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 VeryVerily (talk | contribs) at 22:32, 1 September 2004 (improper block). 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

Ages of wikipedians

Do we have any reliable idea of the age spread of Wikipedians? I have just noted a contributor to a talk page who says he is 82. I thought I was on the very upper edge at 65 years, since I see from the various pictures of the meetings that Wikipedians there look about the ages of my children. Apwoolrich 20:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Try m:Wikimedians by age. The oldest listed Wikimedian is CoppBob, born in 1921. The youngest listed is SuperNoddy, born in 1992. --Slowking Man 20:09, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
Shoot, I was born in 1991...so close to being youngest :(. Lol — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:39, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Darn you, I'm a 1990 kid. Johnleemk | Talk 07:10, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
THere is apparently a 7-year old here, he's probably the youngest if he is really 7. Adam Bishop 07:14, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
From some of his edits, I'm fairly sure he is really seven. That said, he seems to be an exceptional seven year old in a number of ways: 1) Perseverance--despite many of his contributions being reverted, sent to cleanup, changed to redir to a more standard name, and at least two of his new articles were sent to VfD, he's still making contributions almost two months after he started. 2) Attention span--he created most of U.S. Highway 3 and U.S. Highway 4 (kind of a unique layout, but at least they're consistent with each other, and follow the same general pattern of other US highway articles) his second day of editing (at least as a reg'd Wikipedian). About three weeks later, he came back and fixed a couple of the internal links from full URLs to just the article title (not sure why he didn't fix the all, but still...)--he even internalized a link that someone else had created, at Mount Vernon. 3) Interest in things outside his neighborhood--I don't remember knowing or caring who was mayor or governor of my own city and state when I was seven, and yet he created Cordelia W. Bennett (the mayor of a city in Delaware, even tho' the user is from Georgia), is proud of the fact he has shaken hands with the governor of another state, and created List of Delaware state parks (a table, no less) after only about two weeks on WP. One of his most recent edits was to try and section off the external link at WGCL-TV--even tho' he used the non-standard just "Links", at least he understands the concept--pretty abstract for a second-grader. He even added a (mostly) proper disamb sentence to the top of Shadwell. He does make mistakes sometimes (like, I need to research it further, but I think I'm going to have to undo his work on Fort Kent (town), Maine and Fort Kent, Maine), but everybody does. Niteowlneils 21:32, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Meant to mention almost 700 edits, in just under two months. Granted, many aren't in the main article namespace, but on the other hand, using Talk pages and adding himself to Wikipedia:New user log shows a level of sophistication I wouldn't expect from a seven year old. Niteowlneils 21:41, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) (PS I am going to review all of his edits, but my Internet connection here at work is so slow, I'll probably do most of it when I get home. Niteowlneils 22:03, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC))
A kid who's acting like 7 but isn't? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:28, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Possible, I suppose, but everything I've seen from him so far seems very sincere, and he has reponded favorably to input on his talk page. I think it's more likely he really is seven, just with a wider world view and/or experience and/or intelligence than most his age. Some of his entries are dead on, and most of the ones that are problematic (well, at least since Meelar got him to understand that copyvios weren't welcome) are just because they don't fit WP formatting/style/naming standards/conventions, which, if you look at it objectively, are in some ways fairly strict and arbitrary. Niteowlneils 01:01, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think he's for real, and I second all that Nightowlneils says above. I have been having a look through his contributions and he does need watching. It's good to have one so young contributing, who knows, he might be some sort of Mozart figure who starts young and grows up to be the greatest Wikipedian ever with over a million edits to his name. For now though I think as long as people are aware of his presence we can discreetly go round tidying up after him if he adds something not quite right. — Trilobite (Talk) 05:13, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yeah needs some watching, but it's great that he's here. For those who missed it it's User:Patricknoddy. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:03, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

User:Yardcock/OlympicWinners

Some footers to fill out. All red links are requested articles. Remember to keep events that replaced another one together. (e.g. pentathlon for heptathlon). I'm going to the land of Nod. Dunc_Harris|☺ 00:07, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Impressive stuff. Just wanted to point out that one of the boxes includes the year next to the name, which seems a good idea. Of course, this is one of those times when I feel awful, cos I know I'm not the one who is going to do the work... (though I did put all the gymnastics scores on the British team's page, which was less than a scintillating hour) --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 03:57, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Monobook.css

Changing the external link color. Discussion moved to MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css

I need some American eyes, please

I don't know if this is an act of vandalism or a fair deletion of bad content. Can an American with an interest in politics check it out please? (Of course, be careful, someone may deal with it in the meantime anyway). --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 03:37, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

