information and more? --Spikey 17:21, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Don't link everything ! --snoyes 18:19, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)


automated footnotes

We need an automated way to add Footnotes to an article. The manual way is annoying and difficult to maintain. Anthony DiPierro 20:24, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This is an excellent suggestion, and I second it. Something simple akin to the current # (pound) syntax would be great. --snoyes 20:37, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Agree. Dpbsmith 01:12, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You might want to go to Wikipedia:Feature requests to make the request. RickK 04:45, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure footnotes are suitable for screen media -- Tarquin 12:14, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Guess what day it is on thursday?

So are there any special plans for January 15? -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 20:33, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

We had better get writing... we are 300 000 articles behind expectations ;) Stewart Adcock 21:24, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

problem with the polish version

Only a small one.


On the main page, it says W encykolpedii 'wolnej' (in the free encyclopedia) This is incorrect, if you mean free as in no cost.

It should say w encyklopedii 'darmowej' which means gratis.

It is actually meant to say free as in freedom, not free as in no cost. (Even though it is no cost as well.) There's probably an article that explains why, somewhere...   21:58, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Please see Free Software. --Brion 03:35, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Steven Spielberg birthdate

Even Mr. Speilberg can't claim birthdays one year apart (although I'm sure he'd be glad to) so, was he born, as listed, in December of 1946 or 1947?

That's odd. I would claim my birthdays are always one year apart--plus or minus a day for leap years. But then I've always felt especially in tune with nature. More in tune than Speilberg, at least, or so it seems.168... 22:35, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Structure Templates

I was for the lookaround for a summary of special page templates/boilerplates. The ones i could find were on Wikipedia:WikiProject and Wikipedia:Boilerplate_text .. it took some time to get there, possibly i didn't know at first what i was looking for .. so are these two the main entry points .. shall we straighten the search path (i interlinked the two) ?

Removal of items from Votes for Deletion prematurely

Is there anything (save entering an edit war) that can be done if a user unilaterally removes a discussion from VfD without it going through the 5 day process? How should that be dealt with? Thanks, The Fellowship of the Troll 02:43, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Frivolous entries such as listing Wikipedia can be removed immediately. -- Tim Starling 03:40, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry - pehaps you can explain - the article Wikipedia (not the main page or anything like that) is subject to all of the same criticisms as the other article for debate - I can't see how this is frivolous, or any more frivolous than listing other articles about wikipedia for deletion. The Fellowship of the Troll 04:06, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Fellowship, you're trolling. Trolling is a violation of Wikiquette. Violations of Wikiquette are a bannable offense. Please desist.—Eloquence

That may be your point of view, but there was active discussion on the article. accusing someone of trolling is not a good excuse of bypassing process with impunity. You can sling abuse, but it doesn't justify unilaterally deleting things without discussion or justification. For the record, I am not trolling, nor is there any mention, let alone definition, of trolling on the page you reference. The Fellowship of the Troll 04:13, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well I think he has a (weak) point. Listing Wikipedia on VfD is pretty stupid and just wasting everybody's time. But technically he is right. Removing it was the right thing to do as no rules can cover everything and might need to be disregarded when common-sense prevails. Arguing about it is a further trolling. SpellBott 08:04, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Was the urgent necessity of removing the VfD listing and votes (without even noting that it was removed) while debate was in progress really greater than the possibility of letting the process take its course? The purpose of VfD is so that the whole Wikipedia, not just one person's judgement, is brought to bear. The person in question undermined the process by shortcutting it and then refusing to discuss why while making accusations of misbehaviour against me. You might think it obviously that it should have been removed, but the right thing to do would have been to let VfD run its course, and the community decide.The Fellowship of the Troll 08:26, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

One might ask why a new user thinks they can lecture the rest of us on our own process. —Morven 11:42, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Or why an established users feels they can display such blatant contempt for it. The Fellowship of the Troll 16:17, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As dirty as this makes me feel, I have to agree with Fellowship's logic on this one. Wikipedia (wikipedia's article on itself) is an article like any other, and subject to the same rules. I agree that the whole thing is frivilous - the article is obviously well written, on topic, etc. If Fellowship didn't like the article, he should have edited it, not listed it on the VFD. With that said, (as far as I can tell) there's no rule against frivilous posting to the VFD. He listing should have stayed, or a new rule against frivilous listing be made. →Raul654 16:38, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)

