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 Orthogonal (talk | contribs) at 19:45, 11 November 2003. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

[[da:Wikipedia:Landsbybr%F8nden]]

Post a question now if you don't want to wait for the whole page to be loaded. But consider skimming to see if your question was already asked. Also, do not push the "save page" button multiple times when posting this way! The server is overloaded but it will usually respond eventually and add your question to the page multiple times!

Quick reference on server status

  • The database server / web server for the other wikis ("pliny") is online
    • Motherboard and CPUs have been replaced (2003-10-14), which hopefully will eliminate the frequent crashes we've had
  • The regular webserver for the English-language Wikipedia ("larousse") is online.
    • Back online 2003-10-14, running on older, slower processor temporarily
    • Faster processors and memory are being tested now (2003-10-17) and should be put back in soon if all is well
  • The new database monster has been ordered.
    • fund raising resulted in enough money to buy a new bigger and faster database server
    • pliny and larousse will share the webserver load once the new box is online
    • delivery is currently expected for around 2003-11-18, perhaps earlier if parts permit

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
  • For remarks and questions on the contents of an article, use the "Discuss this page" link at that article to arrive at the corresponding Talk page.
  • 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#November 2003 moved discussion.

Mythology Stubs

I have noticed that there are a lot of one-sentence stubs for mythological figures, especially non-Greek myths (but even then there are a lot). Shouldn't they be merged into the respective mythology articles? Limu, for example. Limu is listed on Polynesian mythology, but it seems to me that it would make more sense to write about him on the mythology page. Adam Bishop 07:20, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't think so because, eventually, these will be expanded. Nikola 07:51, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
And if you merged them people would be less likely to think to expand them. Stubs are a Good Thing. CGS 09:41, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC).
What if there is just nothing more to add to them? I tried to find more for Limu before posting it here, but all I can find is that he is a god of the dead. I guess that is probably because every other website has copied from Wikipedia or Encyclopedia Mythica, which both only have the one line. I know stubs are good, but what if they don't have the possibility of being expanded? Adam Bishop 16:56, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I ran into a similar problem with characters in the Bible, especially but not only from the Old Testament. Many of them will never be more than stubs IMO, we just don't know any more than two or three sentences about them. So, I'm now thinking seriously of creating some articles along the lines of Minor characters in the book of Judges (and another for Samuel, probably put Kings and Chronicles together as there's so much overlap, similarly Ezra and Nehemiah). I'd then make the names themselves redirects to these, or disambiguation pages where necessary. This is a similar approach to what is already recommended for fictional characters (I'm not suggesting that these are or are not fictional characters, that would be POV either way, just that the same format seems likely to work). Other opinions very welcome, it's very early days in my thinking on this.
If we do find more material on any of these later, then nothing is lost, they can and should become an article then.
Anyway, a similar approach would be a Minor characters in Greek mythology article. Andrewa 20:08, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
There surely is much more to say about a god of any culture, it's just that the information isn't online. Nikola 08:32, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
BTW there are more than 1100 of those stubs. -- User:Docu

VfD vs Cleanup

Having been contributing to Wikipedia:Cleanup for a bit more than a week, I have come to value it. Much to my amazement, I have seen a few miserable-looking stubs (which I would have voted to delete on VfD) blossom into real articles, and it has given me renewed appreciation of the way WP works. Listing pages on Cleanup gives newbies a chance to improve stubby articles they've submitted, without fear of the axe, as well as stimulating others to help out.

However, I am slightly disappointed to see that several articles are now listed in both Cleanup and VfD, meaning the two pages are working to some degree at cross-purposes. There also seems to be more activity at VfD, but that is not surprising since it has been around a lot longer, and, obviously, it is much easier to simply vote on an article than actually roll up one's sleeves and improve it.

Is there anyway we could improve the coordination between the two pages? I think it would be desirable if all questionable articles were first parked on Cleanup for a week or two, and if they don't improve only then moved to VfD for a potential coup de grâce. This would probably require some kind of date stamping on Cleanup, which it doesn't as yet have.

Anway, I hope more people lend a hand at Cleanup; there is lots to do. -- Viajero 14:43, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Please don't take offence, but I don't understand why, if you percieve lots to do, you don't just get on and do some of it rather than writing about it at Cleanup and here? Surely that is the point of a Wiki system? Time spent voting and "coordinating" is time not spent improving articles. GrahamN 20:34, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Perhaps because this is a collaborative project and this is a way of encouraging others to collaborate? Angela
These "others" of whom you speak. Who are they? Why are they here, if not to participate? GrahamN 23:37, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Coordination helps groups of people work more efficiently. -- Tim Starling 23:46, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)
What I met by coordination was not increasing the bureaucracy here but simply arranging things so articles aren't listed on both pages simultaneously. Doesn't this seem like a good idea? -- Viajero 10:00, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Personally I think that is a logical next step, now that Cleanup is mostly starting to lose its "babylegs" and starting to stride with more confidence. Of course the culture of Cleanup and its format and such should be continually improved too. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 10:14, Nov 5, 2003 (UTC)
I think Cleanup is an excellent step, and is already saving us time and users, but that's just a guess really. See my nightmare story in the following entry "Wikipedia punishes...". Andrewa 16:01, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Strange behaviour of link -- bug?

