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 BACbKA (talk | contribs) at 13:22, 6 September 2004 (→The Slashdot-advertised wikipedia unreability vandal: hlinked the original "experimentator's" IP to his contribs). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Village pump sections
post, watch, search
Discuss existing and proposed policies
post, watch, search
Discuss technical issues about Wikipedia
post, watch, search
Discuss new proposals that are not policy-related
post, watch, search
Incubate new ideas before formally proposing them
post, watch, search
Discuss issues involving the Wikimedia Foundation
post, watch, search
Post messages that do not fit into any other category
View all village pump sections at once
Other help and discussion locations
I want... Then go to...
...help using or editing Wikipedia Teahouse (for newer users) or Help desk (for experienced users)
...to find my way around Wikipedia Department directory
...specific facts (e.g. Who was the first pope?) Reference desk
...constructive criticism from others for a specific article Peer review
...help resolving a specific article edit dispute Requests for comment
...to comment on a specific article Article's talk page
...to view and discuss other Wikimedia projects Wikimedia Meta-Wiki
...to learn about citing Wikipedia in a bibliography Citing Wikipedia
...to report sites that copy Wikipedia content Mirrors and forks
...to ask questions or make comments Questions

[[da:Wikipedia:Landsbybr%F8nden]]

Summarised sections

Slot

An anon has created Slot as a redirect to Wiktionary, to an article which does not exist. I can't get to the article to edit it. How does one fix this? RickK 05:54, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I figured it out -- edit it from the History page. RickK 06:00, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Difficulty of editing is the number one reason that direct redirects to other projects shouldn't've been used in the first place. If users are creating red links to an article that would only ever be a dicdef, editors can put the template {{wi}} at the target to create a Wikipedia:Soft redirect to wiktionary. Pcb21| Pete 06:11, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think that's a much better solution than having to constantly list dicdefs on VfD. No matter how often we delete them, well-meaning newbies are going to constantly create new dicdefs. • Benc • 09:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I like this idea so much that I've started a discussion about it here: Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Policy proposal for dicdefs: soft redirects. Comments appreciated. • Benc • 10:53, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

List_of_people_by_name:_Se

Someone is running a script on this page in an attempt to wikify the years on it. This script is broken, and is messing up the page (see for example "co-founder" which is changed to "co]-[founder"). Also, de fact policy is that we don't wikify the years on these pages in the first place. However, I have agreed not to revert more than twice a day, so I'm bringing the issue here for the help of the community. I have tried talking to this person, but reverted again after putting a message on my talk page. I don't know how to deal with this. anthony (see warning) 11:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I reverted and left the following on the user's talk page: "=List of people by name: Se=Please stop introducing multiple errors to this page. Niteowlneils 16:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)" I am not very familiar with these pages--is the 'de facto policy' documented (in any fashion) anywhere? Niteowlneils 16:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Do you mean a de facto policy on "List of people by name" pages? Certainly most other lists have wikified dates. Rmhermen 17:01, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
These pages just have years, not dates. For a discussion on wikification, see Wikipedia_talk:List#Formatting_of_lists. -- User:Docu
I don't feel I can state a firm position for all lists, but on these lists, I see no point in wikifying the years--I can't imagine anyone navigating to the List of people, then wanting to go to a year page. They might after they read the person's article, but the year should be there and linked already. I don't think it's a big enuf deal to suggest that existing year-links be removed, but I would consider adding any more a complete waste of time. Niteowlneils 05:03, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Life cycle of the ideal article

I recently finished the first draft of this new Wikipedia page. It is intended to be an intermediate-level guide documenting the various ways one can help improve articles. I'd like some feedback on it, please (positive and negative, of course). Thanks, • Benc • 15:05, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This page is an excellent idea! I added a few comments to the project's talk page. -Sewing - talk 20:22, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What is the preferred method for an author to indicate that he/she is giving permission to use material. I asked an author to add such a statement to ACORN but couldn't say exactly how to do it. Rmhermen 16:25, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Front Page

Wikipedia is already short on certain areas and the front page addition of the following will only serve to make it worse because many newcomers will see it and leave thinking Wikipedia is a site for intellects only.

browse: Humanity | Nature | Mathematics | Philosophy | Physics | Technology | Academia | More...

Worse, is the "Fundamental" list. Instead, may a suggest additions to the list plus other measures to encourage newcomers to the biography and other areas where much work is needed. JillandJack 18:19, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Complaints about the main page should be directed to Talk:Main Page. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:10, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Who hacked into the system and changed the logo? -- user:zanimum

edit conflict paste strange logo unpleasantness
Eek! I've got a new top left logo. I use the old [standard?] skin. Just a second ago the logo changed to a sun-like, magnetic compass style thing. It's much more distracting in style - but this is the really bad bit: It's large enough to cover the first letter of any article title and, because it is too wide, I now have a vertical line cutting down the first centimetre of any page text - it reaches down as far as donations in my left hand navigation bar.
Anyone know what's going on? It's horrid. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 20:18, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Fixed now ;o) --[[User

A developer appears to have fixed it now. We need to track down who did this -- user:zanimum

It, it, glowed! The goggles, they do nothing! -- orthogonal 20:23, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What's with the ugly wiki logo today? Kevyn 20:12, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The logo has been fixed. Hard-refresh your browser if you still see it (Ctrl+F5 in IE). --Slowking Man 20:20, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

That's weird media:Wiki.png doesn't indicate that anyone changed it today until it was fixed. Mintguy (T) 20:25, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Anyone have a cached copy of the "logo"? -- user:zanimum

On Opera 7.54 the black lettering under the globe is very attenuated and not very legible on the blackl background. I suppose it looks better in different browser. Can somebody fix it please Apwoolrich 20:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Critics Are Right

Yes, I'm afraid to say it, I have been contributing and proofing a lot on Wikipedia this last couple of months. But today I finally needed more to use than be a part of Wikipedia. And I can now inform you all: Wikipedia is useless for research, after all.

Because where I should have gathered all my facts and written my piece I have, instead, spent 3 hours toying about, nudging a bit of formatting here, wikifying a year there, adding an external link somewhere else... and my productivity has been precisely ZERO. ;o) --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 20:48, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

  • Don't underestimate the power of proofreading. Many a college textbook lost some credibility in my eyes due to an overabundance of typos, poor formatting or presentation. I remember when I was first learning C++, I made the mistake of picking up one of those "Teach yourself C++ in 21 days" books; typos on every page, including in code examples. Hard to learn C++ syntax when the examples won't even compile. There was another course-required text I paid about $50.00 for that clearly consisted of Xeroxed-and-bound articles from a hundred different sources, each formatted differently, with poor copy quality, written by hacks and amateurs, most of them rife with inexcusable spelling and grammar errors. Uh-oh, I have a feeling that description applies to more than just that textbook... Well at any rate, at least here there's something we can do about it. -- Wapcaplet 21:11, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh, absolutely. I always feel very worth and righteous after a good bout of proof-reading and fixing - and fortunately I enjoy it too, so when I stumbled on Wikipedia it was like finding the voluntary work I was born to do. But some days you need to get something done, and on those days I need to learn that it is more important I get it done than to italicise titles in the article text ... --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 14:02, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

NY-LON

This must be being broadcast in the States, but by whom? Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:21, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nobody. They can set a show in Zimbabwe, doesn't mean it will air there. -- user:zanimum

War over circumcision

This edit war over circumcision is really starting to bother me. Articles such as Circumcision, History of male circumcision, foreskin, infant, and even violence have been taken over by POV warriors who refuse to compromise and introduce their own activism into the articles. It's destroying the quality of previously NPOV content, which is what's so annoying. I'm requesting help from other impartial editors to reel in the insanity. Sorry if this is the wrong place, not enough people seem to read RFC though. Rhobite 22:29, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Yeesh, the flames of war burn hotly over at Talk:Circumcision; not sure I'd want to wade into the fray without learning what everyone was talking about. I never realized that cutting was such a hot-button issue. --[[User:Ardonik|Ardonik(talk)]] 01:22, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
Ick, is this the Intact Day guy back? He wanted to make circumcision a crime against humanity. Some folks need to see what real oppression and suffering there is in the world and devote their energies to helping there, not worrying so much about their winkies. Geogre 03:16, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, and he brought friends. To be fair there is also a pro-circumcision editor causing trouble at Talk:Circumcision. Rhobite 04:40, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at Infant? They keep adding "Circumcision is to remove the foreskin, usually of a male newborn. The act is usually committed to remove a portion of the genitalia. This is known as Genital modification and mutilation, and its effects last into adulthood." I'm not willing to break the three revert rule over this. Rhobite 04:21, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

I've done my first revert. We'll see how long that lasts. The topic shouldn't even be on the Infants page. Irrelevant. -Vina 20:58, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lots of us have now done reverts... they just won't give up the blatent POV. They're starting to get under my skin... (joke). AdmN 19:58, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)


and foreskin and Ridged band. These people have clearly come from a newsgroup or similar. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 07:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also penis. Looking at the contributions of User:Robert Brookes, some of us in #wikipedia considered ArbCom action...But if it is a large number of POV warriors involved, it becomes even more complicated... — David Remahl 07:20, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Start a WP:RFC rfc on this user first. Arb com is the last phase of wikipedia:dispute resolution Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork)
Ah, yes. Of course. I forgot about RFC as a arb com 'lite'. It is the obvious place to bring this up. Thanx for reminding me. — David Remahl 10:35, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if you've done this yet (I'll chack in a minute but looking at his latest edits, he is refusing to compromise, work with people or work to NPOV. I'm happy to second the rfc. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 17:01, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've started one myself. If other people could add more evidence and certify (If it's not certified within two days it get's removed). Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 18:41, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Here is a link to the RfC page for Robert Brookes; would those involved in edit wars with him please join us there? --[[User:Ardonik|Ardonik(talk)]] 19:07, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Mind if I skip my own Salem Trial folks? Perhaps you need to be aware of who exactly is running an organised POV offensive against wikipedia.You need to know where the source of the problem is and why the rush to nuetralise Robert Brookes. Here is a post from an anti-circumcision list:
To: intact-l@cirp.org
Subject: WikiPedia.Org, David Peter Reimer, et al
From: =?UTF-8?Q?=C5=ACalabio?= <Walabio@MacOSX.COM>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 05:31:46 +0000
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Reply-to: =?UTF-8?Q?=C5=ACalabio?= <Walabio@MacOSX.COM>
Sender: owner-intact-l@cirp.org
¡Hello!
¿How Fare You?
The vote on WikiPedia.Org went strange:
Genital Integrity and Intactivism are now the same article now.  I 
would like to thank:
1.Ŭalabio
2.Hugh7
3.Acegikmo1
4.DanBlackham
5.Rwinkel
6.User:DanP
7.Hayford Peirce 20:51, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
8.Sean Curtin
9.Dittaeva
10.User:Michael Glass
11.Modargo 06:22, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
12.ScottyBoy900Q 05:19, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
13.Jao 06:24, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
14.Radoneme
Since I knew that circumcisiophiliacs would ballot-stuff.  I invited 
others to counter the circumcisiophiliacs.  Since such activity is 
impossible to hide, I admitted this in vote.  I went about compiling a 
list of people voting against us who joined after the vote.  By the 
time I had the list, it was a moot point, so I never  exposed them, but 
one the circumcisiophiliacs, Robert Brookes, is an huge vandal.  Robert 
Brookes vandalizes existing articles, rewrites archived talk, and 
starts insane articles like this:
--
Foreskin fetish
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Foreskin fetish is one of the many fetish variants that are 
proliferating in era of the internet and the accompanying explosion of 
pornography. A difference from other fetishes is that those with this 
variant appear to be active in anti-circumcision activities as opposed 
to the standard "live and let live" approach of other sexual fetish 
adherents. Both males and females who have such a fetish are unkindly 
known as skin freaks.
--
That Robert Brookes is an insane vandal.
  • Robert, please respond on the RfC page. If you don't, the disagreement may go to the Arbitration Committee and the admins might get involved. This is part of our policy and one of the responsibilities that comes with being a Wikipedian! Also, see my conversation with Ualabio in Talk:Violence. My complaints with the "intactivists" are the same as my complaints with you: a frustrating refusal to acknowledge the opposition and a complete lack of desire to reach consensus. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I have nothing invested in the argument either way. All I want is to see NPOV adhered to. You're obviously not the only one at fault; join our conversations and let's make this right. --Ardonik.talk() 00:59, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • The situation around the circumcision related articles is of your own making. You should never have allowed the dogs in. Now you have to deal with the consequences of a string of POV articles. There is of course a simple way to sort this all out. - Robert Brookes 01:15, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree, the simplest way would be to block you all. In your case I don't think we even need go through the AC as I'm not sure I have seen any good faith edits. My view at the moment is that you are a simple vandal, and can be blocked under current policy as such. However I will wait to the what the rest of the community has to say on the matter first. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 06:18, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Voting begins on Wikipedia:Administrators/Administrator Accountability Policy

