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 Patrick (talk | contribs) at 12:28, 6 September 2003. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

[[da:Wikipedia:Landsbybr%F8nden]]

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

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

File:Village pump yellow.png

Welcome, newcomers and baffled oldtimers! This is where Wikipedians raise and try to answer Wikipedia-related questions and concerns regarding technical issues, policies, and operation in our community. However:

  • To raise a bug report, or suggest a feature, see bug reports.
  • To request peer review of an article you've written, see Wikipedia:Peer review
  • If you have other questions about anything else in the Universe or life, try Reference desk.

To facilitate ease of browsing and replying, please:

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

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

Moved discussion

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


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


GFDL issues when moving between Wikipedias

move to wikipedia talk:copyrights

If I am moving stuff from here to the Simple English Wikipedia, are there any issues involved in the fact that I am not copying the history of the original? Is it ok just to state in the edit summary that this is from en: or wherever? Angela

IANAL. You should behave as we ask all our other sub-licensees to behave - add a comment that "an earlier version (LINK) of this article was published on Wikipedia on DATE", on the page itself. Assuming that all those words are simple enough... ;-) Martin 22:43, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Is there any reason it needs to be any different to moving info between pages within en:. If half the info at somewhere was more appropriate at somewhere else, you would copy it over without stating that the info had previously exisited at somewhere. The new page will usually be fairly different anyway as it's being simplified. Angela
It's about the same, but I don't think moving within Wikipedia is technically in compliance with the GFDL either. If we can move stuff around without preserving history, then anyone can just copy our stuff without providing a citation to us as well, which we'd like not to allow. --Delirium 02:18, Aug 24, 2003 (UTC)
There is an argument to be made (which may not be determinative) for a non-exclusive license being given to Wikipedia when someone submits it, i.e. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here" is actually a different license than the GNU FDL which is what Wikipedia is releasing the material under. Under such argument, copying between pages (or projects) would be allowable as all subsequent editors are given the right, not only to copyedit (which is what would conserve copyright between versions) but actually change it, thus everyone who does a substantial edit on a page is a co-author of that page, and co-authors can modify each others work; and as the US does not have any moral rights protection regarding attribution, i.e., it really does not matter what happens once someone submits work to Wikipedia wihtin Wikipedia, the work can be completely changed, blanked, reverted, etc.. However, by cross-attributing between pages one is showing respect and acknowledging the contribution of other Wikipedians, and, if someone is releasing the material to Wikipedia from another GFDL source then attribution histories should definitely be cross-linked as suggested above, IMHO. Alex756 15:11, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

www.4reference.net

deleted - current status is at Wikipedia:Sites_that_use_Wikipedia_for_content

Mailing list access

move to wikipedia talk:mailing lists

I am trying to post to the mailing list using the news gateway. It doesn't work. Shouldn't it? I do not have a suitable e-mail address to use for participation via e-mail. Kat

Get a free mailbox from Yahoo or Hotmail. After signing up, for Hotmail, go to Option -> Mailing Lists -> add [email protected] and/or [email protected] . Then you can send and receive. --Menchi 22:22, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)

Communication with developers

move to wikipedia talk:bug reports? wikipedia talk:developers?

Hi, from the moved list above:

As everbody knows, wikipedia bug reports is a reference to the SourceForge, in other words: "if you don't get a SourceForge account and put your feature requests there, nobody will see them". It's not the first time. I really have a problem with that attitude -- Wikipedia is a community, and I really would like to see a place inside Wikipedia where the community and the developers can communicate. I'd like to know if I'm the only one who is frustrated by this attitude, or if there are others ... -- till we *) 23:33, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)

...I think, this serves as some kind of "filter". If someone has a really burning issue, he will poste it to SourceForge, otherwise it is not important enough. So the developer get only the "real important" issues. I also would like a more Wikipedia-centric approach (same for MAilinglists), but it is the current way it works. Don't get frustrated by this. If you have a really good Idea how to improve this situation, please start with it. But filters are not always just bad ;-) Fantasy 14:04, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
PS:I also have a big list of improvements for Wikipedia listed on my page, and for months already I think "one day I will post them on SourceForge"... one day or another... ;-)
I think we should submit bug reports and feature requests in the manner that the developers wish us to submit them, out of sheer gratitude for all the hard work they put in, developing Wikipedia. Currently that's SourceForge, and not the village pump. Martin 11:57, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Flags and Coats of Arms

Can graphic representations of Flags and Coats of Arms be copyrighted? It seems a bit strange to me - but if the answer is yes, does someone know where one could find ones that are in the public domain? Sandman 08:38, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

While national flags at least are NOT restricted in such a way (I don't know one way or another about coats of arms, but most are too old to be still under copyright), legally a particular DEPICTION of either can be copyrighted as a derived work. Can't help with the public domain versions, sorry --Morven 18:39, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I have a vague impression that CIA World Factbook has them. And Images used in Wikipedia are from there. I could be wrong, though. Tomos 13:06, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Some coats of arms are covered under specific legislation to prevent them from being used without the permission of the government in question; for example I had to get special permission from the government to reproduce the Coat of Arms of Saskatchewan. - Montréalais 15:26, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Death to software patents!