  • It looked like vandalism to me. Seeing as no reason for its removal was provided, I am inclined to keep that content. →Raul654 03:41, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • It's vandalism. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:49, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • An argument could be made that making a list of "political flops" is inherently POV. Rhobite 03:51, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • In fact, this entire list seems POV and, frankly, dumb. Much of it could be legitimately refactored as a list of significant commercial failures, but "major flops" hardly seems encyclopedic. Austin Hair 03:59, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree the name of this page should be changed. The knowing the reasons why commercial/scientific/engineering projects failed is important for future developments, and stops people from re-inventing the wheel. Comprehensive listings on Wikipedia would be a service for researchers IMHO. Apwoolrich 07:47, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed with the above. Some of these don't seem at all like flops to me, such as the Betamax (which did quite well for a while before losing a format war in the consumer market; AFAIK it was still a format of choice in professional productions for many years), or failed comebacks by Vanilla Ice and MC Hammer (was it widely expected that they would have commercially successful comebacks?). Other things that are unquestionably considered failures (such as the Titanic) are not listed. Seems like a fairly useless and inherently POV list; hype does not necessarily engender an expectation of success, especially considering the multitude of ventures that failed despite (or even because of) hype. I agree with Austin Hair - this should be refactored into a list of commercial failures, if it should be kept at all. -- Wapcaplet 04:30, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • As a relative newcomer I've noticed a tendency for people to be much quicker to suggest that any indication of failure or negativity is regarded as inherently POV in a way that celebrating success or positivity isn't. I think that probably cuts to the heart of the British (I'm British) v American demeanour ;o) I don't think you can argue that it is inherently POV and then say but the Titanic is unquestionably a failure - it seems more like the word "flop" is too casual for some tastes. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 04:39, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
      • I was objecting more to a list of political flops. After all, most elections have at least one loser, but what constitutes a flop? Is it a landslide defeat? An expensive campaign that loses? A haughty candidate? Rhobite 04:47, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
      • What I said was that the Titanic is unquestionably considered a failure; poor choice of words I suppose. I guess what I'm getting at is that it's tricky to gague failures because the scale by which those failures are measured is subjective. As an unsinkable passenger vessel, the Titanic was a failure; as the object of treasure-hunting, major motion pictures and historical documentaries, it has been pretty successful. Whether something is a "flop" might be even more subjective; many things fail, in that they do not meet expectations or intentions. A flop, to me, is a disastrous failure. I don't know whether that makes it easier or harder to keep it NPOV... -- Wapcaplet 16:37, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

International History Project

I would like to use some material from the International History Project [2], but their license is "Copyright © 1985 - 2004 International World History Project All rights reserved All world history material found on this site may be freely used for non-commercial, educational purposes only." I assume that it is not possible to use this without them relicensing it under the GFDL (because of the non-commercial part)? If so, I can send them a Wikipedia:Boilerplate_request_for_permission if no one has already done so. Secondly, is there a list of projects/websites that have granted permission to use material on wikipedia? Wuzzeb 06:01, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Oh, and a list of sites which have been sent a letter and said no... I don't want to send a letter if they have already refused. Wuzzeb 06:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • yeah, if such a thing doesn't already exist then I think some kind of log or database of approaches and responses would be a great innovation. As more people become editors we're more likely to become unintentional spammers with people independently seeking similar permissions. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 18:19, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Strange image problem

Image:Gclinton.jpg used to be a photo of George Clinton (funk musician). It has now changed to an image of a previous George Clinton, U.S. Vice President George Clinton (politician), I blieve. However, no history of the change appears on the Image's page. Anyone have any idea what might have happened. Gentgeen 12:32, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It hasn't changed. It's still the musician. Is it possible someone uploaded the politician picture, realised their mistake, deleted their picture to upload with a new name, meanwhile you viewed it and haven't refreshed your cache? (would that appear in the page history?)Theresa Knott (The token star) 13:06, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
it must be in the cashe somewhere between me and the 'pedia's servers, as I'm still getting the politician. :( Gentgeen 16:11, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm getting the politician too. — Gwalla | Talk 17:16, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm also getting the politician - this is indeed a problem. DenisMoskowitz 17:19, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)
Now I'm getting the politician! Theresa Knott (The token star) 18:06, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The Funkmaster is back, evidently. ffirehorse 04:02, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No, I still see the politician. Can someone with real power go see what's actually happening under the hood here? DenisMoskowitz 15:57, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)

Press release

Please help to write Wikimedia's next press release at m:Wikimedia press releases/One million Wikipedia articles. Angela. 13:03, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