  • Just reread http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#What_to_list_on_VfD and I'm trying to work out which reason listed there would justify listing Wikipedia? Bmills 17:06, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Upon further reading, reasons 2 (Don't list articles that just need heavy editing) and 6 (Don't list POV articles) both apply in this case. I retract my previous statement - Tim was correct to delete the VFD listing, and Fellowship (officially) is trolling. →Raul654 17:10, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
There are two possibilities here, either 1. Wikipedia should have been removed from VfD, in which case Internet trolling phenomena on Wikipedia should also be removed from VfD, for the same reasons as Wikipedia OR 2. Wikipedia should not have been removed, in which case both articles should stay on VfD, and, if there is consistancy of logic, either both be kept or both deleted. Thanks, The Fellowship of the Troll 18:12, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Fellowship, I think it is perfectly acceptable to challenge people to explain the inconsistency in the treatment of these two articles, under the deletion nomination for ITPOW. My understanding is that neither you nor anyone else actually wants the Wikipedia article deleted; and that's the reason why, in my opinion, removing the listing is not a violation of our process. -- Cyan 18:16, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You're right, I don't want to delete either article, but I believe that the Wikipedia procedures should be applied fairly. This happens regular (for example discussion about recipies of numbers) where, because on article is listed for deletion, the larger issues of similar articles comes to the fore. The Fellowship of the Troll 18:21, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

accuracy disputes

The mysterious User:Zw insists on placing a notice saying "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed" at the anti-Zionism article. This article was the product of a lot of work by me, Danny, Zero and even RK to achieve a balanced and NPOV outcome. So far as I know its accuracy is not disputed by anyone except Zw, and even he doesn't actually say what accuracy issues he has with the article. I don't want this tag on the article, but if I remove it he just puts it back. Suggestions? Adam 06:19, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'd say that this is equivalent to the SCO case (for those of you who follow the linux news). If you accuse someone of some wrongdoing you have to provide evidence and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accusation is correct. You can't say "I dispute the factual accuracy of this article, but I won't tell you exactly which facts I dispute." Someone making a claim like that gets their case thrown out of court. --snoyes 06:31, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
User:Adam Carr is not telling the truth. I made an attempt to make the introduction neutral, instead of only presenting zionist's POV on anti-zionism. This article is, indeed, about anti-zionism, and I think also anti-zionist's point of view is highly relevant. User:Adam Carr, however, simply removed all attempts to present other views than his own right-wing. Please see the history. Zw 07:08, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, it isn't "my" article, but a cooperative effort by a number of people of differing views. Secondly, the article gives a very full account of the views of opponents of Zionism of all kinds. Thirdly, I think anyone who is interested enough to view the edit history of the article will see that Zw is not seeking to add to the factual content of the article, nor has he challenged the accuracy of any statement in the article. All he has sought to do is to insert propagandistic, rhetorical (and poorly written) material into the opening paragraph - the usual behaviour of those whose interest is making political points rather than writing encyclopaedia articles. Adam 07:35, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)


The article does not give a very full account of the views of opponents of Zionism of all kinds. For instance, the word 'racism' is not mentioned in your version at all, although anti-zionists widely consider zionism "racism", and anti-zionism "anti-racism". In an article dealing with anti-zionism, their point of views are relevant too, and in my opinion more relevant than zionist propaganda. That is exactly what the whole introduction of your version is.

We all should remember that the subject of the article is not "Zionist's POV on anti-zionism". The article about anti-racism is not written from a racist point of view, huh? Zw 07:54, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The word racism appears twice in the unvandalised version of the article, at the appropriate place. I doubt you have actually read beyond the opening paragraphs. Calling me an "Israeli revisionist" shows that you know nothing about me or my views (which is as it should be, of course). It also shows that you are not interested in co-operative editing, only on forcing your illiterate propaganda into this article. If you persist in this course I will ask to have the article protected. Adam 08:19, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Adam, calling other users illiterate is not nice. Please don't do that. How is Zw supposed to become cooperative if we do not treat him in an open and cooperative fashion?—Eloquence

Have you read the edit history? He has shown no interest in cooperation, he's only interested in forcing his political views into the opening paragraph of an article on a controversial topic. And I never claimed to be nice. Adam 08:52, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Adam Carr says above "so far as I know its accuracy is not disputed by anyone except Zw". Well you can add my name to the list as well. The definition of Zionism at the top of the page is ridiculous and POV. In 1975, over two thirds of the world's nations agreed to a resolution in the UN General Assembly that said "Zionism is a form of racism". If the fact that two thirds of the world's nations stood up and equated Zionism with racism doesn't merit being discussed as a counter-view to the Panglossian definition of Zionism at the top of the anti-Zionism page, I don't know what does. -- Lancemurdoch 17:25, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

question for Mr Maltin

Hope this isn't bothering busy people. I'm new to computers and want to ask Leonard Maltin a question: Is there such a thing as a movie book/listing which goes by subject rather than by title? There may be many movies on - or during - the Civil War, but who knows what their titles are? And how would one find out?