Voting on the proposed Administrator Accountability Policy has begun. Voting will last until 00:00 UTC, 8 September 2004. blankfaze | (беседа!) 00:21, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have one suggestion to help clarify the poll itself. Can you change
will last until 00:00 UTC, 8 September 2004
to
will last until 23:59 UTC, 7 September 2004?
Ending a poll at midnight is always confusing; some might look at it and think, "oh, I can vote on September 8th" when they actually can't. • Benc • 01:43, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Protest to universal addition of metric measurements to US topic articles

I would like to protest the mechanical, universal addition of metric measurements to all US topic articles that is now occurring. I would like to see what the consensus is, and if there is support for my position. Please see my more complete entry at Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Protest to universal addition of metric measurements to US topic articles. Thank you. --Gary D 00:09, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Metric is not an anti-US system, it is a worldwide system - which should be preferred even within the US. As such, certainly it warrants inclusion on US topic articles. It is the only sensible measurement system for scientific purposes. Having both sets of measurements though, provides a useful unambiguous value (so as you don't lose probes going to Mars for example). Besides, I haven't a clue how many strides are in a yardarm (well, OK, feet-yards-miles) - we aren't taught anything but Metric here. Many people won't have a notion as to what the local measurements mean - conversions are always needed. zoney ▓█▒ talk 12:53, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't use the metric system, don't like it, don't care about it. That said, I absolutely agree with the automatic conversion units being added. I always want metric units to have conversions so that I can comprehend them (especially with temperature, where the formula is weirder than my tiny brain can hold and perform), and I don't think that I should be the only one given that courtesy. Geogre 14:27, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia, so metrics are needed. It makes the articles more useful for non-US readers--even if the article is about a US topic. I don't use metric (though I think we in the US should adopt it), but I whole-heartedly support the auto-conversion for all our articles. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:58, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
I definately agree all articles should have both the US and metric measurements, with which is more predominate based on the topic of the article. However, as some people on the talk page have pointed out, if the automated conversion results in odd fractional amounts for the converted values, that probably is not a good thing. Niteowlneils 15:14, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I oppose auto-conversion, if that means a bot. I don't think all the possible situations can be handled in this manner. anthony (see warning) 13:58, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Could specific pages where problems might occur have a no bot property added? Even a nobot tag similiar to nowiki? This might help with protecting things like "9mm (name of gun)". AdmN 20:05, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

New template: Deletion Utility Belt

Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

I created the "Deletion Utility Belt" as a useful resource. Feel free to put it on your userpages/talkpages. Also, if you want to create a version with the Editor's Barnstar and give it as an award, go ahead. The template is {{Template:Deletiontools}}. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:45, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I made the text a bit shorter and changed the formatting a bit. How is that: Template:Deletiontools -- Chris 73 Talk 05:15, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
Is there a list of these tools anywhere? Yours is very useful b.t.w. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:09, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)
Love it! I almost want to change the text to "For Deletionists," but that would be mean. :-) Geogre 19:15, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Neutrality, do you mind if I add copyvio on there too? I think people working to get things deleted (KILL KILL KILL!!!) also check for copyright lots of times... - Vina 21:42, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:46, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Very nice! May I suggest replacing {{Resources for collaboration}} (which is rather bulky) on WP:VFD with this one? VFD is huge enough. Actually, this could go on *FD as a navigational template. • Benc • 05:41, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia average?

What the hell does this mean?

"Please remove this notice and the listing on "Pages needing attention" after the article has been revised to Wikipedia average." It's part of the "attention" tag thingy thus:

You must add a |reason= parameter to this Cleanup template – replace it with {{Cleanup|reason=<Fill reason here>}}, or remove the Cleanup template.

Is there some dialect of English in which the bit about "Wikipedia average" makes sense? 138.37.188.109 07:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. Why not go to Template:Attention and be bold? Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 07:32, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)
Aha - someone has done just that and it now reads much better, thanks. Nevilley 07:19, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
My only comment would be that a standard one person finds acceptable, another may not. Darksun 09:38, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Images from other Wikipedias

Is there a way to link to images in other Wikipedias, or should they be duplicated? PhilHibbs 11:19, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Linking does not seem to work (tested on de with [[en:Image:Anarion.png]]), you’ll have to duplicate them. Add a lang link to the original image on the copied image page, and lang link to the copy from the origin image. [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 11:47, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[[en:Image:Anarion.png]] adds an interwiki link, which is useful if the same image is uploaded in both wikipedias to keep the connection between the two. There is a proposal of Wikimedia Commons which can serve as a central repository for language-independent really free images (and other non-textual stuff), but so far it's just a proposal. andy 12:15, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Community Input for a new WikiProject - Fact and Reference Check

Hello!

First time post, glad to be here. I would like to announce a new Fact and Reference WikiProject ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fact_and_Reference_Check ) and am writing this post to get community input.

This project's goal is very ambitious - having facts in Wikipedia verified by multiple independent sources to make it the most authoritative source of information in the world. Even if this goal is never reached, the project is still useful in having facts referenced will help deflect one of the largest criticisms of Wikipedia - that it is not a reputable source of knowledge.

Any community input is welcome but some questions you might consider commenting is: Do you think its a good idea? Do you have suggestions or recommendations? Do you have a plan of action on how to best fact check wikipedia? All input is welcome, excellent criticisms have already been very helpful.

As well, if you have any knowledge about designing wikimedia that would be very useful. This project and these ideas likely could not be implemented without a programmer contributing his or her time to code an automatic referencing system. Programmers who are interested in helping are very much encouraged to have a look.

It would likely be easiest for people to review your ideas and comments if you write in the project discussion page here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fact_and_Reference_Check ). My talk page is also open :). --ShaunMacPherson 15:14, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cut & paste move

Seems to have happened with Lolium to ryegrass. Since there's only been one contributor to the articles, I don't know how important it is to get the history connected back to the text, but I don't really feel qualified to do it, so I figured I'd mention it here, so that anyone who thinks it's worth cleaning up can do so. I have left a message on the user's talk page suggesting using the Move tab in the future. Niteowlneils 15:53, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A template box for games ?

I was uploading and adding a few cover scans and thought if it would be possible to add a side box (such as the one for music albuns) with detailed info on the game, including:

  • name
  • cover
  • platform / media
  • developer
  • publisher
  • release date
  • genre
  • screenshot
  • pre/sequel

I'd avoid adding a review field, since most large site such as gamespot and IGN are highly biased towards some games.

Does the current number of videogame related articles justify this ?

The current number of videogame related articles justify a whole WikiProject.Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and Video Games where several different infoboxes and templates are/were being discussed. - 18:36, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)
Great, I'm having a look there now. WolfenSilva 18:39, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Episode template

I've just created template:Infobox_Episode. The One With the Sonogram at the End, a Friends episode, has been updated to show it in use, though that article itself is a stub and not a great one at that. Now, I'm not too sure if there should be all these articles for every episode of every series so I guess that's question one – should every episode appear on here or just important (series-changing or famous) episodes. Secondly, what do you think – especially, is it better than the tables currently used (see The One With the Thumb)? Apologies if it's all wrong – I've not played around with templates before! violet/riga (t) 18:26, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Very Brit-centric. In the US, they're seasons, not series. RickK 19:11, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Good point, but it would be difficult to choose one over the other. Can't think of any other word that would work either. Perhaps it should be season for US programs and series for UK shows, in which case the Friends example would be wrong. violet/riga (t) 19:17, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It should be "Season" since it is an American show. I think the way things usually work around here. I really like the template you've used on The One With the Sonogram at the End, but I would like to see it use a smaller font. The current one takes up too much space. See this as an example of the size font it should use.
Despite the fact I like the first one better, I think the "footer" one you have in the Thumb article is usually how these things are implemented. Just MHO...:-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:37, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
Changed the font sizes – thanks. I've seen the footer as the de facto, but don't really like that way of doing it, to be totally honest – it looks a little messy. Oh, and I've added the link to the list of episodes. violet/riga (t) 21:06, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, now that I think about it, we should probably use season for US shows and series for UK shows. What about Australian/Irish/Canadian/European shows? What term is used there? RickK 21:54, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

For Australia - in the context of the infobox shown above, the word 'season' would fit. A series is generally the name given to the entire run of a show (all seasons). Though I am probably against creating articles for each individual episode of a show (except for particular stand-out episodes - for example, Who Shot Monty Burns) -- Chuq 03:22, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree on both points. The term "Season" is used in the UK for US TV series, and also I don't think all episodes deserve individual entries. PhilHibbs 11:16, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I wonder if for many series the full name of the episode is that important, maybe short links << Episode 123 >>, or even a footer with "Episode 123 of 1994 September 29", is sufficient. -- User:Docu

Perhaps an entry for [[Season 4]], for example, with anchors for each episode and a short description of each? That'd be my choice. But getting back to templates (if they're going to be used after all), I think the small serif font is hard to read. I know I suggested using the smaller font, but if you do, the sans-serif font is much easier to read. Sorry to be such a pain. :-S — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:58, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Season template

Just created template:Infobox Season ("season" is more sensible than "series", I reckon). This makes more sense when only some of the episodes of a season have articles (you'd get deadends following the previous and next links from template:Infobox Episode). Two problems, however:

  1. The infobox shown is quite big
  2. The infobox entry for each article is rather long and must be copied into each episode article.

Not tried it yet but perhaps you could have template:Infobox Season 1 Friends which is the episode list passed into the main Infobox Season. Not sure if this is possible or appropriate. violet/riga (t) 10:23, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Episode list template

I've created Template:Infobox episode list which is more versatile:

I think it works quite well and helps towards consistency. Comments? violet/riga (t) 15:32, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Improper block

This is VeryVerily. I have been blocked without proper justification by User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason. Could an admin please undo this? I will start an admin review action in due time. - VV

We should let Ævar explain his actions before doing anything, IMO. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:34, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)
No he should have explained in the summary. He saig "breaking the three revert rule" which is not a reason the block in the Wikipedia:blocking policy. Theresa Knott (stroke the ant) 22:50, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've got to strongly agree with Theresa Knott on this one: blocking is, next to banning, the ultimate sanction available to a sysop. The sysop is entrusted to exercise this power not by right but on behalf of the community, not in his own person but as an agent of the community, and so owes the community at least the respect of explaining why he used the powers delegated to him by the whole.
If the sysop for whatever reason did not show enough respect to the body from which his powers derive, to state the reasons for the blocking -- and reasons which the community as a whole have agreed are sufficient to justify that action and not mere reason of personal pique -- then let that sysop's actions be overturned quickly and then give him the leisure to explain to a board of review whether he, the sysop, is in fact serving the community. -- orthogonal 23:24, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't believe for one minute that Ævar was acting for reasons of personal pique. I think it was probably an honest mistake. Admins need to be able to make mistakes - it's only human after all and inhuman admins would be very bad. Never the less, the revertion of a mistake should happen immediately. (That was the point I was trying to make earlier) Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 23:40, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Er, I'm the one who should clarify. "Pique" was poor choice of words on my part; what I meant is blocking for a reason other than those established by policy as valid reasons. I didn't mean to impute anything about Ævar's motivations, but that in the general case no one shouldn't be making up policy on his own. I apologize to Ævar and anyone one else who took it as an imputation about Ævar. (Er, Theresa, your signature keeps changing. Is it connected to a random number generator somehow?)-- orthogonal 23:52, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No I change it in my preferences every now and then. A while ago I had this image as a sig. where my username changed into an anagram every now and then. I've stopped using it because people complained it was distracting, but one user complained that it was scary and going to give him nightmares (he was joking (I think)) I invited him to come up with a nicer anagram and several people chipped in a came up with lots. It would be ungrateful not to use them. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 00:39, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have started an RfC, making basically this case. Input there would be helpful. (See also User_talk:24.7.126.117.) VV 23:30, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I delisted the RfC after Aevar explained himself. VV 00:40, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article that was being fought over (Henry Kissinger) is now protected. Lots of people (most of them quite experienced wikipedians, VeryVerily among them) were in there reverting one another. May I suggest that now that the article is protected, all concerned should be unblocked? I don't believe any of the parties involved have a frequent history of this sort of thing. -- Jmabel 22:56, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Who else was blocked? Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork)

I unblocked VeryVerily and protected the article. As far as I know no one else was blocked except for IP autoblocks, which have also been undone. --Michael Snow 23:14, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Recklessness

I'd like to remind people that the other side of Be bold... is ...but don't be reckless. Recently, on a lot of inherently highly charged topics (e.g. Fascism, Liberalism, Conservatism), people have made very large edits, including removal of material from the articles, without so much as making a comment on their intent. Sometimes a single edit moves large chunks of material around the article and quietly deletes a few paragraphs outright. Our change tools do not readily point out such a deletion, and with no change comment and nothing in the talk page it is very hard for anyone else to understand what has changed.

