Wikipedia:Village pump archive 2004-09-26

[[da:Wikipedia:Landsbybr%F8nden]]

File:Village pump.JPG

Welcome, newcomers and baffled oldtimers! To facilitate ease of browsing and replying, please:

Place your questions at the bottom of the list
Title the question (by typing == title ==)
Sign your name and date (by typing --~~~~)

Moved discussion

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

NPOV dispute at Talk:Homosexuality and morality
Contents page for wikipedia: -> Wikipedia talk:Utilities

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

Wrapping text around Images in Wiki?

Is there any way in Wiki editing to wrap text around images as you can in HTML? --Niganit 16:02, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Simple, just copy the code from ANA.

Adrian Pingstone 17:37, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

So, that's a "no", then?
(The ANA article uses HTML, not wiki markup, to wrap the text around the image.)
—Paul A 02:00, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No, it's not a NO because I misunderstood your question and I'm not clever enough to answer your actual question. Can anyone else supply an answer?

Adrian Pingstone 09:07, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No, there isn't; you must use HTML for this currently. Ideally there would be some sort of "float right/left" attributed and then the wikitext would generate the appropriate div elements and whatnot, but that's not implemented. See Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Markup for a list of currently suggested HTML templates to use instead. --Delirium 09:10, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)

Wow, that would be nice if that text wraparound code could be added to the new TOC boxes... -- Viajero 20:59, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Better not, or not in every case. Just envision a TOC box on the left, a country or biology box on the right, and inbetween on a small screen a single-word-per-line wrapped text. -- till we *) 21:06, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)

Thank you all so much. It is interesting that I started such a discussion, asking what seemed to be a pretty basic question. I had tried the html mark-up for the IMG tag, but that didn't work. The secret is wrapping with the DIV tag. Thanks again!
--- Niganit 15:24, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)~

Curiosity: software glitch

See Talk:Belladonna lily - Hephaestos 17:45, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Enhance the wikipedia experience

Proposal

Or, rather dully, I've two ideas someone could implement to spread wikipedia:

(1) A little "ask-wikip" tool/script for linux distributions, that from the unix prompt can be asked for wikipedia definitions and gives them or a no such definition if their is no page. Should be like the go-button, but a bit better in regard to uppercase/lowercase (try first the exact text, if this doesn't work, try it with all uppercase first letters, maybe even play a bit with hyphenation). Could get an X interface too, and some command line options for output (html, printable html to PS, pure ascii/using lynx as filter), and even display the wikipedia page in lynx or some other browser, maybe even including the edit functionality.

> ask-wikip --ascii-only "Wikipedia:village pump"
[http://...]
Wikipedia Village Pump

This page is for asking questions. ...
 ((gives the actual text of the Village pump))

> ask-wikip ants

Opens lynx browser pointing to the article about "Ant"

(2) Another idea would be a "go" (or better performace given, even "search") button one could include in ones own website (like the amazon partner programme). So I could have a "Look something up at Wikipedia"-text input field + button on my website. This should be fairly easy and maybe does exist already.

What do you think about these ideas? -- till we *) 12:28, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)

Great idea! Please see the pyWikiAPI. Once it is done I (and others I am sure) will start making programs just like this. So feel free to post your suggestion on the forums there. MB 14:43, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)

I really like the search text-field/button idea. I know I'd include it on my web site! Another tool to think about would be an add-on toolbar for IE. One that Merriam-Webster supplies (http://www.m-w.com) I find invaluable. It docks at the top of IE. Whenever I need to look up a word or synonym, I just type it in there and *BAM* a small window pops up with the info I need. I'd love a similar tool for Wikipedia. :-) —Frecklefoot 14:53, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Brilliant! Something much easier to code than an IE toolbar would be a Sherlock/Mycroft plugin to Mozilla. OTOH, only a few hundred thousand people use Mozilla, but I'm pretty sure that they're rather thickly concentrated on Wikipedia. -Smack 01:00, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, well, well. It seems that a certain Carey Evans made just such a thing - a year and a half ago. Now, children, go download the plugin. -Smack 01:13, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Did a google query, found Carey Evans homepage, but no plugin. And besides, I'd rather have something that could be included in websites, too. :-) -- till we *) 18:28, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)

Don't go to Google; go here. -Smack 22:01, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

To MB: The pyWikiAPI seems to be a bit empty, doesn't it? At least I didn't find any place where I easyly could mention my idea. I see the necessarity for a python (and also PHP) API to access Wikipedia from other sides, but I really can't believe something like that doesn't exist in the moment (could be a simple PHP-variables-in-the-URL-based approach or something with POST/GET-FORMs). -- till we *) 15:12, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)

It would be very nice if I could do the following:

highlight a word on a web page and right click. (Well, anyone can do it.)
I get an option of "look up in Wikipedia"
Upon selecting the option, a new Window opens with the highlighted word.