We'll reach the milestone in mid-September, so our tentative schedule is to try and have the press release written by 7 September, to allow a week or so for translation into other languages. With this timeframe, help from as many people as possible would be greatly appreciated. --Michael Snow 21:49, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Does this count the stubs? If we are to claim this milestone, I would just like to see it came by rightly. Cavebear42 22:25, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Possible vandal

It seems that a user using IP 24.15.64.67 has vandalized the article 2008. He or she has added the information "March 28 - Sunday. The Death of Edgar Ham Louise." to the article. Is this a known vandal? Has this IP been used for such edits before? Aecis 13:47, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The user's contributions list would be a good place to start. Johnleemk | Talk 14:14, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is rather unusual for either a murderer or a suicider to state their intention so far in advance.... ;-) I can't locate an "Edgar Ham Louise" on the Internet. I assume it's a joke. AdmN 14:49, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Might be someone either taking The Death Clock too seriously, or Wikipedia not seriously enough. Nohat 20:22, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Darn! I only have until 10 December, 2036... thank goodness it's a Wednesday. ;-) AdmN 20:29, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cross-referencing to Wiktionary

If I search for an article using the Search button, I get search results (unless content search is down as it is currently), or some Google and Yahoo search field. If I then click again on the search term, I get this Wikipedia does not yet have an article with this name. page. This latter page contains the actual usefule phrase Perhaps there is an entry Foo in our sister dictionary project, Wiktionary.

Shouldn't this notice go already on the first page, the search reply? That might be quite helpful for the disappointed user who might already be happy with a short explanation of a word. Simon A. 16:06, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Watchlist count

Many people here claim that vandalism will become unmanageable with growing number of articles, because e.g. the RC patrol will become overwhelmed. On the other hand, many vandalism, or even just addition of sloppily checked facts, are noticed and corrected because most Wikipedians have those articles to which they have contributed on their watchlist. So, in analogy to Linus's With enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow., we could say: As long as enough people watch an article it will stay reliable.

Hence, the number of users having an article on their watchlist might be a useful indicator when assessing the reliability of a Wikipedia article one is reading. So, what about a line like This article is watched by NN Wikipedia users. in the article footer? Would you consider it as useful? Or would it just clutter up the frame?

Oh, and to start a related topic: Hit counts. Wouldn't it be great to be able to check, whether anybody has actually read my great, lengthy article on this in my opion so terribly fascinating niche subject of the history of the foo subveriety of bars within bazes? Wanted? Feasible? Or distracting? Simon A. 16:14, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

An article with a "This article is watched by 0 Wikipedia users" would mean "vandalise me! no-one will notice!". In practice most vandals attack a number articles in sequence, until they hit one that's on someone's watchlist. Then that person backtracks and fixes all their vandalism. The resulting "panopticon" effect should give the vandal the idea that everything they do is scrutinised, even if it really isn't. For the same reason, I generally prefer to revert vandals rather than block them; after a while they get tired and dejected and go away. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:23, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think "how many Wikipedians watch this" would be a useful heuristic for the reader. A lot of WP peer review is implicit, and this would seem a cheap way to make it slightly more explicit. Finlay McWalter points out that a "0" score would be an open invite to vandals, but to resist vandalism, each page should have at least one person watching it anyway; this would identify weak spots for Wikipedians, too. To rely on a "panopticon" effect — an illusion that Wikipedia is maintained universally well — is a security by obscurity argument. — Matt 16:34, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It is not security by obscurity, it is analogous to a random search. What would happen if airports printed on your ticket "you will not be searched at the security checkpoint?" Rhobite 21:02, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, OK, perhaps it isn't a security by obscurity argument. I still worry, though, about little-tended pages. "Random search" at an airport works quite well, because the consequences of getting caught are severe, even if it's not certain you'll get caught. On Wikipedia, the consequences of being caught vandalising from an anonymous IP are minimal. My point is essentially that, ideally, we shouldn't just give the impression of scrutinising everything, but we should really be scrutinising everything. I think a "how many Wikipedians watch this" score would help. — Matt 22:46, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If there were a safe way to have a "list of articles that aren't watched by anyone" special: page, this would accomplish the same problem. But that has just the same advertisment-for-trouble problem. We could, however, have a special: page called special:changes to unwatched pages, which works just like Recent Changes. So someone can still find a list of things to vandalise, but there's a concomitant means whereby the dilligent can notice. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re hit counts: I believe there once was such a feature, but it's been disabled because it slows things down too much. You can get still hit counts for, say, August from stats pages like: http://wikimedia.org/stats/en.wikipedia.org/url_200408.html

The page is pretty large though, you'll almost certainly want to stop it downloading before it's complete...— Matt 16:40, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Could make the watchlist message only show up for logged in users so anonymous vandals wouldn't be privy to the info. —siroχo 21:26, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

How about only showing such watchlist counts in the watchlist and RC lists? Therefore, someone sees an edit on a page with 500 people watching, you can know that someone else saw it to. A page with 1 person watching, you might want to look at that edit. --Golbez 04:06, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Adding a count of how many people are watching an article could have a corrosive effect, by providing a mechanism for authors who are motivated by having a large audience, to work on the most popular articles (to the exclusion of articles that really need help).