Please note that part of the policy sketched out at Wikipedia:Be bold is:

...if you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, you should either:
  • Move it to the Talk page, if it is a sentence or so, and list your objections.
  • Only list your objections to the section on the Talk page if it is longer.

Quietly removing material is not simply bold, it is reckless. It undercuts others who are making honest attempts to build a consensus article. I, for one, find it particularly objectionable when (as has happened) well-footnoted material is quietly removed and replaced by unsubstantiated POV; this has happened several times lately.

I want to spend my time on wikipedia writing new content, working out how to enhance articles, and (at worst) honestly debating issues about articles. I am very frustrated when I am stuck sleuthing out what surreptitious (and often detrimental) changes have been made to an already strong article.

If anyone thinks I have misunderstood policy here, I would very much appreciate an explanation. I had the frustrating experience in one recent case of asking someone for a summary of even the intent of his wholesale edits to one article and received the following not-so-useful response: "No." That's it. Verbatim.

-- Jmabel 23:16, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, but this is probably just preaching to the choir — few people who make these kind of edits frequent the pump. As a sidenote, this can happen to less controversial articles too. One anon kept deleting material he claimed was POV from Coca-Cola when what was wrong was really the wording, and not the content. No explanation more than the word "NPOV" (erroneously thought by him to mean POV) was provided either on the talk page or the edit summary until I contacted him, in which case the user posted a one-sentence explanation on the talk page, and deleted the material again with a similar edit summary to his comment on the talk page. Johnleemk | Talk 07:28, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Illegal blocking by Guanaco

Hello there,

I would like to inform you that Guanaco blocked me for 24 hours for allegedly violating the three revert rule which states, "Don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours."

Reverts to page "Clitoris" by User:Cantus:

H(4) Revision as of 01:39, Sep 1, 2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Clitoris&diff=5581620&oldid=5580088
D(4) G(3) Revision as of 20:44, Aug 31, 2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Clitoris&diff=5580088&oldid=5553795
C(3) F(2) Revision as of 20:14, Aug 30, 2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Clitoris&diff=5553795&oldid=5552239
B(2) E(1) Revision as of 16:44, Aug 30, 2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Clitoris&diff=5552239&oldid=5548095
A(1) Revision as of 15:10, Aug 30, 2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Clitoris&diff=5548095&oldid=5537404
  • The fourth revert "D" falls outside the 24-hour limit started by revert "A"
  • The fourth revert "H" falls outside the 24-hour limit started by revert "E"

The fact is that there are no four consecutive reverts within a 24-hour period. I did not violate 3RR.

I ask you to please undo this block as soon as possible, and de-sysop User:Guanaco for flagrant abuse of admin powers.

Thank you.

Cantus. (I hope you don't consider this as me evading a ban. It's the only way I can defend myself)

You've been unblocked. If you still want to complain, this belongs at RfC. Guanaco 01:21, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You don't have any right to tell Cantus where he can and can't complain. anthony (see warning) 13:47, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Main Page Category browsebar

There has been a flurry of activity on the layout of the Main Page, centering on changing the use of the Wikipediatoc to the use of 'Browse by Category'. But we need help from the community on the categories of the browsebar for the Main Page.

Interested parties on refining the categories for the browsebar are invited to contribute to Category talk:Fundamental. I have copied the Main Page discussion on the categories for the browsebar to that talk page. Ancheta Wis 02:06, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Capitalisation of 'I' in Internet and 'W' on World Wide Web

Not sure if we might need a bot if we choose to go the way of Wired Magazine and The Guardian. Have a look at this BBC story then our article Internet. Personally I'm all for de-capitalisation. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 02:33, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

The fact that "Wired" made a style choice (and in its justification doesn't even recognize that the reason Internet is capitalized is because it's a proper noun) needn't dictate our style choice. Newspapers, magazines, and websites often make peculiar style choices: as Wikipedia aspires to be an encyclopedia, not a news purveyor, our style choices should reflect prevailing styles used in publishing books, not newspapers. As yet, such style guides uniformly recommend Internet. Not until they change should we. - Nunh-huh 02:42, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comment posted by anonymous user 195.158.6.178:

"It's ugly. Internet and WWW are not proper nouns. The internet, and the world wide web should not be capitalized. It's distracting and unnecessary."

[NB: This user also scattered vandalism throughout this page, which I rolled back. It was only later I realised he or she had also made a valid comment, and restored the edit. Sorry for any inconvenience - Mark 05:40, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)]

Coincidentally(?), this topic had just come up on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Capitalization of computer terms. World Wide Web is certainly a proper noun phrase, unless you can demonstrate that another one exists and goes generically by that name; the same goes for Internet in all cases where you're referring to the Internet. You needn't take my word for it, of course, though you should that of Tim Berners-Lee and the Chicago Manual of Style. Austin Hair 05:29, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
Don't you mean "This Topic"? You are talking about a particular topic, right? anthony (see warning) 12:56, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No. The word "topic" was not coined to describe this discussion thread, and is not a proper noun. You yourself even quoted my use of the adjective this—an unequivocal indication, in the absence of an article, that the noun in question is a generic one. Austin Hair 00:10, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
The word "internet" was not coined to describe any particular internet, either. It's a descriptive term, just like telephone network (or even telephone itself). anthony (see warning) 16:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So is the "Atmosphere" a proper noun that should be capitalized as well? I'm neutral on this issue, for now, but if given enough evidence that using lowercase is widely accepted as the standard I'd be willing to accept that standard. anthony (see warning) 12:51, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's a distinction between the Internet and an internet (see note on Internet). Using a capital for the Internet is very unambiguous - and is consistent with general usage. So I believe actually, that the Internet is a proper noun, while "internet" is not. The World Wide Web is a more academic question, as usually WWW is used (which being an acronym, should use capitals). Interestingly, WWW an unusual acronym in that it is longer to say out loud than World Wide Web. zoney ▓█▒ talk 12:55, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
But if you read the article, it mentions that the same distinction can be made in other cases, such as the Atmosphere vs. an atmosphere, but this is nearly universally ignored. With World Wide Web it's much more clear, as this is more obviously a name, not a description. But then, with Web, it's less clear again. The Internet is more of a description, similar to the Telephone Network, which I would assume is usually not capitalized even when referring to the specific one encompassing most of the globe. Another factor is that the knowledge of which internet is being talked about is really based on context. It is in many ways similar to saying "Let's go to the ocean" (not "the Ocean"), even though you know you're really about a specific ocean. anthony (see warning) 13:05, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Atmosphere in the specific sense, is not being used as a proper noun. It's not much more than the difference between "the" and "an". It's not really a relevant example to the discussion (not remotely similar to the difference between earth and the Earth, an internet and the Internet) and probably shouldn't have been included. The example sentence is simply leaving out the "taken for granted" word of "Earth's" (the Earth's atmosphere exerts a pressure). In this case, the Internet is a specific network. Someone could come up with an alternate internet and call it Globelink. To talk about "the internet" is just incorrect - our article on the Internet is quite right to point out the difference immediately with a dab. zoney ▓█▒ talk 13:15, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't see the distinction. Saying "the Internet" just leaves out the taken for granted phrase "that most of the world is connected to." Or should I be saying "that most of the World is connected to?" Internet is a description more than a name, it just happens to be a description of something which most of the world currently uses only one of. Going back to my other example which is probably more applicable, should we be calling it the Telephone Network? anthony (see warning) 13:21, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're saying about the different between earth and the Earth. According to this source, you should only capitalise earth and sun and moon when used in a list of celestial objects or part of another name. [1] But it's not clear to me whether you're arguing for or against this distinction. Earth, Sun, and Moon, are proper nouns, right? anthony (see warning) 13:29, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If one is to believe standard histories of the web, internet, as a contraction of interconnected networks, refers generically to any network of interconnected networks. By this version, the big "I" Internet is a specific instance of such interconnected networks (which has grown to such an extent as to have virtually eliminated alternatives). However, I'm not aware that small "i" internet was ever commonly used to refer to any actual alternative networking system. It seems that it is used primarily to make a pedantic, mostly theoretical, distinction, and it may well be that the distinction is purely pedantic and not based in actual (or at least in common) usage. Despite this possibility, I have no problem with treating the Internet like a proper noun since that is currently the most common usage, even though the purported rationale may not have much bearing on reality. [[User:Bkonrad|older≠wiser]] 13:47, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Planets other than Earth (capitalized, in this context—the enumeration of other planets is implicit) have atmospheres. I'm surprised at you, Anthony—this distinction is one usually learned no later than the fifth grade, and I know for a fact that you're a native speaker. Austin Hair 00:10, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
This is a strawman. I know that other planets have atmospheres. That was my point. anthony (see warning) 13:35, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Both the Microsoft Manual of Style for Technical Publications and the Chicago Manual of Style give Internet and World Wide Web. Why is this debate even happening? 145.36.24.29 14:51, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I should point out, the distinction may not be apparent to any non-techies (and even to some techies), but as a qualified Computer Engineer I can tell you that to talk about "the internet" is just wrong! The parent poster is right - this debate should not be happening. The only reason that it is, is due to the idiotic "style" decisions of two media companies. Permit me to say "GRRRRRrrr" (I'm fed up being nice - it's a stupid pointless debate). zoney ▓█▒ talk 15:53, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough - I'm happy to go with the prevailing style manuals. I strongly suspect that decapitalisation will creep in regardless of the rights or wrongs, just through overwhelming common usage of lower case. But I withdraw my I'm all for decapitalisation in light of the arguments above. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 17:33, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
I didn't know they let "qualified Computer Engineers" determine what is right and wrong capitalization. Captialization rules in English are quite arbitrary, and in this situation there isn't a clear right or wrong. All we can go on is common usage, imposing strict rules on the matter is not any more appropriate than imposing a rule that colour is the wrong way to spell color. anthony (see warning) 13:39, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm pointing out that the ensuing ambiguity, is from that point of view, appalling - something perhaps not obvious to those judging merely on terms of "style". I will however, refrain from further Grrs, it was a momentary lapse. zoney ▓█▒ talk 16:52, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It still looks pants. The Worst Style Decision in the World will haunt Us in The Future, I just know it. Still, The Population of this website seem to want it, so I guess we have to go with The Majority Opinion. Oh Well. 213.206.33.82 12:04, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

They should be capitalized, because I like seeing them that way. This may well be a transition that's in the process of happening, or it may not be, but I would like to wait until authoritative print sources such as the American Heritage Dictionary decide it has actually happened. Wired is trying to be cool and ahead of the trend. They hope to be tastemakers. The print version of Wired (does it still exist?) had very weird typography and layout, too, which some saw as cool, but was not widely followed by mainstream periodicals. (The alternating use of what I can only call "inverse video" in their page numbers, for example). There's no logical reason for capitalizing anything. This is all a matter of prevailing taste, style, and custom. Print encyclopedias tend to be present a dignified, conservative typographic personality and so should Wikipedia. Which should be capitalized, even though it can easily be understood without it. I will now lose all claim to credibility by noting that I still spell Hallowe'en with an apostrophe, and used to put a dieresis over the second "o" in coöperate, and hyphenating it (co-operate) if I was using a device that lacked a dieresis. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:48, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I mostly agree with these comments (except for liking seeing it that way). Right now there is no real standard in this area, so mass decapitalization would be inappropriate. anthony (see warning) 16:47, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Then we should do what we do with US and UK English, consitent within each article, but tollerate diversity within The Encyclopedia. 195.158.9.78 10:35, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This makes sense – how can people debate this when some articles use "colour" and others say "color"? For me, the capitalization is the correct way of doing it (and should be in a -pedia) but the common person writes them without the capitals and, tbh, few know the associated grammatical rules. "Internet" has left the jargon compsci world and has been adopted into popular culture – try referring to anything as an internet without people thinking of the Internet. This is the explanation that should be given in the main Internet article. violet/riga (t) 10:53, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do we really have a rule to be consistent within an article on color vs. colour? Personally I just always write "color" but always leave "colour" when it's there. There have been a few times that I "fix" what I thought were misspellings but got reverted and then realized it was just an alternate spelling. I think the key here is tolerance. This isn't an issue worth mass-changing anything over, and it's not an issue to get into a revert war over. It probably does make sense to be consistent within an article for this one, though, as it could get quite confusing otherwise. anthony (see warning) 12:53, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

about natural gas exploration

question moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk by User:Finlay McWalter