I have seen similar one for Google in Japanese. Tomos 11:56, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, if you use Mozilla, you can install the aforementioned plugin, which is almost as good. And if you don't use Mozilla, you have only yourself to blame. -Smack 18:02, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Possible Solution

For the second idea I proposed (to include a Wikipedia search or go bar into custom webpages), I found out that a quick look into the sourcecode of Wikipedia generated pages is enough. There you'll find (with the small addition of http://www.wikipedia.org done by me) all that is needed to include a wikipedia search field on custom homepages:

 <form name='search' class='inline' method=get
 action="http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml">
 <input type=text name="search" size=19 value="">
 <input type=submit name="go" value="Go">
 
 </form>

Is it okay to use this? Is there someone who could create a nice (in the result) sniplet of code out of this that could be included anywhere? -- And shouldn't the search function better be really disabled instead of only be commented out? -- till we *) 15:20, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)

((oh, and by the way: Why does the go field (neither this nor the one in wikipedia proper not work, but brings up random pages, when the page doesn't exist ("Student union" brought me to Soviet union as well as Christian Social Union in Bavaria, Student test brought up Student nursery)? -- till we *) 15:25, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)))

More New Imperialism Madness

172 continues to remove the link to New Imperialism (temp) from New Imperialism -- despite his having demanded a vote which then turned out to support the link. Pizza Puzzle

I put the link in after the vote was conclucded. Mav immediately removed it, without explanation. I put it back in again. Then it was gone again... This is lunacy. Pizza Puzzle, feel free to keep on putting it back in if you have the patience. I can't be arsed anymore. CGS 11:11, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC).

Pizza Puzzle

move to user talk:Pizza Puzzle

It is obvious that certain users have become convinced that I am another user against which they hold a grudge. I will be changing my account name so that this is no longer a problem for me. Pizza Puzzle

Hold on a second. Two users can't be registered under the same name, right? So there should be only one Pizza Puzzle - the troll. -Smack 01:05, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Tell Lir that User:The troll isn't taken.

I think User:Vera Cruz is untaken. (I'm not convinced, but you're helping!) Daniel Quinlan 01:25, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)

I hope that the new Lir persona isn't interested in jumbled lists pertaining to New Imperialism! 172 12:11, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Style of dash

Move to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Question on Style. I recieved the following comment on a page I edited: (&am; "#151;" is not a valid HTML entity... it should be & "mdash;" or & "#8212;"). I think & "#151;" is perfectly valid for a "printer's em or em dash" Anyone know why it is not? Also, should not the em be separated by spaces from the rest of the text, since it is NOT an ordinary dash, but a device for redirecting rthouyght within a sentence? Anybody know about this? Marshman 04:47, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In ISO 8859-1 and Unicode, code point 151 is reserved as a control character. It is not an em dash except in Microsoft's proprietary code page extensions, and any program that displays an em-dash for "" is doing so either erroneously or in deliberate emulation of common bugs in Windows. Relying on buggy behavior is not recommended. :) Please use the standard, either — or —. --Brion 05:02, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks I will use — in the future. Coffee-Cup Software HTML Editor inserts "" for an em-dash and it certainly displays that way on browsers. Why the confusion? 24.94.86.252 05:36, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)me not logged inn Marshman 05:38, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

please don't! — looks very ugly in wikisource and some editors may not know what it is. Stick to "--". I know it's ugly, but in future our parser may turn that into mdash automagically. -- Tarquin 12:17, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Does hardly look more ugly than L&uoml;beck.

"--" gets really ugly when broken between lines, " - " would be a better advice.