Can you guys do something with http://swpat.ffii.org/group/demo/ or would it violate the neutrality of Wikipedia? -- 212.127.214.105 00:29, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

  • See the thread on the Wikipedia-L mailing list [1]. Jimbo said "While I'm sympathetic to the cause, I'm not really comfortable with Wikipedia per se taking part in a political act..."
Can it at least be (neutrally) mentioned on the main page as a "current event"? -- 212.127.214.105 01:31, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
There would have to be an article about it first. Something more specific than just the article on Software patent I think. A
I think software patent is just great; it's got lots of background on the subject, and that's what an encyclopedia is for. You hear about the present protests all over, and look up what it's all about on Wikipedia! :) I've put in the link. --Brion 01:43, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)~

We can still make an individual statement by putting messages on our user pages. -- Tim Starling 03:43, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Can't find the article I wrote - and saved. HELP!

It's Rose O'Neal Greenhow. See Wikipedia:Searching

Wikipedia's database schema

deleted - feature request - see wikipedia:bug reports

Search Engine

deleted - answered at wikipedia:searching

For/against ordering

move to wikipedia talk:establish context

I'd like to propose a new addition to the Wikipedia style, and I'm not sure where else to suggest it. What I would like to see is a guideline that in any article, if there is more then one point of view, descriptions of the article subject come first, and arguments against it come later. So when I went to an article on Global Warming, say, I got a description of Global Warming first and objections to it later. Likewise when I go to Creationism I should find out what creationists believe first, and only then any reasons why people might think they are wrong. DJ Clayworth 20:49, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Apart from the fairness issues, it makes the article more comprehensible, as it's rather difficult to contextualize arguments against a position without first having explained the position. In fact, this is my major complaint with the reverse ordering some articles currently have -- they seem to present the arguments as if they're talking to someone who already is familiar with the subject, and I have to read further to find out what it was they were actually talking about. On the other hand, if it's a controversial topic, the intro should mention this; it's just the specific objections that should be left for later in the article, not the fact that there are objections in the first place. --Delirium 20:58, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)
Has some overlap with Wikipedia:Village_pump#Stating_the_basics. See above. Angela

'Classroom-like' English literature question

I asked the contributor of Death of a Salesman to modified the "Themes and Points of Interest" so that it's more encyclopedic. But when he asks how it can be so, I'm not sure! I mean, the questions are valid: "Why? Do the Loman men have a tragic flaw? What could it be?" -- But I don't think encyclopedia should asks its reader like an English-class teacher asks his/her students (although this may not be the contributor's intent). Those are general questions that can asked of most tragedies.

Should we just provided some possible analysis? Or should we remove those question-sentences? Or should we convert those questions into statements, somehow? --Menchi 21:05, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)
Seems simple enough in principle: instead of asking questions, give the answers. (But perhaps I only think that because I'm not familiar with the play.) —Paul A 00:57, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The problem is that they're not questions that have a "right" answer - as with most studies of humanities, for each question there are many interpretations. --Alex S 02:16, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
So make the section bigger, and describe the different interpretations. —Paul A 02:50, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Help with Photoshop and PNGs

wikipedia:graphics tutorials?

Wondering if some helpful party could aid me in resolving a problem I have - I assume it's with Adobe Photoshop, which I use in making PNGs for use here on Wikipedia. They always turn out much, much darker than they appear in the program. Check the history of Image:mtl-metro-map.png - to create an acceptable image I finally had to bombastically lighten the original image in Photoshop. This happens whether I save it in RGB mode or indexed colour mode. Is there a way to ensure that the colours in the file are the same as the colours I see when using the program? - Montréalais 20:10, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)


is it only PNGs? P-shop has its own gamma correction -- check that. -- Tarquin 20:21, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Montrealais: what browser are you using? Some have broken gamma correction in their display engines. --Brion 21:35, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
IE 5.5. Does the image look too light on some other browser? And (at least out of the formats I use) it's only PNGs as far as I know - all the GIFs I created for my website look fine. - Montréalais 23:44, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The first three versions are too dark, the last two are fine (I use IE 6). The only parts that could be even lighter (not the whole thing) are the small words to the right to the blue signs with white rectangles and an up-arrows in them. Like the lower-left one that says: "TRAIN DE BRAMIUE MONTRÉAL DELSON"(?) --Menchi 23:56, Aug 28, 2003 (UTC)
Try fiddling with the color settings in Photoshop. On my Mac at work w/ ps 7 I loaded the (older version) of the file, saw it looked fine, went into the Color Settings (in the apple menu on OSX; probably under File on Windows) and switched the 'Working Spaces' / 'RGB' to 'ColorSync RGB - Generic RGB Profile', and resaved. The resaved file looks great in Safari and Mozilla, at least for me... but I don't know how reliable this is. --Brion
Alternatively, try resaving the files from the Gimp. --Brion 00:07, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I noticed a problem with photoshop's png module also -- depending on how its displayed, it can even be chopped to bits (AcDsee) - with browsers, the transparency quality is inferior to that of the Gimp. Maybe try something like this (I havent tried it yet) http://www.freephotoshop.com/html/png.html -戴&#30505sv 00:22, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)
I'll experiment with that later. Thanks so much for the help, folks :) - Montréalais 04:33, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Problem with a protected page

Can a sysop unprotect the page Wikipedia:Most wanted articles please. There is a formatting problem with it, which causes the html to show up, and I need to remove a page that I have started. Thanks. --Lypheklub 03:41, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

See wikipedia:protected page or Wikipedia talk:Most wanted articles for why this is protected. Lypheklub - you want Special:Wantedpages. Martin 08:48, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The Afonsos of Portugal

I'm redirecting the Alphonsos and Alfonsos to Afonso – the proper Portuguese spelling. Because: This Wikipedia is in English - Alfonso is Spanish and Alphonso old Spanish - Since neither is in English, the correct spelling is preferred because Portuguese is as good as language as Spanish - The Spanish kings are left as Alfonso - In this way, I think, everything is covered
Any objection, please mention it in my talk page. Cheers Muriel Gottrop 08:47, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

my past contributions

Hello, I have entered the original entry for ITOCHU but I forgot to login, would it be possible to change to original entry from '134.32.130.113' to 'jburati' so I can keep track of my contributions? 