Call to linguists

I ask that those who have formal training in linguistics pay a visit to Talk:Acronym and try to help me explain how if a large number of people use a word to mean a certain thing, then that certain thing is therefore a legitimate meaning of the word. I have been trying for several days to get this point across, but many people seem to be laboring under the mistaken belief that the only valid meanings of words are those that are set down by the Oxford English Dictionary. Nohat 04:58, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More accurately: should, as Nohat wishes, the distinction between initialism and acronym be completely obscured, or should acronyms be defined as they are defined in dictionaries, with a note that some people also call initialisms "acronyms"? [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 11:39, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
---
As you (Nohat) point out, only a lilliputian minority of people call acronyms (or a subset thereof) "initialisms", and you've already namechecked the prior (martial) art: descriptive v prescriptive grammar.
God's primary source for the "initialism" usage appears to be... er... Wikipedia. [2]
chocolateboy 01:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This Nohat drove me away from the article with his insults and intransigent attitude after I courteously tried to open a discussion on the talk page (rather than simply correcting the article without notice). It was a very unpleasant experience, and I am not here for that. That's why I dropped out from Wikipedia for more than a year. I don't want to drop out again, so I am glad others are in there working him over. He seems to think it is his article.
It is pernicious to wilfully confuse technical terms in the way he seems determined to do. I will not participate further, but you are welcome to see my description of the problems of the article (and his responses, judge for yourself) on the talk page.
I assure you (as I did him) that I am no prescriptionist, quite the contrary, I firmly believe you cannot hold back the tide, but, as for technical terms, used to sort out technical meanings, precision (not prescription) is still the requirement. If everybody in the world confused a squid with an octopus, and a great many do, it would not matter, it would still be wrong. Usage rules in the long run, of course, but it is the duty of a reference work to try to make things clearer, not more confused. Looking things up in dictionaries does not make you a prescriptionist. There is no modern prescriptionist dictionary, they are all descriptive, as is every linguist. Insisting on the undiscussable correctness of one's own opinions, now that's prescriptionist. Ortolan88 02:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I dispute the mistaken notion you and Nohat apparently share that initialism is a neologism. The word initialism dates from the late nineteenth century. Acronym pops up in main common usage only in the early 1940s. Also note that originally acronyms were a subset of initialisms, and certainly only had the strict meaning: initialisms which could be pronounced as a word (NATO), rather than a series of letters (FBI). At some point it seems some people began calling ALL initialisms acronyms, at which point initialism was restricted in meaning to 'acronyms which cannot be pronounced as a word'.
As Ortolan88 above I also note that Nohat's insults and his generally intransigent attitude over "his article" are the major problem here. Except for Nohat all contributors seem reasonable and wiling to work out a compromise. [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 14:00, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
By the way, Nohat vs reason ;-) (not intended to be taken seriously!) [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 14:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm unaware of the dispute in process, but according to current dictionaries there is a simple, clear distinction between "acronyms," which are pronounced as single words (examples given by AHD4 are WAC, and radar), and initialisms, which are pronounced letter-by-letter (e.g. WPA, IRS, TNT, ESP). There's nothing hard to understand about that. All modern dictionaries profess to report meanings and spellings on the basis of frequency of usage. Referring to initialisms as acronyms is not a "meme on the rise," it's just imprecise. It is frequently a subtly disrespectful usage; people who don't understand the actual terms and believe they are intentionally obscurantist propellerhead jargon show their feelings by not bothering to use the proper terms for the terms themselves; that is, people who aren't interested in what TCP/IP is, are not likely to be interested in the metadetail that TCP/IP is an initialism rather than an acronym. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:11, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Exactly! Finally someone who understands :) [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 15:33, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
For the record, I don't think initialism is a neologism. I don't think I share anything with Nohat. For one thing, I have lots of hats.
Nice to see that other people think the distinction between initialism and acronym is understandable and worth keeping. On the Talk: Acronym page I point out that the article is also hopelessly confused about portmanteau words and suggest anagrams as another category of words made from words Ortolan88 16:43, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) PS - I do wish people would indent these discussions. This is my left margin.
No doubt the distinction exists and is correct, but the common perception of acronym should be alluded to and explained. —siroχo 17:20, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, with acronym the name of the game is pronounceability as if it were a normal noun. UNESCO, OPEC, and NATO spring to mind here. Dieter Simon 23:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to reply here because this debate should be on Talk:Acronym; I only posted here to bring some fresh blood into a debate that only few were participating in. However, there are a few misconceptions repeated here that warrant clarification:

  1. I never claimed "initialism" is a neologism. Indeed, the OED says it's an older word than acronym, and has quotations to prove it. I only claimed that it's a rarely-used word, and I think that is borne out by the evidence. [3].
  2. At least one major dictionary supports my view of the definition of "acronym": Merriam-Webster. Part of its definition of "acronym" says "an abbreviation (as FBI) formed from initial letters : INITIALISM", and its definition of "initialism" says, in entirety, "an acronym formed from initial letters". The dictionary clearly makes the case here that initialisms are a subset of acronyms.
  3. There is substantial evidence, delineated on Talk:Acronym, that the meaning of acronym that includes abbreviations like FBI, is in substantial use, not only online, but in published books. Published books are vetted not only by their authors, but by editors and publishers, and because so many examples of the word being used this way have crept their way into published books, it seems disingenuous to claim that this meaning of the word is only used by ignorants and the uneducated.
  4. My opponents have continually claimed that I am attempting to "obscure" the distinction between initialisms and acronyms or that I believe that the distinction is not worth keeping. This is false. My claim is that initialisms are a subset of acronyms, as Merriam-Webster explains; not that they are the same set.
  5. My opponents have claimed that I am trying to insist that my definition is the only correct definition. This too is false. Every version of Acronym that I have supported has included the information that some people and some dictionary definitions support the view that initialisms that aren't pronounced as words aren't acronyms. My only aim is that the article on acronyms treat the two definitions equally and not assert that one or the other is correct. This is what I have attempted on Acronym/temp. There are two competing definitions of "acronym". Both are supported by dictionary definitions. Both are supported by usage in published books and on the web, and I don't see any valid reason why both shouldn't be treated equally on Acronym.

Please do not respond here. I have posted the same content to Talk:Acronym, and you can reply there. Nohat 17:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

List of first names

Should wikipedia have a list of first names, as in this article? I'm really thinking that it's a bad idea considering the sheer number of names and the obvious bias towards English/American names. To include all of them would be madness (a huge article). I mention it here because it's quiet over at the associated talk. violet/riga (t) 09:38, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The page describes itself as a page for names given to nobility and/or famous figures. How the heck this is encyclopedic I know not, but at the very least it needs to be moved to a new name. Johnleemk | Talk 12:12, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What would the new name be? List of famous first names? We generally don't include "famous" in list titles, as that criterion is true of just about any list. anthony (see warning) 12:47, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
How is this different from List of people by name or Wiktionary's list of first names? I'm not I see the point in duplicating either of those. Angela. 14:58, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
Put in a note on the page directing users to wiktionary. It may be worthwhile having a list of famous persons known by their first name, e.g. Kylie Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:15, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
List of people known by one name
List of people by name is arranged mainly by last name. Wiktionary is a separate project and has little bearing on Wikipedia. This isn't a duplication. anthony (see warning) 13:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Besides, even in Wiktionary it's only the appendix. -- User:Docu
List of Wikipedians by first name might be interesting. Rhymeless 08:43, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As Wikipedia:Wikipedians ? -- User:Docu
They are somewhat interesting, but I'd find more specific lists preferable, e.g. List of Biblical names, Most popular names, Namesdays in Sweden, List of Dutch first names. -- User:Docu

In WP:PR, the instructions are in a template, like WP:FAC. The instructions themselves have sections, all of which have "Edit" links which misleadingly edit the PR page instead of the template. How does one hide them? Or will I need to remove the sections entirely? Johnleemk | Talk 12:42, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Adding __NOEDITSECTION__ anywhere on the page will remove those edit links. Angela. 15:00, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
Done.--Patrick 15:11, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)
Um, why are the instructions in a template? They're only used on one page, which is not protected.--Eloquence*
This used to be to expedite the process of adding new requests, as the page was not sectioned at the time. A similar approach was taken to FAC (but I don't know why, since they did and do have sections). Although it's no longer needed, if it ain't broken, why fix it? Johnleemk | Talk 10:20, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, given that the sections in the template break the section counter and therefore section editing, I'd say it's broken and should be fixed.--Eloquence*

NPOV resources

Do we have (and if not, should we have) a page of external resources on understanding/developing/encouraging the Neutral Point of View? It's not always an easy concept, even for experienced editors, and we're all prone to falling into errors. This is a fantastic resource, and I feel it should be on some sort of "recommended reading" list. For example, how many of us can claim we've never fallen victim to confirmation bias? --195.11.216.59 14:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your link gives a series of articles on fallacies and bad arguments. Poor reasoning, including confirmation bias, isn't necessarily an impediment to NPOV. I could, for example, reason very badly and conclude that the moon is made of cheese; I could still write from a neutral point of view about the moon's composition. The ability to reason soundly is a skill that we should encourage, but I don't think it necessarily correlates with neutral writing. — Matt 22:25, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Confirmation bias is still something Wikipedians should be wary of, especially when trying to write about current events. On a similar note, Wikipedians should also be careful of using weasel words as support for a debatable statement. —siroχo 07:50, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

The key fallacies occuring on Wikipedia seem to be the Argumentum ad nauseam and the Argumentum ad numerum. 145.36.24.29 09:06, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. The former really drives me nuts - it's an understatement to merely say that politicians use it! Our entire govt. runs by telling people how great the govt is, is defiance of the minor trickle of really dodgy stuff they get up to. It works. People mostly vote the same old, same old, despite us having a highly representative voting system (vote your preferences, vote always goes to someone). zoney ▓█▒ talk 16:58, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Duplicate Article

I wasn't sure where to put this but maybe someone wants to take a look and fix this up.

Thanks JillandJack 16:07, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, they should be merged. I've added notices and listed them on Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. Rhobite 16:14, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
Done. Also fixed a few minor errors in the process. -Sean Curtin 04:30, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

A rare oasis

Wow. Just wow. As I cruised around the Pump, I noticed talks about how old people were. As a 16 year old, I'm supposed to be jaded on the world, but the fact that there are kids younger than myself gives me an unexplicable hope. Wikipedia has the greatest minds on the internet, and I look forward to working with them. I haven't even written my first article yet, but when I do, expect me to look to younger users for advice.

At 16 you're supposed to be jaded? ;o) I mean, I was... but then I ended up in psychiatric care. Go out and run in the fields! Make daisy chains! Don't listen to depressing music! --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 17:38, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
At 12 (soon to be 13) I ain't jaded at all. There's some articles I don't undrstand (or have the attention span to read ;P). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:10, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That's true for all of us. Age has nothing to do with it. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 08:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As you get older your attention span... -- orthogonal 08:43, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I ...ooh shiney object. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:22, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hah! I'm approaching the quarter-centennial! :o) zoney ▓█▒ talk 09:21, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
'Wikipedia has the greatest minds on the internet' that has made my day! 13:14, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Though my physical age may be over a half-century, nevertheless my mental age remains callow and immature. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:14, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

True enough, age has nothing to do with it. But the fact that the young are out in force here makes me smile. And I said a was *supposed* to be. Never said I was. ;B

Is Zoney reaching his quarter-centennial, to be sure? Oh dear, I am reaching my three-quarter centennial, and occasionally am still able to find my way to the play-station. Not very often, mind. Dieter Simon 21:43, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Need a minor image editing job done

Re: [[Image:Frontier flying service logo.png]]

Currently, I do not have access to image editing software. If someone with image editing software would be willing to edit this image, in order to take out the fragment of web page design element from the upper right corner of this image, I would be grateful. Kevyn 18:54, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

np, doneCavebear42 19:20, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

jpgs in Internet Explorer

Anyone know why I can only save jpgs I come across on the internet onto my computer in bmp format, and not jpg format, the format which they are in? I can't copy and paste them either. It's bloody annoying. I tried looking in tools/internet options but I can't see it. Alternatively, know anywhere where I can get help? (please respond on my talk page thanks) Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:10, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here's a Microsoft Knowledge Base Article on the problem (and it's apparent solution/workaround): Internet Explorer Does Not Save Graphics Files in the Proper Format. Some people have said it doesn't work, though. - 21:36, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)
I absolutely hated this "feature." I would end up converting the gigantic BMPs back to JPEGs, doubling the number of JPEG-related artifacts in otherwise high-quality images. The ultimate solution was to get a clue and stop using Internet Explorer altogether. MSIE has always been an inferior piece of software, but only recently have alternatives become smaller, faster, and easier to use. --[[User:Ardonik|Ardonik(talk)]] 17:20, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Cut-n-paste move of Fox Trot

It appears that Fox Trot has been moved to FoxTrot by a cut-n-paste. Can someone fix this? PhilHibbs 19:35, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I fixed it at about the same time you posted this message :-) --Diberri | Talk 20:48, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Template help