-- Ruhrjung 12:42, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Benzone

Move to Talk:Benzone (currently empty)

On Wikipedia:Requested_articles there is a request for Benzone. Is this just a misspelling of Benzene, or is it something different that I simply don't know about?

Or it may be a misspelling of benzine? -- Gutza 09:15, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I believe it's genuine: in chemistry you change the suffix of the name to represent different characteristics. For example sorbose - sugar; sorbitol - sugar alcohol, and so on. Dysprosia 09:23, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Benzone is apparently a non-standard name for Phenylbutazone -- Tim Starling 13:59, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)

Vandal Limbo

Please check out my Vandal Limbo proposal at Wikipedia talk:Vandalism in progress (the larger block of text by the end of the article at this moment), and comment on it. I'll move the discussion somewhere else if it sparks some interest, I'd just want to know if you people think it;s a good idea for now. -- Gutza 09:45, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Anchors

I tried using achors with redicects but they dont seem to work properly. I used Kings of England and typed in this for the redirect #REDIRECT [[List of British monarchs#English monarchs]]. When I go to Kings of England page it does not direct me to the section I want, it doees not seem to understand achors. - fonzy

No, obviously doesn't redirect understand anchors, and maybe that's for the best. It's far too easy to change a heading without knowing of any references to that particular heading, and it's surely more important to keep that easy than to make it easier to use anchors. ;->

-- Ruhrjung 19:45, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia Used as a Legal Source

... in the winner of the 2003 Legal Document of the Year. Apparently some kid got disciplined for a fuck laden outburst at school, and he defended himself all the way to the courts. His lawyers used Wikipedia as part of their defence sources. CGS 19:10, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC).

Pruning this article

Move to Wikipedia talk:Village pump

There is a large cache of lines at the top of this article which indicate where previous discussions have been moved. Currently, this article is 55 Kb long, and that makes it difficult for some browsers to edit. Could we move the moved articles section to another article, or to an archive? RickK 19:39, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Pruning the pump (sounds like a euphemism, doesn't it?) is unpopular. I don't know why - it really boosts your number of contributions. The list of items moved can be archived to Wikipedia:Village pump archive, but the latest few should stay. Be bold! CGS 19:46, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC).

Physics main page is empty !

Move to Talk:Physics

Aug 3, 2003 This page looks empty, although, when trying to edit it, there is text in it. Is it a bug ?

Physics is empty? Try refreshing (F5) the page. -- Notheruser 22:54, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Maxwell's equations page is empty too !

Neither page is empty. What browser are you using? -- Notheruser 18:56, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I still see the Maxwell's equations page empty (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations): it returns (There is currently no text in this page) , whatever the browser. Browsers : Opera 7.11, Mozilla Firebird 0.6 and IE 6.0.26

Hmm, I have some questions (hopefully they can help me help you). Are all Wikipedia pages like this? Have you cleared the cache for each browser? Are you using a proxy server? -- Notheruser 08:01, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia on CNN

KEEP A LOOKOUT: There should be a news story airing CNN International Monday morning, Asia-Pacific time about Wikipedia and the class project that my class just finished. The correspondent is Kristy Lu Stout, and should be a Techwatch feature. Will link to the online version when it appears. - Fuzheado 03:56, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I miss Search!

Oops, just created a duplicate article for film director Costa-Gavras. Using the Go button on Costa-Gavras only returned Costa-Rica, so I started a fresh article. Just I discovered he already exists, as Constantin Costa-Gavras. :-(((

Sigh...

I will have to get used to using Google to check these things... Until Search is restored (soon???)... -- Viajero 10:25, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's a bummer, but if search was enabled, you could not use the site at all right now.—Eloquence 10:29, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)

Never mind, I merged Constantin Costa-Gavras into Costa-Gavras. I hope this doesn't seem controversial. He is known primarily by Costa-Gavras; moreover his real name is Constantino Gavras.

-- Viajero 10:56, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Why not try with:
http://www.google.com/custom?domains=wikipedia.org;1911encyclopedia.org&sitesearch=wikipedia.org or something similar in your favorite list?
-- Ruhrjung 14:37, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

How to make my computer a Wikipedia copy?