I propose an alternative feature that would allow authors to find the shortest articles, to make it easier to determine where one's efforts would make the biggest impact. --DV 07:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, an author motivated by wanting to write with a large audience can already consult the hit counts (link above), and, to me, it seems desireable that popular articles are given more editorial attention in any case.
For shortest articles, have a look at Special:Shortpages. — Matt 14:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep in mind that "n Wikipedians are watching this page" might be interpreted as "Warning: you will start an edit war with n/2 Wikipedians if you edit this page!".... ;) -Sewing - talk 00:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

XHTML-errors in MediaWiki:Googlesearch

Hi, there are a few XHTMl-errors in MediaWiki:Googlesearch, which I have fixed at de:Benutzer:Hendrik Brummermann/Artikel/MediaWiki_Googlesearch. As MediaWiki:Googlesearch is a protected special page, an admin should copy the new content to that place. Thanks --Hendrik Brummermann 18:01, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Broken image

See here. This should be on WP:IFD, but there's no way to even go to the description page. grendel|khan 21:43, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

Attack of the Living Dead Proposals!

Apparently, it's not enough for the community to reject a flawed proposal -- in the dark of night, they rise from the grave as re-animated Wikipedia:Semi-policy.

Not only that, once they've become zombie-policies, anyone trying to edit them gets reverted repeatedly, Apparently, one user is entitled add headers that change old failed proposals into "semi-policy", but no one else is allowed to question that new designation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Remove_personal_attacks&curid=349178&action=history and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:What_is_a_troll&curid=801686&action=history

Compare: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia%3AWhat_is_a_troll&diff=0&oldid=5507189 or http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia%3ARemove_personal_attacks&diff=0&oldid=5507254 and you'll see that the more things change the more they stay exactly as one user wants.

Collaborative editing is clearly outmoded bourgeois sentimentalism!

Nothing seems to be safe from the living dead proposals! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia%3AProposal_Not_Accepted_By_the_Community&diff=5551691&oldid=5551543

Perhaps we ought to agree to simply call all proposals "semi-policy", and avoid all the fuss and muss of actually voting. After all, given that nothing stops the re-animation of failed polices ignores the community consensus as voted, voting seems a bourgeoisof a waste of time.

Theresa Knott has a (humorous) solution: simply call everything a "semi-policy" as on Wikipedia:Those who disagree with Angela must not sign their comments.

But her serious compromise header isn't acceptable to one user: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Remove_personal_attacks&diff=5546852&oldid=5546805

But more realistically, we must ask, why is a lone user going to all this trouble to turn non-policy into the curiously named "semi-policy"? Cui bono?

And why is he willing to ignore community consensus to do so? -- orthogonal 23:26, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • The first person who tries to act on "semi-policy" will get slapped up against "actual policy," in my opinion. Geogre 01:01, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Also, I really ought to make this a separate heading, but let me express here (and later) my utter dismay at policy proposals made in the dark places and votes conducted in arbitrary time frames and the absence of dissent being taken as an expression of consent. I have my own policy proposal ideas to correct this last. One word suffices to explain it: quorum. It's absurd to think that a community of 200+ Administrators and thousands of active Wikipedians is to be ruled by policies voted on by 15 people. Geogre 01:01, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • My father used to drag me in to help make his quorum on occasions (I won't reveal what for, but I was a member of the Foo Association - of course - and technically allowed to help make up the numbers despite my youth at the time). My father assumed that I would just stick up my hand whenever he gave the nod. Pity the presumptive father, how little he knows me... --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 01:20, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
      • My country of 60 million people is governed by a cabinet of about 20 people. Shocking! Pcb21| Pete 15:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • Are they elected to rule, can they be unelected, and are they constrained by any Basic Law? -- orthogonal 17:42, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Do they get to change the constitution in the middle of the night with only as many legislators as they call on the phone, plus a bunch of proxies in their own handwriting? Geogre 12:44, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

When/how to de-speedy?