I created {{Template:Nuremberg Trial judges}} (seen to the left) and put it in all of the articles on the Nuremberg Trials judges. What I'd like to do is put a flag next to each pair of judges, indicating their nationality (a British flag for the top two, American flag for the next two, French last for the next two, and a Soviet flag for the final two). The problem is, I'm not exactly sure how I can do this. Can anyone help? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:31, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have added the flags to the template using some tables. [[User:Krik|User:Krik/norm]] 22:54, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, Krik! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:55, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Looking at this, it was momentarily unclear that the alternates were by nation. (I was reading it as two column, and analyzing the second column as lacking national designations. Would anyone be adverse to adding the flag at the right margin too? Oh, hell, I'll be bold and try it, and you be bold and tell me off if you don't like it. -- orthogonal 08:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hopefully, we can get a Soviet flag that doesn't look like just a red rectangle. And is the UK flag slightly squashed vertically? But overall Neutrality, this looks really cool. -- orthogonal 08:56, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Actually, the French tricolore is the odd man out in terms of flag aspect ratio. This probably needs fixed. Actually, are the ratios correct for the current situation, or for the relevant historical period? zoney ▓█▒ talk 13:58, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The UK flag is okay, but the soviet flag needs bolder yellow. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:23, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that with the French flag, and made it slightly smaller to compensate. As for the Soviet, making it big enough to clearly show the hammer & sickle makes it very large indeed. -- orthogonal 09:28, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've just removed a link to an Amazon.co.uk page from Friends for the second time. Though it contains numerous quotes from the series I don't think that linking to a primarily commercial site is a good idea, so instead I've put a link to the (very poor) article at wikiquote. Having briefly looked around I've not found any mention of the policy regarding linking to commercial sites – is there one and is it right not to include this link? violet/riga (t) 10:29, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why not suck some of the quotes off that page onto the Wikiquote page? --Phil | Talk 10:53, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
Yeah that's what I suggested on Talk:Friends – hopefully someone will help the wikiquote article at some point. violet/riga (t) 13:22, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there's a major policy including links to commercial sites, but that one was probably not appropriate. Check out Wikipedia:External links/temp for a revision to policy that I and some others have been working on slowly. I just added a point about not linking to sites selling things. —siroχo 17:34, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

It's likely a "referral" link; the beneficiary will receive commission if someone buys something from that link. Why else would it be there? [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 22:07, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Move to Wiktionary

Does anyone actively monitor Category:Move to Wiktionary and actaully move those articles to Wiktionary? There probably is someone, but there are over 100 articles there. Kevin Rector 17:46, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

VfD Madness

Check out some VfD discussions: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ACORN and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Asheron's Call 2. Now I'm all for letting VfD be as long as it needs to be, so each article gets a fair trial before being deleted or kept, but this is absurd, such VfD discussions should be removed as it comes to light that they are not actually proper, heck one was never even voted for deletion, simply "cleanup" on the vfd page. Such discussions make it harder to sift through the material that actually might deserve deletion, and make accurate votes. Is there a policy to remove such discussions before they lapse, or should we start thinking of one? —siroχo 18:54, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that fixed articles can be removed from VfD, but I'm not about to be the one to remove them. anthony (see warning) 18:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It should be a condition of listing something on VfD that if there's an immediate consensus to keep and no possibility of the article being deleted, you have to withdraw your nomination rather than have the article pointlessly listed for days on end. This is particularly relevant to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ACORN. I have used this example before, but if someone was to list George W. Bush for deletion it would immediately be taken off. No one would allow the VfD tag to sit on the top of the page for a week, but on more minor articles there is no explicit policy (as far as I know) about removing spurious listings. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Instead of talking about it why doesn't someone just remove it? And then, if you get reverted, then take it here, so we have something specific to talk about. anthony (see warning) 20:47, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Done. People really should be a bit bolder! Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 22:27, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hah! In some ways there is a culture of fear on Wikipedia. People are often afraid to take major action, for fear of the nasty response. Those who aren't afraid to take major action are often the inflictors of nastiness. Throw in the whole vandal/troll lot and it's a delightful little mix. But for the fact I regularly abstract myself from the whole thing and indulge in some light reading, editing my favorite topics, etc., I'd get wikistressed in a week and leave! (a regular wikipedian)


I find wikipedia a pretty nice place on the whole. Vandals never bother me, they always lose thier battles because we outnumber them. Trolls are more of a problem - if only we could get our act together and sort out a decent trolling policy- but still they are a bunch of losers who get their kicks out of startinfg trouble. They wouldn't do if they had girlfriends/boyfriends, I'm certainly not going to let them bother me. Inflicters of nastiness? I agree, they can be more of a problem. But there really aren't that many around. Most people here are very nice (group hug anyone?). Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 00:29, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I object to this unwarrented attack against those of us who do not have girlfriends/boyfriends... ;-) Sometimes, it really doesn't seem worth it to be bold when you know that someone else is just going to turn around 2 seconds later and revert, owing to some obscure POV that he or she (and possibly 2 or 3 other people in the whole world) believe in. I haven't found a culture of fear here, but I do find a fertile battleground for the extremely marginalized to wage whatever wars they are obsessed with. AdmN 00:48, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
(I really don't know if if I should be responding to a bloke who has shown me a picture of his longfellow and has publicly stated that "[he wants to] examine [my] Hilbert space with his unitary operator. But I suppose it's ok since he did offer to buy me Carbonara)Anyway on to my reply. Yes being bold does mean you sometimes get reverted - but in general I've found it rarely happens to me. Yes there are POV pushers, but they are very much in the minority. (Of course it doesn't always seem like that because POV pushers tend to be loud). Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 10:42, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Look, folks, you guys are really acting out of line. I am dead set against people using VfD to make a point, and that includes Anthony's serial "keep" votes as well as people who list each others' user pages as well as people walking their political demons. All of this is abuse. However, we have the community. The ACORN vote was 100% keep, so what was the harm of its being listed? Leave it there for 5 days. It was going to be kept, and the whole of the vote would have gone in the discussion page -- making it instantly a quick removal in the future, if anyone nominated it again. We don't need to do the trollish thing and start removing VfD pages that we think shouldn't be there. If the community is voting "keep," that stupid VfD tag will do no harm for five days. It's just 5 days, folks. Yes, you can ask for early removal. But let's do this by the rules. You'll notice, btw, that I voted to keep the ACORN article & even accused the nominator of making a point, but that doesn't mean we should break the page to settle the score. Doing that is fully as bad as a hostile admin doing a speedy delete on a page he or she doesn't like. Geogre 02:49, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The point on ACORN is that there was never a vote to delete! Not even the nominator did, he just wanted cleanup. That is abuse of the system, and makes VfD a tougher place to work in. I understand your desire to allow the policy to work itself through, and agree that no valid discussion should be removed early but as i'm sure you know, VfD has grown in leaps and bounds alongside Wikipedia, and we have to have some protection against people abusing VfD to suggest cleanup of articles. —siroχo 04:00, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
Back before VfD got all legalistic, I used to routinely remove entries where the article had been fixed and there was no longer any reason for deletion. So did everyone else. I don't see why it is "trollish". VFD currently generates 674 KB of HTML, which takes quite some time to load on my 56 KB modem. I agree with all your other points about using VFD for stunts. Perhaps it would be useful to bring back the concept of moving long discussions off the main page, just leaving a pointer. -- Tim Starling 04:00, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. What's more I disaprove of all the legalistic nonsense. I didn't remove the listings to "settle a score" and I doubt very much that the original listers were deleberately "abusing VfD" .I mistake was made, which I corrected. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 06:58, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, y'all will notice that on the VfD page itself I said that the nominator could remove the tag, but it's not me who's legalistic. VfD has already been used as proof of "troll" charges. That means that we've got to follow the rules to the letter. Again, I would like it if it were as Tim describes it. (Kurt, btw, didn't make a mistake. He said he did the listing because he had heard that VfD is where real Clean Up takes place.) Anyway, I just think that it's worth having a request, in the votes, for an admin to make an early removal. If there are no delete votes at all, I agree with an admin (Theresa, Siroxo, me, any one of the 200+ of us), making the removal, but I don't want to see VfD dragged into yet another RfC. That's why I'm acting legalistic: it has been made evidence, so now it needs to have some kind of regulation. Geogre 13:18, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Also, btw, I want to propose a different category of delete, too. I'm working on a proposal now for a kind of "Nonsense, but not speedy delete" that is handled differently, with a default to keep. If we have a managed removal from VfD, we should also have a managed removal of articles. (See my talk page for the ongoing discussion of the "manage delete" proposal that is almost ready for prime time and namespace.) Geogre 13:18, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A practical suggestion

Sometimes, the consensus to keep an article is clear because:

  1. 24 hours have passed after the article was improperly listed, and there are at least 2-3 keep votes with no delete votes; or
  2. 24 hours have passed after a major rewrite that makes the listing invalid, with no further delete votes.

VfD discussions about these articles are relatively short, but they still clutter up the main page, resulting in ridiculous download times for modem users. Instead of summarily removing the discussion from VfD (which will raise eyebrows), wait 24 hours, then replace:

{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/PageName}}

with:

''After 24 hours, the unanimous consensus is to '''keep''' this article, though you are welcome to read and contribute to the [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/PageName|discussion]].''

This will prevent the contents of the discussion from being displayed on the main VfD page while leaving the discussion quickly available. If the consensus changes (i.e., someone votes delete), then this can be instantly reverted to re-include the discussion back on the main VfD page. To prevent ridiculuous revert wars, if the discussion is re-included for any reason, then don't un-include it a second time. • Benc • 04:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But that still leaves the vfd note on the page itself which is bad. Honestly what's wrong with raising a few eyebrows now and then? Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 06:58, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nothing's wrong with raising a few eyebrows, actually... it's when they're lowered that things go wrong. ;-) Seriously, I suppose you could remove the {{vfd}} tag from the page for obvious incorrect listings without arising anyone's ire. But, like Geogre, I don't recommend the unilateral complete removal of entries from WP:VFD. Just un-include them like I suggested above, keeping a link to the discussion. Keep at least some of the paper trail in place. It'll go away in a few days. • Benc • 07:16, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That seems sensible. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 10:26, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm afraid I disagree. The VfD tag should be on all and only those pages actually listed on VfD.
If the first few votes are to keep, IMO the person who listed the article should seriously consider closing the discussion and delisting it. An article should only be delisted early if all the votes are to keep. If anyone says delete, it should stay the full five days. Essentially, in delisting, the person who listed the article is changing their vote in the face of consensus against them. Such moves should be applauded and encouraged.
An article should never be deleted early unless it is a candidate for speedy deletion, and even then I preach caution. Andrewa 10:46, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I find I must retract the last two paragraphs. They are contrary to policy, which allows early removal in some of these cases, and on reflection that's a good thing. See below. Andrewa 17:11, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I like Benc's suggestion, but I agree that the tag does no actual harm for 5 days. If folks are being lax about removing tags at the end of 5 days, we need to be shaken and throttled for it. But I really don't see what the tag does that's so evil for such a short time. At any rate, what's going on is the the nominators really need to close discussion early. I know that I've done it several times. When a nomination is made for hobbyhorse riding, that's when we get trouble. Like I said, we're in a mess with VfD because of the way it's being used, since it's being abused, the obligation is for us to be more regular and legal than otherwise. I don't want trollish nominations or trollfeeding removals. I do, by the way, have a specific example in mind, where an admin took an article with 33 delete and 13 (or 8, depending on sock votes) keeps and unilaterally decided it should be kept, as that admin had voted to keep. There is no way to argue with that admin if we establish practice. Geogre 13:25, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I fail to see how removing a ridiculous nomination feeds the trolls. As for an admin not deleting an article - I don't think that has anything to do with early removal of ridiculous votes. Remember that the only nominations that we are talking about are those who should never have been listed in the first place. Also remember that this is a wiki, and so a dodgy early removal can easily be put back. We should be flexible and use common sense. (Anyway I'm pretty convinced that being legalistic encorages trolling, as they think of ways of causing trouble but without actually breaking the letter of the rule) Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 15:18, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Theresa, I think things have gotten legal in response to VfD being used as evidence in prosecution. All I'm saying is that someone who believes that a nomination is absurd -- other than the article author -- should ask for consensus on removal. Let 24 hours go by, and then an admin can do the removal, with copying of decision into the discussion tab. If we do that, I think we'll be ok. What I'm worried about is folks acting without notice. I agree with you far more than you might suspect, but I'm worried about, well, I won't say who, people who will use the whole thing as proof of the caballa or proof that they're being persecuted or proof that someone is a troll, etc. Geogre 16:39, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I seem to be a common scold, but what I objected to was invisible and silent removals. That is bad. Just announce it, folks. Geogre 16:39, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That IMO makes a lot of sense. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 16:48, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Looking for consensus