Jburati
Here you can see contributions by this IP Address:

http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=134.32.130.113

If you put this pages on your watchlist, you can always check if this pages are changed. Hope this helps ;-) Fantasy 08:34, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Please edit User talk:Tim Starling using that IP address or a similar one, without logging in, to confirm that you are actually the same person. Was the Julius Hoffman edit you as well? -- Tim Starling 07:55, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Spanish municipality naming format

Please weigh in with your opinions (City, Province vs. City) at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names)/Spain. - Montréalais 03:12, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Redirect problem

Is there a problem with the Redirect in the Systems of zoological classification article? When I use the 'Diff' function on the page history, its shows that a "redirect" was added to Scientific classification. Great. But it doesn't seem to be working. Each time I click on the article I see the previous version; the one without the redirect, showing the full text. What is going on? RK 22:25, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Works for me, so probably a cache issue. Try shift-reload. --Delirium 22:29, Aug 31, 2003 (UTC)

Why don't we have a Nazi swastika?

request added to Wikipedia:Requested pictures

Partnership with Miwiki for yours Wikipedia logos

"Miwiki the ant" is an artwork of french workgroup to design a Wikipedia mascot and submit a logo with it (n°132).

m:International logos (126-150)

But, like Anthere (logo n°17) or Paullus (n°4), you can use Miwiki the ant mascot to make a variant of your logo.

m:International logos (1-25)

Just take picture on this pages :

m:Wikipedia mascot

m:User:Oliezekat/Miwiki logo 5

FrWikipedia:Utilisateur:Oliezekat/Miwiki (in french with several colors)

Or contact me to design myself special picture for your logo variant : Oliezekat

Creating disambiguation pages

When someone replaces an existing page with a disambiguation page, they should make sure to follow the directions in Wikipedia:Disambiguation:

Before creating a disambiguation page, click on "What links here" to find all the pages that link to the page you are about to change. Make sure those pages are fixed or that they won't be adversely affected before you do the split.

Also (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong), the old page should be moved to the new name, instead of just moving the text - that way the edit history goes with it. If a duplicate page already exists at the destination (because someone created it not realizing that the other page already existed), you'll need to get an admin to help you, by using the procedure outlined here.

Now that I'm done saying that, can someone more expert than me help with sorting out the edit histories on ITS and Incompatible Timesharing System? Thanks... Noel 22:53, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've had a go. Incompatible Timesharing System now has a full history, but ITS has none. It looks like I created the page. Is this ok or is there a way to keep the history of both of them? Angela 16:52, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Alas, I think it's going to take some major wizardy (i.e. above and beyond the procedure I referenced above) to sort this out, since the edit histories of the two different pages (the disambig page ITS, and the OS page Incompatible Timesharing System) were mixed together (originally on the disambig page, now on the OS page), due to the error on the part of the person who set up the disambig page (who didn't follow the guidelines reproduced above).
If anyone can grovel directly, the following versions of the OS page are for the disambig page:
and belong in its edit history; the rest are for the OS and can stay where they are. Noel 17:26, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
If you want to swap two pages but maintain the edit history of both pages, you can do it by using a temporary third page. i.e. If you want to swap A and B.
  1. move A to C (a newly created page)
  2. delete A, (which is a redirect to C)
  3. move B to A
  4. delete B (which is a redirect to A)
  5. move C to B
  6. delete C (which is a redirect to B)
Mintguy
That doesn't solve the problem that only one of them has an edit history currently. The Incompatible Timesharing System has the edit history of both documents, whereas ITS has no edit history. I just did the move A to B to C thing before realising this. :) Angela
Can you create a copy of Inc Timesh Sys somehow, and then paste the text of ITS into it as a standard edit? CGS 18:19, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC).
If I'm understanding you properly, that's basically what the person who did the original (incorrect) creation of the disambig page did, and it left the edit history of the OS page on the disambig page. Noel 18:24, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Looks like you've merged page histories. That can't be undone except by a developer. Add an appropriate explanation and author credits to the talk page of both pages. Martin 10:04, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

move to wikipedia talk:disambiguation

I've noticed that there are pages on Wikipedia that are articles that include, sometimes at the top, but usually way down at the bottom, alternative "definitions" of the article name. These pages are not disambiguation pages because the common use of the word is overwhelmingly the one most people would be seeking. Nonetheless, the alternative word use, separated by a 4-dash line, is sometimes completely lost below the main article. Some Wikipedians solve this problem by putting a one line link to the alternative at the very top, but this is a distraction. I've set up a sidebar box under Elm as a proposed alternative for these situations. As long as the alternatives link out (do not expand on page into another article), this would seem to separate the links from the article text while affording them a bit more visibility. Any comments? - Marshman 18:42, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It's fine in IE6, but the whole page is squashed up in Mozilla. It seems to work in both if you put the table in a div. Angela 19:08, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

<div style="float:right; padding:10px;"><table style="float:right" border="2" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3"> <tr> <td>'''Elm''' is also a text-based [[E-mail]] client. See [[Elm email client]]. </td> </tr> </table></div>

Thanks Angela. Someone fixed it so -- Marshman
That was me doing a dodgy logged in and logged out at the same time. :) Angela