I want to make my computer a Wikipedia platform so that I can browse and work offline, but I don't know much about programming, I tried several times to install the PHP, but failed. (It doesn't work! I did everything accroding to the instrument, but the source file just as what it is in .php, I am using Windows XP English edition + IE 6.0). Could anyone help me how to make that work? So that I can just edit articles offline as I do online in the Wikipedia? Or is there any software offering WYCIWYG platform? Thanks! (please leave messages in my talk page, thank you!). --Samuel 13:23, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There's a Mozilla plugin called Spiderzilla that may be able to do the trick. ([1])

Better yet, http://download.wikipedia.org offers the entire database in two archives and it won't kill the server with thousands of connection requests. -- Notheruser 22:22, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Samuel already knows about database downloads, but is having trouble installing the entire Wikipedia suite, which is required in order to view them. That's hardly surprising. I think meta:WINOR is what you're looking for. Its existence hasn't really been publicised, and I haven't tried it myself, so I don't know if it's any good. But according to the blurb, it does what you want. -- Tim Starling 01:18, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

Thank you, but the WINOR link is a dead link, i can't download from there. besides, it took me more than 5 hours to convert the sql files into TomeRaider (en version), but it still didn't finished, i had to just cancel the process. --Samuel 03:37, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's been like that for a while. Email Magnus Manske and ask him to fix it. -- Tim Starling 01:10, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

Legal liability of distributing First Aid page?

I would like to copy the main part of the First Aid page and distribute in on Palm handhelds (might save a life!). But then I got worried about getting sued. While the stuff seems correct, I'm no medical expert. What are the legal liabilities here? Should I include a disclaimer? How can I word the disclaimer so that it doesn't undermine the credibilty of the content? --Zipdude 01:00, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

NPOV for death years in date pages

It's not a massively important thing, but "date" pages (eg. April 1) have a + indicating the year of someone's death. Surely that's Christian and not neutral? :) -- TY. 04:00, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

And I thought it was derived from the look in the eyes of dead comic book characters.

 (+) (+)
    o
  _---_

—Eloquence 03:18, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

Sillyness aside, it does not represent a Christian cross; the + is a shorthand for a dagger symbol †, but some browsers still can't display daggers so we mostly use the plus sign. --mav 03:28, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The dagger looks, if anything, even more like a Christian cross than the + does, and dagger (typography) explicitly states that it is used as a symbol for death date because of that resemblance. So TY's question still needs to be addressed. —Paul A 03:48, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It looks confusing either way. It doesn't get its intended meaning across to some people. I've got some Wikipedians asking about that on the Chinese WP. And more confusingly so, its opposite: (- 1943), intended to be birthyear. --Menchi 03:32, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

Then replace it with "died" - that seems reasonable enough to me. --mav

Or "d." for short would be better. --Jiang

I think in this case, we should use "died" or something similarly obvious as + or † is not clear. However, if we start stamping out any phrase originating to Christianity, it will get really silly and really annoying before too long due to the pervasive influence of Christianity on the English language. We should just stick to trying to communicate clearly and not be politically correct about where words came from. Daniel Quinlan 04:16, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. The most important thing here is to be clear; + † and even d. are less clear than died. --mav

The old slippery-slope argument, I see. I think that we can expect ourselves to have sufficiently good judgment to curb the annoying silliness when we get that far. In the meantime, using d., died or even deceased instead of a profoundly Christian symbol wouldn't hurt, and neither would changing BC to BCE. -Smack 06:55, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I always thought the plus sign just meant "also" or something. You are looking at the year of their birth and it says "and they also died in (whatever year). As a lapsed Catholic who sometimes finds the pervasiveness of Christianity pretty annoying, I must say it didn't even "cross" my mind that it was supposed to be either a cross or a dagger. Oh well...I would think "died" or "d." would still be better anyway. Adam Bishop 04:30, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] and printable version

Hello, just wanted to mention that the [edit] links (to edit sections instead of the whole page) needs to be removed from the printable versions. Thanks. --Astudent 06:16, 2003 Aug 4 (UTC)

CNN Piece on Wikipedia

As promised, CNN International Tech Watch aired a segment this morning on the Wikipedia and our student project. See CNN TechWatch videos for a streaming video of the segment. -- Fuzheado 05:34, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Bring over to Wikipedia:Press coverage. --Jiang