Am I correct in thinking that no one here objects to the original nominator removing a vfd candidate early if voting suggest that there is another way of dealing with it or if there is clearly no consensus to delete? (We could add this to the policy if we have consensus) Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 15:23, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd certainly support that, although it's a lot bolder than what I suggested above, and I have a confession to make: I now see that is already policy! See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Unlisting a page from VfD.
So it is! (I really should have read the policy first before trying to gather support to add in what's already there) Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 22:05, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Although I take (and agree with) your point about legalism above, I think that we should also develop the policy to make VfD more concise, and to move the rhetoric elsewhere. I think this is already the intention of Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Commenting on a nomination for deletion. But it's not explicit and IMO should be.
What concerns me most about these long debates is their tone. In particular it concerns me that some of our more active admins on VfD seem a little short on wikilove. While adminship is no big deal, I think it's reasonable to expect admins to set a good example, and in fact personally I don't think Wikipedia can survive if this trend keeps up. If that's true we'll need to address it someday, and asap is my advice. Andrewa 16:38, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree with you, of course, Theresa. That's what I was aiming at. All I want is that we make it known that we're removing a page, that the VfD goes into the talk page (to prevent a future debate, if nothing else), that it be done by an admin, and, I hope, the time frame be 48 hours instead of 24. In the past, admins removing nominations have been done only in truly outrageous cases (VfD'ing the main page, or Richard Nixon or something like that). Geogre 16:42, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything in policy that says you need to be an admin to remove a listing from VfD if the article is to be kept. And there's certainly no technical reason you need to be one. You do need to be a signed in user IMO, but that's all. Andrewa 17:22, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I know, but I do want it to be as regular as possible, so I'm actually asking for a change by desseutude (rather than a de jure change). If we agree, by practice, to look for an admin to do it, we can at least be sure to have someone to blame or encourage. I don't want to open the lid on policy, just asking that we, by practice, try to leave it to administrators -- the ranks of which grow every day. Geogre 00:08, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I really don't think that is necessary. I don't like admins having special authority. The point is, if someone removes an article early without cause, it can easily be reverted. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 07:47, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Oh, crud! Now Netholic is on VfD deciding things for everyone after an hour because he wants quick removals. He points to a discussion going on somewhere else altogether. Let's not make unilateral decisions, please. Geogre 01:56, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I presume Netholic is doing this because he/she thinks it's appropriate, but please Netholic, what you are doing is way beyond any consensus and very liable to make others insist that it's never OK to do anything before the full five days. -- Jmabel 08:15, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
I think it's much worse than that, Jmabel. I have been asked to open an RfC on Netoholic for what he's doing, and I refuse, but I can't say that others will be as conflict-averse as me. Further note that this is a proposal to do away with VfD, and he's going ahead and acting upon it. I can "propose" that Wikipedia delete all Pokemon and redirect to Games, but I can't imagine acting upon that. (I also don't like the idea of edit wars over reverting redirects or the servers filling up with redirects for every possible deletion candidate. I don't trust myself to determine if some things are deletable, and I sure don't trust anyone else. That's why I trust everyone else in a VfD forum.) Geogre 01:21, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Proposal - suspension of VfD

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion#Proposal - suspension of VfD. The proposal is to completely discontinue VfD (except for speedy deletions and copyvios) by encouraging editors to merge and redirect as best as possible. -- Netoholic @ 02:10, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alternatively, don't see red at the extremist suggestion above, and instead join in the discussion with the intent of looking at how to fix VfD, make VfD better, cut down on use of VfD – generally review VfD as it is now. That is my stance (I'm not an anti-VfD person, but the current situation is a mess). zoney ▓   ▒ talk 13:20, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The "Edit Conflict" screen

If you are like me and you really really hate the "Edit Conflict" screen, please take a look at meta:Edit conflict handling suggestion. Thank you.

Timeouts on editing articles

I am getting timeouts on some articles, for example I tried several times to add the interwiki [[pt:Tipitaka]] to Tripitaka, but no matter how often I try to hit "save" nothing happens (and the same on portugese for the backlink). I also cannot upload a file anymore tonight. But strangely other articles work fine, like (obviously) this one. Anyone have the slightest idea what is happening? Database hickup? andy 21:23, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And once I write about it that article works. But there is something odd going on. andy 21:24, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You obviously missed the installation of the new intelligent servers that have a sense of humour (a highly sadistic one albeit, but that's a minor bug/feature). ;) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:27, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What's next - elevators who want to argue with me? :-) andy 21:56, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"Third floor" "No, you don't want to go there" "what do you mean?" "I mean, The third floor is bad" "THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING" "no you aren't" *guy leaves elevator* "It's been a pleasure serving you, sir." — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:02, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another odd thing - articles like [[Athens Township%2C Bradford County%2C PA]] show up on recent changes. Yet the %2C is automagically changed into the comma, but that's a different article in the database (which does not exist yet). andy 21:56, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pilot Error. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:02, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've seen this too, I saw a few articles go by with %28 band %29 the chars for ( and ) but then when i clicked on them, it showed no article created as that what it checked for was the ( and not the true name of the article which was %28. If this is what i think it is, this is big and there is gonna require fixin if its not addressed soon. Cavebear42 22:53, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) heres an example [[Dune_%2528fan_fiction%2529]] Cavebear42 23:04, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

fixed before my very eyes. Cavebear42 23:11, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Can an admin sort this out?

India and weapons of mass destruction (1) redirects to Strategic Nuclear Command (2) which is supposed to redirect to India and weapons of mass distruction (3). Notice the misspelling in 3. The article in 3 should be moved to 1, and 2 should just be deleted. But since 1 exists, 3 can't just be moved, so 1 needs to be deleted first (copying and pasting would work, but would lose the history). So... can someone sort this out? This is beyond my abilities. --Fastfission 04:48, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Done. →Raul654 04:51, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)


Chilef Wikipedia

(moved from Chilef)

Chilef is: Chile plus Lef (that means fast in mapudungun, like wiki in its language).

We want to create a meta-site for coordinate the Free Encyclopedia of Chile with all the knowledge that the same people of chile can give, and of course the links and the articles provides by the net.

We have the computers for support it working and want to share a subdomain with you.

This is a computing proyect of the UTFSM (http://www.utfsm.cl) for the Information Systems of this University.

UTFSM - Tecnical University Federico Santa Maria

--Rvera 07:22, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm missing something here, I think. Why not just participate in the Spanish-language Wikipedia? -- Jmabel 20:05, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

clean up Swanscombe!

Whilst I concede the village itself could do with a bit of work, the item listed as Swanscombe at Wikipedia has been in my view unjustly listed for clean-up. As the original contributor I have gone back to it and made such efforts as I deem fit, but can not really see a problem with its content or style, but having removed the label from the page after checking it again, I have left the comments on the clean-up page in case anyone disagres. If so please go and improve it for us all! I will in due course return to it as I do with all my pages to see what else I have to offer it. In the mean while I find it frustrating that a page not in need of further attention should be treated in this way, (clearly no one else has bothered to add to it or change it at all!), and when I ask for help, all I get is silence! ref:(Henry Hoese). Faedra 10:55, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you could make it have better sections and subsections – have "History", "Tourist attractions" and "Companies", or something similar. violet/riga (t) 11:00, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think the cleanup task was not quite necessary. The editor that added it probably wanted some more polishing. The article itself looks very nice to me. Thanks for your nice work. -- Chris 73 Talk 12:32, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Improving articles

It seems to me that currently, the easiest way to improve an article is either to:

  1. List it on VfD (only if the article is subpar), or
  2. List it on FAC (but then it's likely you'll merely get suggestions, but still...).

There's an obvious lack of usage in Wikipedia:Peer review. There are lots of unfulfilled requests that probably would get a lot of constructive criticism if they were on FAC instead, especially if they are almost featured-level. Now, how can we address this? If we could get a larger audience for peer review, we could easily have better articles without misusing other pages. How do we publicise peer review? Johnleemk | Talk 14:08, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The thing about VfD and FAC is that there is a time limit and an end outcome that adds to a sense of urgency. With peer review there's all the time in the world. We can get around to later, it's not going anywhere. (I din't know what we can do about this). Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 15:47, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Johnleemk, you've hit the nail on the head. Wikipedia:Peer review is plagued by several major problems:
  1. Limited scope: it exists primarily to make good articles better.
  2. Traffic: too many listings for too few peer reviewers.
  3. Competition: to name a few, there's Wikipedia:To-do list, Wikipedia:WikiProject, and Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week. This isn't necessarily a bad thing — but an average user wanting to improve an article has a huge array of choices, and peer review is not likely to be the first choice.
To address the last of these concerns, I recently created Wikipedia:Guide to improving articles (previously known as Wikipedia:Life cycle of the ideal article). I've asked for feedback, and so far no one's said it's a bad idea. To help publicize peer review (and other article improvement mechanisms), I'm shamelessly suggesting listing Wikipedia:Guide to improving articles more prominently on Wikipedia:Community portal and other pages. :-) • Benc • 00:33, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Worth adding or unencyclopedic nonsense?

I was thinking of adding this little article, and then had second thoughts about it, as I can see how it could be seen as not worth it and maybe even a little silly... But then again, there are plenty of articles on various other such bits and bobs of popular culture from around the world... Any thoughts? Angmering 15:29, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As you say, it has entered popular culture, and personally I think one of Wikipedia's strengths is its coverage of little bits of popular culture. Trilobite (Talk) 15:38, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I like it. It is however stubby and I can't see it ever exanding very much. I wonder if wictionary is a better home for it. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 15:43, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All your base are belong to us, so why not? -- Wapcaplet 15:44, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's cute, it's interesting, and there's plenty of space available for such tidbits. If somehow it ended up on VfD I'd vote to keep, so I say add it.  :) Antandrus 16:03, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As the token Mr. Deletion, I suppose I'd say that I'd want to see some evidence of spread. Being in the US, I haven't heard it, even on BBC comedy series or BBC World Service, so I'm about as clued-in as an American can reasonably be to British culture. It is also somewhat lexical. For whatever it's worth, that's how I'd respond to it. I love collecting slang, but I don't know how much Wiktionary does of it or how much of it Wikipedia would do. I think "All Your Base" is a bit different, and if you look at that article, it establishes that this was an early Engrish thing, as well as an early (and therefore notable for being pioneering) bit of the viral spread of geek culture on the Internet. Geogre 16:33, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
17,900 Google results. Non-inclusion in BBC comedy series or the output of the World Service doesn't strike me as a particularly good guide. There must be thousands of obscure phrases and cultural references not present in US comedy series or not picked up by their viewers. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:40, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Definitely add. Or at least incorporate into an article on Ronseal. More recently, a toothpaste manufacturer (Aquafresh?) has begun a similar advertising campaign (here in Ireland at least) stating that its product "does exactly what it says on the tube". I would perhaps veer more towards having the content at Ronseal, just a tad more encyclopaedic. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 17:58, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Didn't Ross once say to Rachel "All your base are belong to us?" ;-) I also watch as much British tv as one can get in my broadcast area, (which isn't much), and I am still constantly surprised by terms like tosser. I like Angmering's article. In truth, I'm rather confused by the various Wikipedia is not a discussions. Either there is lots of hard drive space for covering the endeavors of humanity, or space is at a premium, and therefore hard decisions need to be made about what's in and what's out. I use the analogy of Captain Picard speaking to the Enterprise computer. If he were to ask, "tell me about Xyz," I wouldn't expect to hear Majel Barrett's voice pop up and say:
  • Xyz is non-notable, therefore, you are not allowed access to it.
  • Xyz is in the Star Fleet dictionary, and not the encyclopedia, so please wait while I transfer to a different namespace.
  • Xyz only occurs in a List of three letter words starting with the letter x''.
AdmN 18:01, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Please add, even if, contra Geogre, it is only known on "that sceptred isle/That earth of majesty, that seat of Mars/That other Eden" (warning, paraphrase): it's that whimsically useful article that reminds us wikipedia can be fun as well as useful. (PS, Geogre, when I use "that... article" as a stand-in for a whole class of articles, as I did above, there's I'm sure a (Greek?) term for this, but what is it? Synecdoche?) -- orthogonal 09:25, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Okay, as the general response seem to be in favour, I have now added it (with a redirect at Ronseal too). Thanks guys! Angmering 11:18, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Phrase and slight adaptations has, in my experience become widespread in the UK even if people forget about Ronseal. Last week a new name for a financing branch of my company was discussed and an external agency commented that one "shows exactally what it does on the tin" meaning the name shows clearly what is on offer even though there are no tins involved! Dainamo 15:33, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Side-by-side diffs too wide

Side-by-side diffs can get very wide when the article contains long (very long) character sequences without whitespace. See Beslan hostage crisis's diff for an example of the problem (I tried to 'quarrantine' the long lines in one place). Bugzilla's Bug List for diffs lists no bugs open or closed that mentions this, so I suppose I should report it, but before I do is there maybe a preference or setting that affects the window width of diffs? A quick look at my Preferences (I use Classic Skin) did not help. Cheers -Wikibob | Talk 19:42, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

Well, a problem would be that you'd have to break character strings apart at un-natural points to do so, which would be... annoying, as then the diffs would be inaccurate and unclear and all that.
James F. (talk) 21:58, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The only thing I know is reducing the character size in the browser settings. Line wrapping within very long "words" (wider than half of the screen) would be good, or two frames with horizontal scrolling for each, but only for the lines with the long words--Patrick 22:02, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC).