Move in discussion from my talk page on this subject. I can move it all back later; but better exposure/participation here I think

sorry but the floating sidebar on elm is no good -- most screens are simply not wide enough to support it. -- Tarquin 18:53, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I realize that I have a high resolution screen and therefore will not encounter that problem. But how does the other sidebar on that page not cause an identical problem? The sidebar I suggest (as presented at Elm) is right justified and will expand as far left as needed to accomodate text. Use of <BR> can control that to keep it from filling across screen. - Marshman 19:00, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


it's best to use tables as little as possible; as for the line, I don't really see how right-aligning it is any better. It's only an extra formatting convention we would now have to replicate throughout wikipedia, and it's ugly markup that confuses the novce editor. Simple is best, in my opinion -- Tarquin 19:16, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
If we do not use table formatting as you suggest, I think a standard <DIV> "right" format with bullets or similar at the top would still be preferable to the current practice of dividing lines and bottom billing for these minor alternatives. Of course a disambiguation page is a better solution, but obviously needs to be used only where there is a clear need to split articles. The problem with the bottom billing once the lead artyicle gets large is that a person looking for the minor word use is not going to scroll down through the text he is not interested in (human nature). - Marshman 19:36, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I agree that bottom billing is no good, but I think right-align is needless clutter -- Tarquin 19:42, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
At least in IE6, if you have the standard wikipedia sidebar set to right hand side, it overlays the "disambiguation sidebar", no matter what the window width is. This is very ugly. DrBob 23:22, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
How about this? Why not use colour for a change? CGS 20:48, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC).
Hmmmm. I can see (in edit) you added gray, but does not look like anything different in my IE6. I'm trying to run a line between having the "secondary" or minor term be right up front (a distraction for most users) and being hidden on the bottom (unnoticeable by the few actually looking for it). At present only top-mounted side-bar box or similar shifted right seems suitable, despite Tarquin objection that this complicates formatting. Eliminating the box simplies formatting a bit, and maybe color is an answer. But shifting right seems necessary to get it separated from main text. - Marshman 22:48, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The English spelling of grey was used which seems to be accepted by Mozilla but ignored by IE. I changed it to #C0C0C0 which will be recognised by both. This might be a bit too light though. Angela 22:58, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It is needless HTML clutter for no good reason. please remove it -- Tarquin 23:14, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Tarquin. Please avoid HTML whenever possible until we have a template system, it makes pages harder to edit for newbies.—Eloquence 00:10, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

At the bottom is not hidden, hence not a problem, as long as it is in the TOC. - Patrick 00:16, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I'd prefer it at the top. It's clear enough why it is there that it is not going to confuse people wanting info on trees. Not all pages that this applies to have a TOC and a quick glimpse at the article would suggest that it is about trees so people aren't going to scroll down just in case there is an unrelated topic at the bottom. I agree with Tarquin and Eloquence about the HTML issue. It's more trouble than it's worth. Angela 00:24, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

(Not) signing articles

I can not find the discussion about signing articles (this is almost wikipedia prehistory). Can somebody point it out to me? or was it discussed in the mailing list? thanks --AstroNomer 19:37, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Signing Articles...? Why would you like to sign an article. The history tells who added what. If you discuss something, you sign it. Is it that, what you mean? Fantasy 21:16, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No, it's not what I meant. When wikipedia was young, there was every now and then somebody that wanted to put "author:Such and Such" at the end of the article itself. That was strongly discuraged, and signatures removed almost immediately, but I don't remember if there was and encyclica by pope Larry I, or a discussion in the list about that. If it is in wikipedia, must be buried in some long forgotten page. I was just hoping that somebody would remember.--AstroNomer 21:26, Sep 3, 2003 (UTC)

There can be 100 or 1000 Authors for one article, so I can't imagine that there was ever a realistic discussion about putting all Authors in an Article... (IMHO) :-) Fantasy 06:23, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Hmm. What about the concept of crediting sources. That is recommended, I believe? The 1911 Britannica is consistently credited, as are many other public domain sources. If someone releases a thesis say into the public domain with the proviso that the author must be credited, a wikipedian who is not the original author should probably credit the original author in the article itself. What should be done about a wikipedia contributor who insisted on requiring attribution within the article as a precondition to writing to the wikipedia, that is a conundrum right enough, especially if we want to be consistent about these matters... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 15:14, Sep 4, 2003 (UTC)
First, I tried to find out, where to credit a source some time ago, but I got no answer. (Maybe now we find an answer ;-)
THE GNU Free Documentation License says "Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others."
Under "MODIFICATIONS" it says: "I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence."
If I understand this right, the "History" is the place, where you find the author. I don't think, you can add conditions to your contributions to Wikipedia. You are credited in the History anyway and you have to agree to GFDL, so I guess no conditions are possible.
But surely, we could add at the end the name of the first/most important Author, even if that is sometimes quite hard to define exactly...?
I don't know if this was any help, but I look forward for more comments ;-) Fantasy 15:42, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
PS: Maybe Wikipedia:Cite your sources is of some help?