Just how bold should one be in removing {delete} tags? An article that's been around for almost a year, editted by several long-time Wikipedians, about a Web site that has an alexa ranking of 20,000 suddenly showed up in the speedy cat. If it was more borderline, I'd put it on VfD (like I have with several articles, but that doesn't seem right, especially since it survived vfd 11 months ago. The three options I can think of are: just remove it with a brief rationale comment in the edit summary, put it on vfd to get a consensus so I can't be accused of being arbitrary and/or unilateral or whatever, or pointing out the above on the tagger's Talk page. If it had been tagged by an anon, I would probably feel OK going with option 1, but the fact it's someone who's been here twice as long as I have gives me pause. Niteowlneils 00:36, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If the article survived VfD 11 mnths ago and it's such a large website, I suppose you could de-tag it...it just depends on what the article is. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:42, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Little Green Footballs for the curious.

You are a respected, dilligent wikipedian of long standing - if you think it's not a speedy, it's not a speedy. If there's any doubt that it's not a speedy, then it's not a speedy. Non-notability is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Anything that has ever survived VfD is plainly not a candidate for speedy (unless, I suppose, its contents have been migrated elsewhere). Remove the tag. Don't nominate it on VfD unless you thing it should be deleted. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Niteowlneils, my suggestion would be to drop a note on Wetman's page, since it looks like he was the one who did the nomination. Web guides aren't speedy candidates anyway (hence no one has deleted the page). They'd be VfD material. Since this has survived VfD, it's likely that Wetman just made a mistake. Let him know what you're doing and why, and I'm sure he'll be reasonable about it. Geogre 00:56, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I removed the tag. Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion lists eight very explicit qualifications for a speedy deletion candiate, none of which remotely match this article. -- 01:01, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Aha! You have fallen afoul of the "signing with four tildes as the last line on a long page doesn't get the job done" bug. As, perhaps, might I. - Nunh-huh 01:07, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I may simply have fallen afoul of my own incrompitence. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Incrompitence - portmanteau of increments and incompetence, meaning stupid in a number of small amounts. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 01:41, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • Dictdef. Transwiki to Wiktionary, then dele...oh. Whoops! I guess I've been spending a little too much time on VfD. — Gwalla | Talk 01:57, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

5 tildes is just a timestamp.

6 tildes is just a cigar 01:12, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)~

Thanks everyone for so much feedback so fast. VfD seemed like the easiest/safest solution, but it also seemed like the least desirable, so I'm glad my gut seems to have been right. I see Wetman's already removed the speedy tag from it's talk page. Niteowlneils 01:21, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Light relief

I've just had an email from a friend to inform me that he'd "fixed a typo" on Wikipedia because he "felt it was important" not to have a typo "in an encyclopaedia". Such innocence. I feel like grabbing by his chubby cheek and giving it a shake. I'll have to stop laughing first. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 02:13, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

I think I'm missing something. Like a punchline. Meh :P Darksun 11:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of taking him by his chubby cheek, you could point him to Wikipedia:Cleanup? There's always plenty there for pedants like us to work on. :) - jredmond 15:21, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Every time you fix a typo, a pedant angel gets its wings. Spatch 20:46, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reading deleted articles

(moved from Help:Contents [3])

  • How to read a deleted article as an ordinary user (COULD SOMEONE INCLUDE AN ANSWER TO THIS PLEASE?)
  • If you're not a sysop, the only way to do it is to get a sysop to send you a copy. RickK 05:00, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Which shouldn't be hard. I'll gladly handle requests for this (as I think will most sysops), barring that the reason for deletion was a copyright violation. (If the article is indeed deleted. On the other hand, if you mean accessing an earlier version of an existing article, just use the "History" tab. -- Jmabel 05:07, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC))
I don't believe it is possible. If you have a specific article in mind, I might be willing to help get the contents for you, but I'd rather do it if you register, so I don't have to leave messages for an IP, since there may be a problem with that feature. Or, if you have a specific concern, I could try to help with that. Niteowlneils 05:17, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) Talk

My computer keeps freezing up when I try to view Ferdinand Magellan

A vandal vandalized the Ferdinand Magellan article. Another user reverted the vandalism. When I use the Diff function to see what was reverted, my IE keeps freezing up on me. I have tried about five times, and have even rebooted to check it out but every time I try to look at that article, my computer freezes up. RickK 04:59, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

My guess is that IE just can't handle the formatting on a diff of 717 kilobytes of "die admin wanker". -- Cyrius|✎ 05:10, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I believe Cyrius is correct; I have the same problem and I have observed it before in similar circumstances. Antandrus 05:16, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Improper block

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_archive_2004-09-26&oldid=5596291"