Votes for Deletion revisited

There's a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion re: a proposal to look at alternate possibilities to VfD. Please visit - it'd be nice to get the views of non-VfD'ers. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 21:12, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's also a flame war occuring on wikien-l, if you'd like to contribute to that. </tongueincheek> --Slowking Man 03:26, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
C'est quoi? What's wikien-l when it's at home? zoney ▓   ▒ talk 09:11, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Hallowed Mailing List, Fount Of All Policy From Which Commandments Issueth Forth. Trilobite (Talk) 10:20, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Increasing exposure to sister projects

Hi,

currently links to Wikiquote, Wikisource and Wikibooks show up like links to any other project. How about creating nice little boxes for these types of links? As an example, a Wikiquote link:

Error: No text given for quotation (or equals sign used in the actual argument to an unnamed parameter)

This could be right-aligned with the "External links" section.

What do you think? Overkill? Too much like a banner?--Eloquence*

Too big, but otherwise a good idea. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 02:10, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Good idea. Could add to a possible 'Internal Links' section. :D
I've improved the template and put it in use on the Galileo Galilei page. This is what it should look like. I've also created Template:Bookshelf for Wikibooks, which is currently in use on Mathematics. I'm sure these look ugly in some browsers, so please help to improve them.--Eloquence*
A nice idea, but what if something has links to both Wikiquote and Wikibooks? Then what? Dysprosia 09:01, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I added it to George W. Bush. It actually looks very nice. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 13:58, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Actually, it looks fine using PC/Win browsers IE5.5, Netscape 7.1, Opera 7.02, Firefox 0.8, and Mozilla 1.4. Niteowlneils 14:38, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
How about something like this?

See also our articles on Wikipedia's sister projects: Wikibooks | Wiktionary

Except I don't happen to have any 16×16 images of the logos, which would fit well. (Wikiquote logo doesn't want to be resized to 16px. :() [ alerante | “” 14:40, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) ]
Something like this if we need multiple project and the more specific box if there's just one, I'd say.-Eloquence*
Just throwing out an idea - I think we should keep the text to a minimum, even by only having the picture and it itself is the link. Then if there was more than one they could stack sideways. If people want some text, the caption over it could read "more on...". Also a link to Wiktionary would be appropriate for some articles. LUDRAMAN | T 17:13, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
P.S. I think I made this suggestion a while ago but no-one took any notice - I guess you need a picture to catch people's eyes :-). Its times like this I wish I wasn't so hapless with images :-(.

I think it's a great idea! Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 17:48, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I also think it's a great idea. For what it's worth, I have considered making an interwiki box for plants/animals with up-to the following links:
Wikipedia article (apple)
Wiktionary entry
Wikibooks Dichotomous Key
Wikibooks Field Guide
Wikibooks Cookbook
Wikiquote Quotes concerning apples
It may be worth experimenting with similar ideas. I don't see any problem with promoting other WikiMedia links when available. Tuf-Kat 06:32, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Is Hurricane Frances threatening Wikipedia?

The Wikipedia servers are located in Florida; is Hurricane Frances threatening Wikipedia? --Gary D 02:09, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Frances is expected to strike Tampa as a tropical storm. It's possible flooding could temporarily damage Wikipedia's network connections, but it's not nearly the concern Charley was. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:15, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
And since Charley ended up doing zilch to Wikipedia, I think we're all right. Besides, Wikipedia is mirrored and backed up at so many locations that the only way to wipe it out would be with a planet-destroying cataclysm. --Slowking Man 03:28, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
Hope you all don't mind if I weigh in. I'm coming in from my father's computer, which I've connected via AC power. I'm here in Orlando and seeing the potential path, it will be moving south of here, yet curve north. The only thing that affects Tampa is likely intense rain and wind, as that is what would be what I'm getting in here up north of the path, and is likely to get down south. Sean 03:31, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Charley did zilch largely because it missed Tampa. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:40, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
the only way to wipe it out would be with a planet-destroying cataclysm -- please don't tempt fate like that. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 03:52, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm with you. Chills ran up my spine when I read that. Cavebear42 18:59, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Psh, it wouldn't dare. Frances doesn't want a bad write-up. ;) Rhymeless 03:39, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You mean Hurricane Frances? -- Cyrius|✎ 03:40, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Categories??

Is it intended that every article be in a category? The categories seem pretty disjointed and inconsistent to me, but I think it would be great if they actually made sense. How can I best help in this? Spalding 03:32, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

By putting more articles into categories, I suppose. I'd agree with you that the categories function needs some work, for sure. Rhymeless 03:39, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Go to Wikipedia:categorization to see the guidelines, and discuss those parts you'd like to see changed at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. --Ardonik.talk() 04:15, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
It's all very confusing, but here are a few pointers:
  • Wikipedia:Categorization seems to be the best place for broad issues about how things should be categorised. At present on Wikipedia talk:Categorization, we are trying to come up with a better name for "Category:Fundamental".
  • Wikipedia:Categorization projects (current) seems to be for organising projects to place articles into categories.
  • Wikipedia:Browse by category is supposed to be a useful set of links to categories. That page is not much more than a wrapper around Template:Categories.
  • Putting existing un-categorised articles into existing non-controversial categories is easy. Just add [[Category:Whatever]] at the bottom of the article.
  • To link to a category's intro page, use [[:Category:Whatever]]. The extra ":" at the beginning means this is just a link; I don't want to put my article into that category.
—AlanBarrett 09:50, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'm trying to put article List of radio stations into Category "Reference>Lists" and then other subcategories into what should be the new category List of radio stations. But what I really need to do is create a new category with that name, correct? I added the Category markup to the bottom of the article. But it will still be an article and not a category, correct? The instructions for categories show some scripts, (that maybe will make things (articles) a category?), but I have no idea how to run them or if I even can or should. I'm in over my head - any ideas?

My intention was to make it match television stations, with a subcategory named List of radio stations, and under it would be things like Lists of radio stations in North and Central America, etc. But wouldn't that require deleting the article List of radio stations that is basically functioning as a category? I'm getting too confused here. Spalding 11:31, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Here are several suggestions:
  1. Put the article "List of radio stations" into Category:Lists that should be categories. Just edit the article to do that.
  2. Create Category:Radio stations. Just click on the red link, write an introduction, make it a member of one or more suitable parent categories, and save. (That category already exists.)
  3. Create suitable categories for "Radio stations in <name of country>", and make them members of Category:Radio stations.
  4. Add all the radio station articles to the appropriate category.
  5. Eventually, after everything is neatly categorised, think about deleting List of radio stations.
—AlanBarrett 12:13, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hm .. I just "suggested" replacing Category:Lists, Category:Radio and Category:Reference with Category:Lists of radio stations as there is a series of those (many, unlikely for all to have or get articles). -- User:Docu
Yes, that makes sense. —AlanBarrett 13:30, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I put the article "List of radio stations" into Category:Lists that should be categories, but it doesn't look correct. The text shown when editing is less than the article - the second section doesn't show. Does that get processed every so often? Spalding 12:43, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

To add an article to a category, you edit the article; you do not edit the category's intro page. The effect is instant; there's no periodic processing. In this case, you should have added [[Category:Lists that should be categories]] at the bottom of List of radio stations, and not edited Category:Lists that should be categories at all. I have fixed it up for you. —AlanBarrett 13:30, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I generally disagree with the idea that categories supplant/replace lists. Lists can have red links, inviting new articles, categories can't. The only exception I can think of is lists that are known to be 100% complete. Niteowlneils 14:13, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's a good point, Niteowlneils. So what do you suggest in this case? I have a headache from this, so I think I'll stay out of categories until I get some more experience here. But how should we resolve this radio one for now? What should be done with the individual items in that list? Should they be in that new category, should they be subcategories of it as I originally intended? Or just left with no category and the one I did change for Asia be removed from its category? Is my assumption that every article should be in at least one category valid? Or is it too picky? Spalding 16:28, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Categories can have a list of unwritten articles. Just edit the category page and put it there.--Eloquence*

Also, Lists can give a little information for each entry (like List of web comics), whereas a category can't. I think its fine to have both in many cases. —siroχo 04:14, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Undoc'd Bug or Feature in Edit-Conflict handling?

(What i've written below is long; when you get bored, consider jumping back to the top of the page, and linking via the ToC to the next item.)
This edit and this one may reflect something new, if someone was testing out relevant new code late-ish Friday UTC. Or it may have been there a while (i assume since 1.3 came on line), waiting for me to get bold in my big-page editing technique.
And in either case it may be a bug ("Wow, it never occurred to me that could result.") or a feature ("Hey, anyone pushing the envelope that far deserves something just like that happening to them."). I'll rap my own knuckles in the second case. But in either case, i'd hope we could get the danger (of unexpected and unnoticed results of saves) documented somewhere that's linked from wikipedia:edit conflicts and how-to-edit articles.
I don't know which of the following practices (or what combinations of them) occasioned the outcomes of the two edits already cited, but i'm pretty sure i engaged, during that sitting, in all of them. (I was using MS IE (v 5 or 6, i think, but ask me later, if it matters).):

  • Using "Open in New Window" (or, rather, the equivalent Shift-LMouseClick) to start one section edit on the page in question, and then using it again to start an edit of another section, before saving the first edit. (This operation "follows a link into the new window", leaving the old window as it was before linking.)
  • Using Back to get back, in the Address pane, the URL for a section edit that has been closed by a Save, calculating the change in section numbers resulting from that Save, and editing the section number (or leaving it alone, where the old section number of the first coincides with new one of the desired other section) in order to edit a different section.
  • Using File|New|Window (or, rather, the equivalent keyboard command Ctrl-N) to clone a window that displays an in-progress section-edit, and eventually doing a Save from each window. (The "cloning" creates a second window with the same URL, the same fill-ins of the form-panes, and the same Back "history" (and i suppose the same "forward history"!))

(Why would i save both clones? Don't think i set out to do that; and while i remember cloning, probably several times, only in one case do i even specifically suspect i saved both clones. The first clone (or is that called the original?) saved would be this edit and the second (the original's clone) would be one already cited: the 2nd done and 2nd cited of the edit-diffs i've cited in my first sentence of this section. Generally when i clone a window, it's either to get a new window for a search, to view a bookmarked location, etc., when i don't have a link for it that i can Open-in-New-Window via; several times in the sitting in question, it was to recover a window i wished i had Open-in-New-Window-ed from. I probably saved the "original" prematurely by hitting Enter after starting the summary for the incomplete edit, said "OK, i'll have to remember to come back and finish that when i know the page size", and (an hour later) serendipitously found i had a suitable edit for that still in progress (probably created for a purpose that i forgot to pursue). I think i realized it was a clone of one that had been saved, probably by seeing the same summary already in the page history, expected no worse outcome than an Edit Conflict screen (despite the 1st-cited unexpected result, which would have occasioned the history inspection), and proceeded to finish the edit and save.) While i don't presume i have as much insight as those who are familiar with the code, i note for developers to at least consider ruling out relevance, that one of these glitches involves adding text following section N, where replacement of section N +1 was intended (in an edit that began its life described as an edit of section N), and the other involves replacing a different section than intended, where the section numbering had also been changing.
--Jerzy(t)

So, if I understand the long explanation, you were editing a section of an article, and when you saved, the wrong section got overwritten? I believe that this is a known bug. —AlanBarrett 13:45, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is it an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article?

I am the moderator of an e-mail list for former pupils of a particular school in England. We have our own website where we collect old school photographs and such-like. We are now considering writing a history of the school.

Wiki technology seems ideal for such a collaborative venture, but would it be appropriate for a Wikipedia article? It would, by its nature, appeal only to a very small number of people - a few hundred at most.

Advice please.