Consider it done. - Fuzheado 06:29, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I love that video! It's short, but it captures the anxiety of newcomers, as well as our proud aspects. The download link is here, for those who wanna see our public appearance again and again. Or just want to stare at Kristie's beautiful face. Either way, it's a great clip! Thanks to Fuzheado! I'm looking forward to the day of a one-hour documentary on Wikipedia. ;-) --Menchi 05:49, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

It's actually quite funny (scary) because when they came to film the segment, that was the exact time (to the hour!) that they had the massive downtime of Wikipedia (Monday noon HK time, and Sunday night US time). I was panicked because they couldn't do any screen shots of students working on the 'pedia. Fortunately, they were able to get on later, but not nearly as much demonstration as I'd have liked. - Fuzheado 06:29, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That is very embarrassing. I remember other Wikipedians showed their dismay that when "showing off" WP to their friends, WP was down or snail-slow. So the threat of newbies finding us unappealing has always been there because of those technical problem. Now this semi-formal demostration met the down and has cost us some good screeshots -- the number of which I did find a bit lacking in the clip. Something needs to be done about the slowdowns and complete downs if we were to compete with Encarta Encyclopedia (we've beaten Britannica.com already!). --Menchi 07:28, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

Get your credit cards ready, it won't be long now. -- Tim Starling 07:46, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

In the interview, what did Abbie and Olivia say while they chuckle? Something "fake thin sunglasses... nerdy"? It's after Professor Lih explains the "shallow bug" motto, and Kristie says "a concensus develops... a single takes on the world seems rude". Somebody is asking me about this clip on the Chinese WP, and I've listened to that part six times and still couldn't get it. --Menchi 01:00, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

If it's the bit I think you're talking about, they mention that the Wikipedia's take on the world seems to have "thick glasses" -- it's "fairly nerdy". That's entirely unfair ... I, for one, wear contacts :) --Robert Merkel 03:50, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

#ifdef HETEROSEXIST_PIG_MODE

As for the Wikipedia mascot, I don't think we need to search any further - Ms. Stout is obviously the standout candidate ;) --Robert Merkel 03:50, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

#endif

Main Page Appearance

Does the main page look like this on other browsers?

File:User;Cyp⁄Main page.jpg Ксйп Cyp 18:46, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Are you referring to the new layout? If you are, apparently there was a "vote" on it (which I was unaware of, myself). -- Notheruser 18:50, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I misinterperated the vote on dynamic content, thinking that the majority, which was in favor of adding dynamic content, wanted to use Temp5. The IE display bug for some reason doesn't affect me.LDan 16:30, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I was thinking of the text on the right, which isn't visible without scrolling to the right. Ксйп Cyp 18:54, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Seems to have been reverted. Perhaps the problem was it was too big for 800x600? Was that your resolution? Evercat 19:05, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Actually, slightly higher resolution, 1280x1024. (If I go higher than x1024, the refresh rate drops to 75Hz or worse, which looks horrible.) No matter how big or small I made the window, the main page scaled to be just the right amount too wide. (Extra width of page seemed to be the width of the wikipedia bar on the left.) Ксйп Cyp 20:24, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Having said that, Main_Page/Temp5 seems OK even in smaller windows. What browser were you using? Evercat 19:07, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I had the same problem. I'm using IE with a resolution of 960x720 and the edge of the page is cut off for me on both the temp page and the main page. - SimonP 19:31, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

Using Internet Exploiter, too. (Version 5.00.3502.1000/SP3.) Ксйп Cyp 20:24, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That's an IE bug. It can be fixed. -- Tarquin 20:26, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks like the chopped-off part is about the width of the quickbar. How does it look if you turn off the quickbar in your preferences? -- Merphant 22:53, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It looks fine, there is just a smidgen of scrolling room without the quickbar. But I also don't think abandoning the quick bar is a viable solution. - SimonP 01:25, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

No, of course not; I was trying to determine the problem, since it looks fine on Mozilla. I was thinking that the width of the table is "100%", and that IE might not include the width of the quickbar in that figure. The layout has changed a little, btw. Does it still go off the page? -- Merphant 01:48, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's no change. - SimonP 02:01, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

How about now? Followup to Talk:Main Page/Temp5. -- Merphant 02:09, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Great job, it looks perfect now. - SimonP 12:05, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

TOC placement: Topmost or post-intro

Anon 209 has recently been given a number of medical articles, such as Aortic dissection, subheadings. This created TOCs. That's good. But the Anon also move the introductory paragraphs to be under the first section, "Definition". This made the TOCs to be the first things in the articles (unlike, say the Pump here).