British Columbian

move to talk:list of Canadians

Hi there! I have problems about famous Canadians or notable British Columbians. Who counts as a Canadian? I have added Leslie Cheung in the list of Canadians, but I am not quite comfortable with it. Leslie Cheung had lived in BC for just three years and then returned to Hong Kong after getting a passport, and he is not a rare example. Did I do the right thing? Or should this kind of "non-Canadian" Canadian be removed from the lists? Wshun

One of the rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the right to leave Canada. No Canadian must maintain any ties with Canada (this is not true for landed immigrants) in order to maintain Canadian nationality. This is protected in sec. 6(1) entitled Mobility rights. There are many Canadians that live outside Canada; this does not (IMHO) make them less Canadian — perhaps other Canadians think otherwise. Many Canadians are forced to live in the US for financial reasons, jobs, or career opportunities. Even some Canadian corporations have many employees stationed in the United States; being in this situation does not make any Canadian less Canadian, they can always return to their mother country and take up residence there again; of course an immigrant who comes to Canada and becomes a Canadian citizen may also have other nationalities. Canada does recognize dual national status; one does not have to renounce their other citizenship(s) when taking the oath to the Queen of Canada like the United States requires of its immigrants. Alex756
Generally, anyone who considers themselves Canadian could be listed on such a list. Use your judgement. :) Martin 15:50, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Date conversion

bug - delete when fixed

It seems the automatic date conversion is not working anymore. The preference option has disappeared. What's going on? --Wik 06:25, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Should be enabled now. (Was it before?) --Brion 07:48, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

delete - presumed caching issue - see also wikipedia:bug reports

Help! At Shearwater, I've put in a link to Cory's Shearwater, which is written. The link stays red, but clicking on it goes to the edit page of the new article, not the article itself or a blank page. I'm sure it's something to do with the apostrophes, but I can't sort it out. jimfbleak 06:38, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Works fine for me - blue link leading to Cory's Shearwater, no problem. Are you sure it's not just a caching persistence problem? —Paul A 07:38, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Jim retyped it, and it worked...miraculously. The 1st time I visted that time (after Jim finished Cory's Shearwater), the same thing happened to me: Edit page opened up. And I never visited Shearwater before. The apostrophes look identical to me. --Menchi 07:43, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I don't know if it's relevant, but Cory's Shearwater (Cory's_Shearwater) has a redirect page linking to it called Cory’s Shearwater ([[Cory%92s_Shearwater]]). The different between the straight apostrophe of the article itself and the slanted/curved (depending on font) apostrophe of the redirect page is quite distinct on my computer, though. —Paul A 07:56, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Several people attempted to fix that link (See its hist), but now when we access the old versions -- which didn't work before -- they all work now: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. If it didn't work before, and it works now -- it must be some time lapse or temporal anomaly due to the approach asteroid. Maybe tomorrow will be yesterday. --Menchi 08:02, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Caching problem. (Lest I bet that's what it is. Sure as today is Friday.) Refresh your browser and it will go away. Or just wait. I've met similar weirdness before, now and then. Tannin

TV screenshots

move to Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/copyright

This is probably a stupid question, but does it violate copyright to upload images from television shows if I capture them? - Evil saltine 08:34, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Probably. Try our wikipedia:boilerplate request for permission. Martin 12:41, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I think TV newscasts are exempt from copyright. IANAL, but I seem to remember this a loophole in the copyright law. You can't plagerize them, but you may rebroadcast their content. You may want to research it further. —Frecklefoot 14:51, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Wouldn't a single screenshot qualify under fair use? --Dante Alighieri 01:37, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Hmmm... Wikipedia needs a lawyer. I found the thing about news (bottom of here), but that's not what i'm interested in. Evil saltine 05:10, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
This is a good site for fair use info Copyright and Fair Use, Stanford University Libraries. News images are generally exempt as being part of the historical record. Other images? Probably would be if you make sure to keep the attribution information (so that someone else can get permission later if it might not fall under fair use for a downstream licensee; not all subsequent uses under GFDL may qualify as fair use). I'd also put a caption on it somewhere directly accessible on the page (alt text maybe) i.e. "Broadcast image, Sept 4, 2003, CBS Television Network" and make sure that it is relevantly connected to the informational purpose of the article in which it appears. (putting a hidden note inside the article explaining why you think it is fair use is a good idea, i.e. <!-- this picture is relevant to this article because it shows how newscasting sets have evolved over the years --> ). BTW, IAAL, however, Wikipedia does not give legal advice (even to itself). Alex756 05:24, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Whatever you decide to do, describe what you did on the image description page. Martin 09:40, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Difference between town and CDP

move to user talk:Rambot

Just recently someone created a new article about Farmington, Maine, and when I wondered why the county seat does not even have the automated entry yet I discovered there are in fact two, but both orphans. But what is the difference between Farmington (CDP), Maine and Farmington (town), Maine - I can see the numbers are different, but I don't know the meaning of CDP. And there are many more of the CDP/Town entries, which are not linked in the county articles. andy 09:32, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)


As far as I understand, CDP means something like Census-Designated Place and is used only for counting people, not for administration. It probably includes the town proper plus some farms or settlements around. -- till we *) 11:50, Sep 3, 2003 (UTC)
Seems to be opposite, as the CDP has a smaller area and population then the town. But the actual question is: what to do with these entries? Merge them? Create redirects like Farmington, Maine (pointing to town, CDP, or both)? And how to find them all? Having red links in the counties and orphan articles is definitely not a good situation. andy 12:11, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

A little concern about editing

delete when read - further discussion to wikipedia talk:Replies to common objections

I just created an account and found myself able to edit pages. With this ability for new users, how do we know that the information after edition is correct? I have this concern that valuable information could be deleted or altered intentionally or accidentally. Does Wikipedia have some sort of check in place?