--Andy Lee 13:31, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If the school is notable (a large school, the first school to do something important), etc. it is usually considered as deserving of a Wikipedia article. Otherwise, the MediaWiki software is always available for download, and you can install it on your own website, and I suppose you could have a wiki for your school (which is what a few schools do actually). But don't take only my word on it, I'd wait until someone else responded (if only to confirm what I'm blathering on about ;) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 13:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Why the criteria? Isn't the fact that it's an established educational institution (I assume) enough? That's the kind of thing that is clearly relevant for inclusion in an encyclopedia. We probably have hundreds of articles about schools of all sorts. Why shouldn't we include as many as possible? As is often said, this ain't paper. (Besides, at least their goal will be to create a substantive article, as others have pointed out.) - dcljr 01:09, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It depends on many factors, but I would think about two things:
  1. Would the article appeal to more than a negligible amount of people?
  2. Are the article's facts verifiable from another source?
If you answer yes to both questions, you're set to go, IMO. This isn't set in stone or anything, so I suggest you wait for others to weigh in as well. Johnleemk | Talk 13:59, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I would say that if a decent article can be written on the subject it would be a welcome addition. People often create useless one-sentence articles for schools and other institutions, and these tend to annoy people and are liable to be deleted. If you write more than a few lines of decent prose, and maybe include a picture or two, it will almost certainly be kept, even if someone of what we call the deletionist mindset lists it on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Wikipedia has articles on very minor things, tiny villages of less than 20 people, obscure fictional characters etc. Consensus seems to be that as Wiki is not paper there is no harm in including these things provided they aren't just nonsense articles. The MediaWiki software might be worth considering if you want to start up a collaborative project of your own with people contributing lots of photos and memories, as that doesn't belong on Wikipedia, as I'm sure you can understand. My advice is to write the article, keep a copy of it so you can put it up elsewhere on the off chance that it's deleted, and then if someone lists it on VfD wait and see what happens. I am confident though that it won't be deleted. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You should be aware of the considerable ongoing controversy here surrounding school articles. I would have to say that there's a good chance of this article becoming the subject of debate as to whether it should be kept, perhaps even a test case, and therefore some chance it would be deleted. Andrewa 18:22, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
While I understand that we are debating articles on schools releventness here, I have a feeling that the vote would not be to remove them when/if it ever comes to vote. Even if this article does end up being deleted, an admin could easily recover his data for him and he can move his venture to another location (perhaps a metawiki of his own). During the interm Wikipedia could offer the exact tool he is looking for to get this article edited. There are a lot of articles which have far less significance than a school. There are articles which have far fewer people editing/interested in them than it sounds his will be once he posts it to his page. I say "be bold", make your article, handle the problems when or if they ever arise. Cavebear42 19:11, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Search strings?

Is it just me, or does the cache search seem to be broken--IE the search string doesn't get passed to the google/yahoo search boxes. Niteowlneils 14:16, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's not just IE. I'm using firefox and notice the same problem. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 16:15, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I noticed the same on Firefox. Trilobite (Talk) 17:06, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Same on Mozilla 1.7.2 under Win98SE. Andrewa 18:14, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It was probably this change. The $1 got lost. Someone should ask Angela. cesarb 18:32, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I reverted my edit. I couldn't check it at the time since internal search was working, and the google/yahoo boxes don't show up then. This means it is no longer XHTML compliant though. Angela. 18:44, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think there was a need to revert, you could just have added back the $1 in the proper places. Surely the attribute being nonempty wouldn't make it non-XHTML-compliant. cesarb 23:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Oh, is that why the Google/Yahoo! boxes show up sometimes and not others? Personally, I think they should always show up (or at least a link to such a page). Sometimes a Google search (of Wikipedia) is just so much better... - dcljr 01:17, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Maybe i am not using it right, but it's my experience that Google searches of Wikipedia miss a lot. The internal search, when it's up, seems to be much more thorough. Can anyone explain? The Wikipedia does not work when it cannot be searched correctly Pethan 10:33, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Images

When selecting an immage on the web to "save as" ususally it can only be saved in the same format itv appears e.g. "JPEG". By printing to paperport in can be converted to another format, but in the absense of paperport how can it be intructed to be saved in another format? Dainamo 16:26, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You can convert image formats easily using Photoshop or GIMP. →Raul654 17:08, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
Those two programs are excellent image editing programs. I especially recommend the GIMP, which is free and open-source. A Windows version is available here.
If you're looking for a lightweight, fast Windows program to quickly convert (not edit) images, I highly recommend IrfanView, which is also free. • Benc • 20:37, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vote is now open on deleting user subpages (proposed policy)

See Wikipedia talk:deletion of user subpages#The vote. Andrewa 18:42, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Note that the vote may or may not exist when you click the link above, for reasons given under the heading "voting is bad". -- Tim Starling 01:15, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
Quite right. Tim has removed the vote. Apparently he objects to it for reasons I have yet to understand. I have no intention of reinstating it until we clear this up. See his new section Wikipedia talk:deletion of user subpages#Voting is bad for this discussion. Andrewa 03:47, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for Tim to reply, but it seems from his comments at Wikipedia talk:deletion of user subpages#Voting is bad that one of the problems he had was my request that, as people had had two weeks to edit the proposal, the two pages and one section of a third page that contained the proposal should now be frozen for the period of the vote. He has now removed these requests from the relevant pages.
I'd welcome other comments on this. How do we hold a vote in a Wiki? Can we have a voluntary freeze (as I was suggesting), should we protect the pages (which seemed overkill to me, and we would need to develop a policy authorising it), or do we need to somehow take into account that by the end of the voting period people may be voting on a completely different proposal to what it was at the beginning of the vote? Andrewa 04:38, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Tim has now restored the vote, but not the freeze notice. I again invite votes. We'll sort the freeze business out as we go. Andrewa 09:53, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Templates

I noticed that all the regional templates {South Asia, North America, East Asia etc} have the caption suddenly changed from a lavender background to black. The text being dark blue makes the caption unreadable. What's going on? [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:18, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

I changed in Template:South Asia ccf to ccccff, it is OK now.--Patrick 20:48, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Geneva's airport is being really really stubborn

I've been trying to move Geneva Cointrin international airport to Geneva Cointrin International Airport, but Wikipedia won't let me move it. I'm confused... all that's at the latter is a redirect. Sekicho

The redirect Geneva Cointrin International Airport had a history of more than one edit, and thus you cannot overwrite it but have to delete it first. I deleted it and moved the article -- Chris 73 Talk 20:30, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
Merci buckets! Sekicho

Shipping Forecast

Does anyone else get an error when viewing this page?

Acegikmo1 03:23, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes,
Warning: strstr(): Empty delimiter. in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-new/includes/Parser.php on line 2183 Shipping Forecast
—siroχo 04:05, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
Works fine for me in Monobook. -- Cyrius|✎
Seems to be a Cologne Blue thing. Dysprosia 06:55, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Works in IE. TPK 10:36, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Categories for deletion" needs admin attention

There's a growing backlog on WP:CFD; apparently, not enough admins tidy this page frequently enough. I've gone over everything in the August 19-31 range, so all a friendly admin needs to do is judge whether or not there's a clear consensus for deletion, and follow the tentative policy at the top of the page. Anything for which there's not a clear consensus can be left behind, and we'll discuss what to do with it. If there's something that needs to be emptied before deletion and the friendly cleanup admin doesn't have time to do it, leave a message on my personal talk page, and I'll write back when it's ready for deletion. Thanks! -- Beland 06:20, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Image updates, thumbs

Hi, someone put a nice new Bruce Sterling photo on the article. I looked at it and found it a bit large (>500 K) and dark, thus replacing the image with a half byte size lighter version. After a browser reload, the image on the image page showed fine, but not the thumb on the article. My work-around was to create a new thumb by changing the size (200px instead of 180px, triggering the thumb generator). Is there a better way to sync thumbs with the actual images? -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 08:32, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think you just have to get the server to regenerate the page by making a no-op change, such as inserting an extra space somewhere. After a period is a good place, because that's a typographical convention anyway. PhilHibbs 10:15, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Slashdot-advertised wikipedia unreliability vandal

I suppose some of other wikipedians read Slashdot frequently as well, but for those who don't, have a look at this Slashdot article which actually just brings into the slashdot spotlight this blog entry by our own (as per the blog) wikipedia contributor working from 65.27.75.56. The user does make a point, although in a rude way (bordering on trolling) IMHO. On the other hand, currently, a lot of the Wikipedia info quality is depending on the "augment-when-challenged" principle - the contributor is supposed to provide additional references and sources etc. until convincing whoever questioned the validity of the contribution. (As opposed to requiring an article to be more mature from the start, this enables more articles to be brought in, but at the expense at spreading the background research thinner per article. If we discouraged raw articles, a lot of valuable info would have never made it to the wikipedia.) The history of such challenges and responses is visible on the history and discussion pages of each article. And, of course, as with any reference, wikipedia facts have to be taken with a grain of salt (that's the way the humanity progresses, by constantly putting under scrutiny its most authoritative fact sources, isn't it?) BACbKA 09:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well thats what I have being saying all the time. I hate slashdot, I hate slashsdotters. I used to be a troll there, but with the moderation sysem only giving the dumbest of slashdotters mod points they were trolling themselves! Slashdotters just ruin things. For example they are responsible for a lot of the "fancruft" by putting "articles" on individual klingon vocabluary and every obscure linux distribution out there. They treat the NPOV as the "Nerd point of view". The slashdotters are the real problem, and I suggest that if your a poor soul who read Slashdot because you think its "nerdy" I suggest you stop right now! Wikipedia is "NOT" the encylcopedia that slashdot built, its the one they ruined. Similarly, if Eugenia Loli Queru, an infamous technology critic were to write about Wikipedia, there will be World War 100 in flamewars. So, my stance is that if someone reads slashdot, they are not to be trusted. So, if you are a slashdot reader, stop reading it now, your stress levels will go down. I am here for one reason only, to create an encylcopedia using my well earned knowledge, not to play with Slashdot idiots! 82.32.35.210 10:06, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) (posting as "anonymous coward").
So you used to troll on Slashdot, now you troll the Village Pump. Fuck off back to Slashdot, please. PhilHibbs 10:11, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
p.s. Can someone check out the accuracy of Duopenis as the other change that this IP made was vandalism. I can't check it because the subject matter is likely to get me flagged by my employer's internet filter. PhilHibbs 10:31, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think 5 days is quite a short timescale as well, but calling it vandalism is a little strong. PhilHibbs 10:08, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, I thought that introducing deliberately wrong facts into the Wikipedia is vandalism. I agree that this is somewhat a mild case as the user self-cleaned. BACbKA 10:20, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The articles he chose were very small traffic ones - two authors, two edits on one of them, for example. The good news is that Slashdotters are more often than not fans of Wikipedia, so they are more likely to defend the project than to mimic the same type of vandal-like exercise. Fuzheado | Talk 10:23, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My main concern about Wikipedia is that once an incorrect artice starts getting mirrored by all the other "free encyclopedias" with "better" Google rankings, it becomes hard to find anything that isn't a Wikipedia mirror. PhilHibbs 10:54, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

wikipedia rendering corrupt?

It might be my network connection but for the last hour or so the Village Pump, and sometimes other long wiki pages, are appearing mangled (and the source is corrupted, missing open tags etc) on three different browsers, both logged out and in, and under these skins:

  • Cologne Blue
  • Classic
  • Monobook

On XP I tried Firefox 0.93, Opera 7.11 and IE 6.0 (I only these last 2 in emergencies) and there is similar corruption but in non-reproducible places.

  • my page caching is disabled
  • section editing via links is enabled
  • I've cleared my Firefox cache
  • I've closed and restarted browsers, and done control-R, Shift control-R
  • I've scanned for spyware with Ad-aware

An example in the generated html from wikipedia is the TOC will be a normal list of divs and then a section of HTML source is missing:

<div class="tocline"><a href="#Need_all gas explo>all href</a>> <div clas explomunity_Input_for_a_new_WikiProject_-_Fact_and_Refer-n-Check">16></dF clTr> <t34 fer-n-Checka newine"F c Tr>

Thereafter the browser has understandable problems displaying anything coherent (Opera pops-up a corrupted message, while the others do their best).

I can workaround by using history diffs, which seem to always work. PS: now after more cache-clearing,reloading IE works, but both Opera and Firefox have persistent problems. Any advice, as I hate to use IE? -Wikibob | Talk 10:53, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

Is it still happening? I'm using Firefox and I haven't seen any problems. PhilHibbs 10:56, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

IE 6.0 is now working, but does not give me the focus unless I minimise overlying windows, Firefox was until just a minute ago still failing (after close and restart), but has just now rendered the whole page! Opera still complains about corruption and displays mangled pump image, but I've experienced such Opera bugs before (why I moved to Firefox). Now Firefox has problems with these: 

a Talk:Beslan_hostage_crisis diff
a diff of the Pump

-Wikibob | Talk 11:14, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

I now believe my problem is due to my ADSL router cable connection or my ISP, as it has improved after re-inserting the LAN cable, power-down-rest-20-minutes-restart of both router and PC. I now have a lot fewer problems - not isolated to wiki as I lose occassional bytes when downloading PDFs as well. -Wikibob | Talk 12:20, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

Page production process

I'm not sure where this should go, so please direct me to the proper page if it exists...

I am thinking about how to produce a "production" quality version of Wikipedia.

So far, I am thinking that we need:

  • some way of freezing or snapshotting a page as a 'release candidate';
  • once a page is a release candidate, receiving contributions — issues or endorsements — as to the quality of the page;
  • some controlled way of editing release candidate pages — to address issues, not to add new content;
  • a promotion ladder
    • alpha/test
    • beta/unstable
    • production/publication/stable
  • a group of moderators who can promote articles — to assess the contributions and determine whether a consensus exists, not to decide themselves;
  • a meta-moderation system to track the moderators; and,
  • way of having multiple versions of a page without going crazy.

All this is based on the equivalent process for software, but it will need to be modified to meet the specific needs of Wkipedia. m.e. 11:00, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_archive_2004-09-26&oldid=5692180"