But isn't the intros always assumed to be "good definitions"? Should we keep the intro as a preamble or not?
--Menchi 06:40, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)

Please see also for instance History of Germany, where Wai-Shun Cheung systematically have reached a similar effect.
-- Ruhrjung 07:25, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

yuck. An article starts with a definition, by definition! reverting/. -- Tarquin 08:38, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It does mean exactly this until some __TOCHERE__ something or other wiki markup is included in the wiki markup language, which isn't the case yet. -- till we *) 19:34, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)

Location of Table of Contents

See Maya civilization. Should the table of contents really be located so many paragraphs down into the article? Does the location of the table of contents mean that we're going to have to start putting in an ==Introduction== header in every article to force the table of contents to the top? RickK 19:30, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Scroll this page up a bit. CGS 19:33, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC).

#TOC placement: Topmost or post-intro. --Menchi 19:43, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)

Ambitious 142.177.12.12

Someone with experience of this wikipedia project might want to look at http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=142.177.12.12

The user seem to be rather well versed in NPOV and wikipedia lingo. My first impression, particularly based on the democracy article, is however not quite positive. Inbetween additions and edits which I'm not competent to judge, there are also changes which I from my perspective find outrigh wrong (possibly advocating the writer's particular POV?) although presented with the cocksureness of a 21-years old who is sure he knows absolutely everything worth to know about the topic.

It's time to go to bed in our part of the world, why I think it's better if someone else take a look at this.

Good night!
-- Ruhrjung 23:51, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

TOC placement revisited

Why is the system putting TOC's in the middle of articles? I understand that it has been instructed to place them before the first subtitle. But in many cases, that is well into an article. I have started putting subtitles at the beginnings of articles, new and extant, but that will take far too long. Is there some way of changing the instructions so yhis dosn't have to be done manualy? mydogategodshat 05:39, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Why is it that people who post comments on the Village Pump never read comments that have been posted on the Village Pump before they post comments on the Village Pump? —Eloquence

I did read the previous discussion. It did not answer my question of whether it was possible to automatically put the table of contents where it belongs, or whether this will have to be done manually? mydogategodshat 05:54, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Then I do not understand your question. The TOC is deliberately placed before the first section heading and not on top, because articles should have a short introductory paragraph (or two) before the table of contents. To prevent it from showing up in the middle, add a new heading, but not on top, but after the intro. —Eloquence 05:59, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

I see. It seems that a decision has been made to put the table of contents in the body of the article. I think that is a mistake; the table of contents no more belongs in the middle of a body of writing, than a title page belongs there. But this is not my decision to make.mydogategodshat 06:08, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Opinions can certainly differ on the matter. If you consider it important, feel free to start a vote on the subject.—Eloquence 06:16, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

The workaround is to put a header right before the first sentence of the article, maybe something like ==Definition==. That isn't regared as good practice currently, but will give the TOC placement before the article starts. -- till we *) 10:56, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

Don't tell anybody that you are doing this. When I did it. adminsitrators systematically reverted the TOC back to the middle of the articles by deleting the headings. mydogategodshat 23:14, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

floating the TOC might be nice, but it could interfere with tables in the article -- Tarquin 09:41, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I have nothing to say regarding vertical placement, but I do believe that TOC's should be centered. -Smack 22:03, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Chemical Page

The wikipedia chemical page contained a good dictionary definition (formatted as such)), and accordingly I have moved it to wiktionary, which lacked such a definition. However, what do I do with the Wikipedia page? I have left it for the moment with a notice, but obviously this should be removed as soon as possible. Tompagenet 11:33, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Links to non-existing wiki-pages

I've got a question: I made some edits to a page: Gambit and now Harris7 removed some links to non-existing pages like Staunton, calling them "stub links". I wonder: I thought it is good to make links to non existing pages (If I think the subject needs a page), so other people can click and start with the page. Or should I just link to existing pages?