I think you can find the answer in Wikipedia:Replies to common objections - there are always others who will read the article later, and whenever a fact look dubious it will be researched. And we always have the editing history, so anything deleted or altered can still be traced back. andy 09:48, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
It sure does. We have a Supervising Editor who checks as many articles as possible, and adjusts them as appropriate. This editor's name is 65.148.122.196 (i.e., you). Also me. And every other Wikipedian. We all check each other's work as routine. Sometimes some horrible howlers slip through the net, but not often. Mostly, someone like you will spot the problem and either fix it (if you have the expertise) or at least bring it to the attention of someone who is a specialist in that field.
Welcome aboard, by the way. Stick around, it's a great place. Tannin
You don't even need a user account to edit articles. CGS 10:19, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC).

Useless Redirects in Talk:

move to wikipedia talk:redirect/delete

I'd like to suggest that when we move pages which have associated Talk: pages, we ought to (in general) not keep a Redirect from the old Talk: page to the new Talk: page when there's no use for that link; i.e. if nothing links to the old Talk: page. I.e. when moving a page from Foo to Bar, if there is a Talk:Foo page it is moved to Talk:Bar, and a redirect to Talk:Bar would be left at Talk:Foo. If nothing actually links to Talk:Foo, that "tombstone" redirect will probably never be used (since clicking on the "Discuss this page" link on Bar will get you straight to Talk:Bar), and just clutters up the database. So is there any problem if we just delete them? (And perhaps someday, when we are knee deep in Developers and all bugs and really needed features have been seen to, the code will be changed to avoid automatically creating them when they are not needed. :-) Noel 23:54, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Rule one of responsible web publishing: never knowingly break links to your pages, no matter how useless you think they are or how sure you think you are that no one's got them stored and is going to use them. Anyone who's deleting redirects really really needs to not do so. (Here, read this.) --Brion 01:00, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
What Brion said. I hand-type a lot of links to talk pages: unless you're planning to follow me around changing them all to point to the correct place, then keep them. Thanks. Martin 09:38, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
If you will note, I clearly made an exception for cases where "[anything] links to the old Talk: page". I think that covers this case, yes? Noel 18:25, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
No it doesn't. If you delete a redirect today, I may hand-type a link to it tomorrow. Hence my suggestion that you follow me around to ensure that I'm not adversely effected by your deletion. Martin 18:53, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Hand-typed article names are in basically the same boat as off-site URL's - and see my reply to Brion about those. Are you also proposing that we never, ever, delete a page that ever had any non-bogus content? Noel 19:57, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Wiki encourages links to articles which do not exist, indeed that is one of the published ways to create an article. In what way is a link to an article which could exist different from a link to an article which no longer exists? If there is no content, is there an article? Of course, links themselves carry information, so before deletion it is nice if someone ensures that the text with the links makes sense without the link. SEWilco 19:40, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Hmm - you asked if there was any problem if you just delete talk page redirects. I'm answering: yes, there is a problem. The only problem you mention in respect of these links is "cluttering up the database", and Brion, who knows more about the database than both of us, doesn't think that's a problem. Thus, in the case of these particular talk pages, they should not be deleted. Martin 20:14, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
If so, you should also have the ability to reach through the internet and change people's personal bookmarks, and have a perfect web spider able to check every web page in existence to be sure there are no external links to the page. And be aware of all printed material and scrawled post-it notes in the world to make sure that no one, anywhere, has that URL. Only then should you delete a redirect. --Brion

Look, I understand, and sympathize with, the sensitivity to leaving dangling pointers out there in URL-space. I maintain more than one page of the form "this page isn't here any more, go <here>" because I reorganized some stuff; and I also really hate it when you follow a link and it 404's.
At the same time, delete logs show that Wikipedia clearly doesn't have a policy that "no Wikipedia URL that ever contained valid content (i.e. not just insults, rubbish, copyvio, or something like that) shall ever stop working". A small amount of trolling through deleted articles turned up "Beadwork patterns" and "Gold Faced Pumpkins", both of which contained real content at one point.
I understand why they were deleted, but that's not the issue: the point is that someone out there may have them bookmarked, and now they don't work anymore. In addition to them, I saw a whole series of "Emperor_<foo>_of_Japan" which are now gone too, moved somewhere else, with no redirects left behind (probably because the "What Links Here' page for them was empty, I would assume.) Again, someone might have saved URL's to them out there somewhere.
So, if what you're saying is that you want to have such a policy, that no Wiki URL that ever pointed to non-bogus content shall ever stop working, fine, but those aren't the ground rules that seem to be in place at the moment. Are you proposing such a change? Noel 18:25, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm happy enough with the deletion advice currently at wikipedia:redirect, and I was reasonably happy with the prior deletion policy of "do not delete valid redirects", which we had for over a year. Those are the ground rules. Some sysops are either unaware of those guidelines, or choose to ignore them, which is unfortunate. Martin 20:14, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Sorry, but discussing only the redirects doesn't answer my basic point: there are pages with real content - i.e. not junk, not insults, not copyvios - being deleted.
If "not orphaning pointers residing outside the Wikipedia database" (be they mental or electronic) is so important, why do we even have a VfD page? Junk and insults get deleted on sight, and for copyvio we can just blank the page. If not orphaning external pointers is so important, why do we ever delete anything?
I'm not trying to be difficult, I just don't understand what seems to me to be a disconnect between the goals y'all have stated here, and how things actually work. Noel 20:37, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)