Thanks for any help!

Donald dcmckay@juno.com

I don't know how often Leonard Maltin drops by here, but I can tell you that Haliwell's Filmgoers Companion lists and discusses films by topic area. Any good bookshop will carry it. Adam 07:42, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Macrons

There are Unicode points for standard letters with macrons, ā, for example, but where are the points for letters with both an accent and a macron? They must be in there somewhere. I can't believe they would leave them out when they have a million or so points. I can generate a macron over an accented letter using the modifier: á̄ (á̄), but depending on your browser this will be rendered in one of several shit ways. What can I do? CGS 09:50, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC).

I believe the Unicode standard only have real codepoints (as opposed to using modifiers) for accent-combinations, which are actually used in some language. Does any language use the á̄? I believe all latin letters with multiple diacritical marks are in the table Latin extended additional. It does have eg. the ṓ (note, even worse rendering in some browsers). Rasmus Faber 10:20, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Yes they're used in a real language: Latin. "habé̄mus", "we have", for example. That's how I came to notice that it wasn't there in Unicode. CGS 10:44, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC).
Is the letter a used with accent and macron, too? Both ḕ and ḗ are in Unicode (but probably render badly with most browsers). These are equivalent to combining ē with the combining character for an acute accent, ie ḗ (ḗ), which actually renders OK. Rasmus Faber Rasmus Faber 12:49, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
In my browser both render, but the pre-combined character looks very different from e-macron with acute (Font problem, not user agent). For test reasons, compare e+acute+macron all seperately encoded below (as the Unicode guys want it done). — Jor 13:20, 2004 Jan 14 (UTC)

Since when does Latin have either accents or macrons? This would have been news to Cicero. Adam 12:40, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • Latin doesn't, but modern-day students sometimes use them to indicate long and short vowels for their own convenience. Bmills 12:53, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Not only modern-day: the macron has long been used to indicate stress in vowels. Compare also languages like Māori. (If I write that Māori, the macron isn't rendered at all. Probably some font issue…) — Jor 13:20, 2004 Jan 14 (UTC)
Unicode philosophy is to only encode the base glyph, and let all diacritical marks be made through combining modifiers. E with acute accent and macron: é̄ (e + ́ (combining acute accent above) + ̄ (combining macron above). In theory this allows infinite combinations, such as o with acute accent, and ogonek: ǫ́ — in practice many fonts will only display those characters for which pre-rendered glyphs exist. This is one of the reasons Unicode includes glyphs for most combined characters which actually are used. (Another reason is the ISO 8859 tables were remapped in Unicode, and as such many pre-combined glyphs were encoded). — Jor 13:10, 2004 Jan 14 (UTC)

Fleet Air Arm versus Luftwaffe

Hello,

I was attempting to find information about any battles between Fleet Air Arm (FAA) Corsairs and Hellcats versus German ME 109s and FW 190s? I know that the first German aircraft shot down over Britain was by a pair of FAA Martletts (AKA. Widcats); and I was curious to see how well the Royal Navy F4Us and F6Fs did against the German fighters?

Thanks,

Darwin DFCONCON@aol.com

Need some help linking to an image

Over at Operation Downfall (the proposed 1945 Allied invasion of Japan), I added a map I scanned out of a book. The map is great, but way too big for the page (can't be shrunk, either, or details would be lost). So I uploaded it twice, a smaller version and a larger version (I know I could have uploaded one and used html to resize it, but that would make page loads extremely slow. I figure bandwidth is more precious than server storage). In the caption, I added a "Larger version" link to the bigger picture. But I can't figure out how to do it with internal wiki links - it's an exteral links right now. I'd be grateful is someone could lend a hand. →Raul654 13:14, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)

Quite simple. Instead of [[Image:LargeImage.jpg]] just use [[Media:LargeImage.jpg|Larger Imager]]. However are you sure the image is copyright-free? Because a scan of something copyrighted is still copyrighted - and the book is probably too recent to be in public domain already. andy 19:52, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It is still copyrighted (copyright date - 2003), but copying a small amount of it (one map out of 600+) is covered by fair use, is it not? I put all the details here. →Raul654 20:15, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)

Watchlist down

As seen on my watchlist:

  • This feature is disabled for performance reasons. New servers have been ordered and should be installed within the next 14 days.

I suspect in about 14 days we all shall have the fun of cleaning out numerous vandalisms. Jrincayc 21:19, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_archive_2004-09-26&oldid=2154175"