You can certainly add more links to non-existing page that are sometimes not added to the list of Wikipedia:Requested articles. More exposure they get, more chances a knowledgeable wikipedian would make them new articles. kt2 16:45, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Links to non-existing pages are generally fine, if an article is likely to be written. I don't know why Harris7 did remove these links. You should probably ask him. -- Cordyph 16:49, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

My interpretation, given "stub links", is that Harris7 felt that the potential articles would never be more than stubs even if they did exist. But that's just a guess; you'd have to ask Harris7. —Paul A 16:52, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've put the links back (and added a few). I think they were fine - it's perfectly possible to write very lengthy articles about these gambits (entire books have been written about them). Note though that the link should be to Staunton Gambit, not just Staunton (which implies Howard Staunton). --Camembert

What's happened to the box

I've just noticed (maybe I'm a bit slow) that the scrolling box which used to be in the top left of the screen (the one where you could access long pages etc) is missing. When and why did this happen. G-Man 17:58, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This was part of the last software update. Unfortunately, the combobox interfered with correct display of the Standard Skin on some browsers. Fear not, however, as the functions you seek are easily available through the "Special pages" link in the sidebar.—Eloquence 20:25, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

Simple.wikipedia.com

There are some new pages that just consist of links to entries at simple.wikipedia.com, and those entries in turn are short dictionary entries, not encyclopedic. Did I miss something, or is it cool to delete them? (These items include 109-byte or so articles on New and Principle.) I'm used to actual articles that also point to other Wikipedias, but these have nothing except a boilerplate redirect.Vicki Rosenzweig 18:58, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an authority or a sysop, but I'd say go ahead and delete them. Our entries aren't supposed to just be links to other resources. However, I think links to Wiktionary for entries would be cool, but with a small icon instead of a text link. But that is another issue. Yeah, delete them IMHO. —Frecklefoot 19:17, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm disappointed with simple.wikipedia.com, in practice. I thought that the idea was to write the articles more simply. It appears that what's happening is simply a re-write without reference to the solutions to POV problems that have been addressed here. Maybe it's just my day to be grouchy. Mkmcconn 21:44, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A bit disappointed at the slant of Wikipedia and lack of dialogue

Since we're airing disappointments, here are mine: I've been contributing to Wikipedia for about 6-8 months now, and a few questions have been nagging at me and just won't go away. I love the idea of Wikipedia, and the reality seems exciting so far in many respects. Yet some facets of the experience and the product bother me, to the point where I consider them problems to be actively corrected. These swirling disappointments may be summed up as:

Wikipedia content seems to be slanted way off into a geekish, fantasy-game obsessed, gadget-implanted, male, US, Grammy Award watching space, and
I'm trying to add content that seems widely useful or where I have some expertise. I expected my work to be edited, but not to be so fully ignored. (sniff) The experience is very one-sided - I appear to be the only one talking on most of these topics. So where is all the correction, additions, refining and enhancement to come from?

I understand the Wikipedian credo to be that such problems (and all problems?)will self-correct with time and participation by users. Does the Wikipedia experience, objectively viewed and evaluated by data, bear out this belief? Are the issues I describe problems? If so, is there any way to correct them other than waiting for improvement?

User:NuclearWinner 5 Aug 2003

I agree with you on the slant. Just look at all the Harry Potter articles created in the last few days! As for your articles: no edits in the wikiworld usually means people approve! You might want to indoctrinate friends who also know the subject into wikipedia -- Tarquin 23:05, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The slant is a problem, particularly when video-game characters become featured articles (as one did a few days ago). As regards the lack of editing, any given Wikipedian is probably only knowledgeable enough to write on 4% or 5% of the articles we have. You just can't expect the odd knowledgeable person to come upon one of your contributions, and (as Tarquin said) disagree with it and edit it. -- Smack

Many of the U.S. city articles have not been added to, although many have. Yet over time people will add more of cities from other towns in the world. In fact there are a number of Wikiprojects created to do just that. This bias has diminished with the gradual increase of new wikipedians and the addition of new articles. The 'pedia is not as biased towards U.S. cities as it was 6 months ago and it will continue to get better. I've edited articles that I know nothing about, but it just takes time I guess. -- Ram-Man 23:29, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

Special:Wantedpages

I recognize the fact that regeneration of this page causes lag, but would it be possible to update the links, so that pages that have since been created are displayed as such? -Smack 23:32, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)