You seem to have conflated two separate concepts here. I apologize if I was unclear above; for clarity let me state my position again:
  • Links to material that Wikipedia continues to publish must continue to work unless there is a real reason they can't (such as, the www.wikipedia.org domain name is taken away from the project somehow and none of us can control what's at that address; or if the link was in fact an invalid URI in the first place due to a software bug and can't be maintained once the bug is fixed). This includes talk pages, and redirects to renamed talk pages are the way this link continuity is maintained in that case.
  • Corollary: links to material that Wikipedia no longer publishes (ie, garbage pages and copyright violations that have been deleted from the database) are free to turn up a blank slate. That is the purpose of deletion: to un-publish material that wasn't supposed to be published in the first place (because it's 100% garbage, or is legally unusable).
If you do see any deleted redirects to existing pages, please restore them or list them on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. --Brion 23:35, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
People seem to use VfD for purposes outside its ostensible aim; I'd say more than half, maybe more than three-quarters, of the stuff posted there should not be deleted. Many people seem to use VfD as a place to post articles that need work in the hope that someone will be inspired to 'save' them from deletion.
Is the problem that the only 'problem article' page anyone reads is VfD? --Morven 03:39, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

When you move a discussion...

move to wikipedia talk:village pump

Can people please remember to update the list of moved discussions when they move a discussion off the page? It's hard work keeping the list up to date retrospectively. —Paul A 04:18, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think it's a little nicer to have the moved notes inline, where the conversation used to be - easier to see where the discussion has gone. What do you think? Martin 09:32, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I partly agree but they can't stay there forever. Perhaps add a date when you remove something and then after a week remove the link as well? Angela 18:53, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Is it possible to post a very long http address?

The address <<http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/compass/ixbin/hixclient.exe?_IXDB_=compass&_IXFIRST_=1&_IXMAXHITS_=1&_IXSPFX_=graphical/full/&$+with+all_unique_id_index+is+$=ENC111861&submit-button=summary>>

when put into a link with the text "The British Museum's objects from the Temple of Artemis at Ephesos" yields:

The British Museum's objects from the Temple of Artemis at Ephesos

instead of the link. Is there a way around this apparent limitation on the length of an http address that can be included?

Goodness, what an ugly URL! :) The length isn't a problem at all (aside from a usability and aesthetic problem for the British Museum's visitors!), rather our parser doesn't seem to realize that the dollar sign is a valid character in a URL. (Neither did I; I had to look it up to be sure.) Until that's fixed, replace the $ with its numeric code: %24, it ought to work: The British Museum's objects from the Temple of Artemis at Ephesos --Brion 04:46, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks; added to Temple of Artemis.

Tom Paine and Lewes

First time here so not sure how things work but I noticed a couple of things that might need attention. Paine started his career in Excise at Grantham, true, but he was promoted and went to Alford, Lincolnshire which I think came under the Horncastle office. He operated in the Alford Outride from the Windmill Hotel. It was from here that he was dismissed, not Grantham as stated. He was sacked in August 1765. On Radio4 bbc today there was a piece on the Headstrong Club which still meets at the Royal Oak, Lewes as in Paine's day. The piece on Lewes states the White Hart. I think you may be right and the BBC wrong, but i cannot verify it at the moment.

Stephen Kirby Louth Lincs [email protected]

Be bold and change! :-) --Menchi 10:40, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Ditto, and next time you want to discuss or dispute the contents of a particular article, click on the "Discuss this page" link on the left. :-) —Frecklefoot 14:36, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Alexa

move to wikipedia talk:statistics

According to a recent Wikipedia:Announcement Wikipedia is as popular as Slashdot. I was quite surprised! Is it really true? Anyone know how Alexa measures popularity? I see they offer a toolbar to download... do they extrapolate data from toolbar downloaders? Are Wikipedians more likely to have a toolbar than other users? Alexa Website Pete 12:05, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes, everyone who have the Alexa toolbar installed effectively send the URL currently watched to the Alexa server, thus allowing them to monitor which sites are visited, and how often. How much valid these data are can of course be debated - those who worry about privacy will probably not install it for sure. But in the range of 1000th popular site I doubt that a few very active Wikipedians with toolbar can make that much change anymore, around the 100.000th it makes much more impact. andy 12:21, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Alexa installs by default, whether you want it or not, and without your permission, simply as part of a Windows install. Ad-Aware and other similar spyware protection programs disable it, however. Tannin 12:40, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for the info guys. I wonder if the nature of Wikipedia, where each edit means two page views (or more if you preview!), has an inflationary effect on our figures. I am pretty sure if we got another slashdotting we would still have to batten down the hatches pretty hard because of weight of numbers. And Tannin, just to check.. did you mean Alexa is activiated with every installation of the Windows OS?? That's a lot of data! Pete 14:49, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Alexa does separate between page views (e.g. the numerous views in an edit process) and number of viewers (independent IP addresses) - and then adds both together in a magic formula to get the actual rank. But don't forget that a big percentage of viewers will not edit, but just view. andy 14:53, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Pete: this page (which I found more or less at random on Google) has quite a bit of detail. Someone should write this up for the 'pedia. I see (from another page) that here is a class action against Alexa pending. As spyware goes, there are worse ones. But just the same, I don't like people messing with my computer without my knowledge, and (I understand) neither does the law in most countries. I think Alexa is installed as part of Internet Explorer, rather than as part of Windows - not that that distinction makes much of a difference these days. Tannin
Re Pete, "nature of Wikipedia" - most users of Wikipedia never edit an article... Martin 19:22, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Wow I guess I had always just assumed that we were all writers and no writers... but Wikipedia:Statistics informs me that there are 40 page views per edit... This thread has certainly reduced my Doubting Thomas stance. Pete 23:28, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
It should also be noted that editing a page is a different thing from reading one. Thus it is fair to count it twice. --mav

New articles

Yay. 8 articles in the top 50 new articles created. =-) Really tired now though. :-( -- Alex.tan 13:03, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Case sensitivity

Is there a page where case sensitivity is being debated actively? It drives me nuts, in the age of Google, where nobody is accustomed to case sensitivity except for C programmers and Unix hackers, and I'd like to read any reasonable argument for retaining case sensitivity. tempshill

Some people disambiguate through case. I think this is a very bad idea. Red Dwarf and Red dwarf are were totally different articles until I made them into Red Dwarf (television) and Red dwarf star. Try explaining that to a newb. CGS 18:30, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC).
But it was OK as it was. You broke all the links when you made the new pages. They have been broken for over a month now - when are you going to get around to fixing them? (You should have changed the links first, that way nothing gets broken.) --Zundark 16:06, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I'd disagree that it was OK as it was -- disambiguating through case is horrid. By the links being broken, I assume you mean them ending up at a disambiguation page, because that's what going to Red Dwarf or Red dwarf seems to do right now ... --Morven 08:27, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
For instructions on submitting feature requests, see wikipedia:bug reports. Better yet, become a developer, and do it yourself :) Martin 18:57, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I submitted this as a bug and then saw that a duplicate of my bug had been answered by the developers: This is not a bug, it is a controversial design decision. So, my question is, where is this discussed? Thanks. tempshill
It's been discussed many times in many places over the last year or so. I can't find them at the moment, so here's a summary of some issues: m:case insensitivity. --Brion 02:37, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Eurovision

I am thinking of creating a user guide to help people around the Eurovision articles I am doing/improving. It would help people undertsnd what each section was about, I would probably use Wikipedia:Eurovision Song Contest user guide for the page. Do others think this is a good Idea? - fonzy

Keep the title short and memorable: Wikipedia:Eurovision. Martin 19:22, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Put links in Eurovision Song Contest - Patrick 12:27, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Latin American project

Hello. I am interrested in Latin America and want to create a new project for Latin America. There, I will put a list of articles to create, articles to expand, articles to translate (from Spanish, French mainly), a list of people who want to help, etc. What do you think about such a project? --Youssefsan 14:46, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi Guys!

How do i add an external link with a dollar sign in it? Here's an example URL:

http://www.aish.com/spirituality/growth/Path_of_the_Soul_2__How_Much_Space_Do_You_Take$.asp

Thanx

Dave

You have to URL-encode the characters, i.e. exchange them with %hexcode - so your URL then is http://www.aish.com/spirituality/growth/Path_of_the_Soul_2__How_Much_Space_Do_You_Take%24.asp andy 15:23, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Parser error

Hi, there seems to be a parsing error on Wikipedia:Sites that use Wikipedia for content

the ===='s are not being parsed as wiki code on the last heading. It's not rendering the wiki-code. Anyone have a work around for this? { MB | マイカル } 19:31, Sep 5, 2003 (UTC)

The problem is that the text inside the heading has an additional = - however it seems like exchanging the = with %3d as its URL encoded version doesn't help, then the URL does not work anymore. andy 19:37, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I tried &#61; instead of %3D and that seems to work. Least it works in my browser, it might not be a universal fix, I don't really know. --Camembert

Citing WP

I remember seeing a detailed page on how to cite WP. But all I find now is Wikipedia:Readers'_FAQ#How_do_I_cite_a_Wikipedia_article_in_a_paper?. (Somebody asked at Talk:Interjection) --Menchi 00:28, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Formatting Discipline "markers"

I have been trying out a form of formatting to make disciplinary markers stand out, expecially in text that covers more than one discipline. The problem is expecially notable in the natural sciences where an article may cover several disciplines, each with their own "take" on the subject. I have been doing editing in Botany on types of fruit, and almost every discussion has at least two (botanical and culinaty) points of view. I think this is great for learning, but it does require that I indicate where a definition or discussion is botanical and where it is culinary, since the two are frequently just plain at odds. I see similar "conflicts" throughout the natural sciences where there is always a "common" parlance and a scientific one. My suggestion can be seen on any of the Fruit pages where parts of the text are indicated as either BOTANY or CUISINE (for food or culinary information). This rendering is not obtrusive, and cautions the reader that more than one description may be present. Or the student of Botany (for example) can key in quickly on the botanical definition. Any comments (and I do not want to here how hard it is to format ~ it is not <tt> is in the Wikipedia style manual). - Marshman 00:45, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

A content categorisation system is about to be brought online (it's currently on the test server) which will achieve what you seem to be aiming for...
James F. 01:37, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

A conflict of interest?

I am putting the finshing touches on a site with links, photos, and reviews of Web Browsers for Windows. I am wanting to link the site from the main web browser article. Would this be a conflict of interest since I edit here? --hoshie 06:31, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

  • If it's a page about web browsers as opposed to a site trying to sell them then it's probably ok. I don't think the issue is one of conflict of interest, but more on whether it passes the What Wikipedia is not test in regards to point 18: "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising". Angela 07:08, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Angela, Thanks for your answer. The site will be about browsers. Nothing will be sold. --hoshie 07:33, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)


Move page request

Could a sysop move Web log to Weblog? See Talk:Web log for the discussion. --seav 11:04, Sep 6, 2003 (UTC)

Done. Stupidly I lost my head and lost the history of the talk page. I'll know better for next time. Pete 11:40, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_archive_2004-09-26&oldid=1399714"