Could someone help me there? I feel really puzzled what is going on. Steps to reproduce:

  • Go to List of political parties in Poland
  • Find string Unia Wolności (in section alphabetical list of parties)
  • Click this link
  • Observe that edit page is opening, even though this page contains properly done redirect. <-- Strange behaviour

What went wrong there? Przepla 23:34, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That's not a legal link; use a plain "s" in links on this wiki. This wiki, and most of the western european language ones too, are encoded in ISO 8859-1. Characters not in that range won't work in titles here. --Brion 03:09, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Brion was kind enough to prepare me some listings of articles and broken links and I wrote a program to find broken links that appear to be related to an already existing article. It's not 100% accurate and there are some conflicts, so humans are needed to figure out what's valid and what's not. I found some 1678 articles that could be linked from 2073 different broken links. When done with this list, I believe a good 500 broken links will be turned into valid and useful redirects. (Ha, everyone who said I was a rabid deletionist is proven wrong!)

Right now, the list is just based on middle names which I have noticed to be a frequent cause of broken links. However, I'll probably write some more complicated programs to find other near-matches if this turns out well.

Anyway, I could use some help. The lists (it's broken into two sub-pages now) is located at User:Daniel Quinlan/redirects. Please follow the convention for noting when a broken link cannot be connected to an article (other than that, the page shouldn't really need to be edited aside from questions, notes, etc.) and have fun. I've already done about 70 or so, but need to sleep now. Daniel Quinlan 06:46, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

Cool idea. I've already finished the Q's! (OK, there was only one, but still...) Jimbreed 14:09, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

Update: there are even more lists of broken links now. Daniel Quinlan 07:50, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)

I need help in the Catalan version

We have lots of vandalism from Spanish nacionalists and others. We need ban them, but how? I have the password that let me to delete pages. ¿Is the same that let ban de people? Have I to request another password or I have to visit an other page with the same password? Thanks. Llull 10:12, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Llull, please see UseMod:AdminFeatures for documentation on the admin system on the old wikis. --Brion 21:39, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Is it possible to rename an article I created?

Bmills 12:14, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

yes, use the Move this page command on the left of the screen. Only works if name is not already in use. BTW, if you add User:Bmills\ as a prefix to the filename, it is copied to your private namespace. Useful for drafts, etc. To copy it back to the main article space, just delete it using Move.-- Viajero 12:21, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Yes: See wikipedia:move.

Images on UseModWikipedias

Quite some time ago I stumbled upon images uploaded by User:Renato Caniatti, when I noticed that all of them are orphans here. Later I found that those images aren't real orphans, but are used in the italian wikipedia included with html, not the image links I know here. I asked Renato about it, and today he answered that it is not possible to upload images on the italian wikipedia, and thus he uses the english one for storage. As I had no interaction with the old software - is that true? I don't think that the way he includes images to it: is a good one as it will break when someone checks the orphan images here, or once the policy of not using external images in wikicode is enforced, but what is the better way? Wait with images till it: gets converted to MediaWiki? andy 21:49, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes it is true. I do the same with Simple - just link to photos that exist here. I'm aware they might break but I don't think it's a huge issue as they will be replaced once we get the new software and a broken image link is hardly the end of the world. Angela 21:53, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)


press image of wikipedia

Hi, how can I get in touch with the appropriate person for image rights and clearance. We're interested in featuring the wikipedia story in a book and international touring exhbition - in the section devoted to info/software. Please advise asap. Thank you! 

Jennifer
416-260-5777 x234
[email protected]
Jim Wales is the man in charge, and is reachable directly at [email protected]. Being an Open Content project, permission tends to be very easy to get. -- Jake 02:01, 2003 Nov 7 (UTC)
Permission to reproduce is easy, living with the ensuing GFDL conditions is harder. Fuzheado
Jimbo doesn't own the articles, the individual contributors do. Either you stay within the license limitations, or you obtain permission from everyone who has contributed to the article in question. -- Tim Starling 05:05, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)
I'm not a lawyer of course, but I think you will find that the authors don't own the articles. Once they have posted them to Wikipedia then Wikipedia owns them and they are released under GFDL. You may find that even the author (whoever that is in an article more than a few edits old) can't reproduce under another form of copyright. Having said that, unless the questioner wants to reproduce most of Wikipedia they should be able to quote chunks of it without permission under 'fair use' law, just a like a reviewer can quote passages of a book. DJ Clayworth 15:32, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
If I were entitled to royalties on everything I've written -- even just professionally -- I wouldn't be renting in Harlem. --Calieber 20:29, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)
Also NAL, but please note that posters do not assign copyright to Wikipedia (rather, the Wikimedia Foundation), and they may reproduce their own contributions under other licenses if they like (but most articles contain material contributed by several or many different people). Wikimedia owns only the contributions of Jimbo Wales and his employees who have worked on Wikipedia. Fair use of course may apply. --Brion 02:20, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

'pointlessly detailed' award

I just stumbled on the infinitely tedious collection of articles about Gundam, an anime series. Somebody is creating detailed, albeit not very coherent, plot synopses about every single series: It could swamp the server all by itself ... (Not that I think anything can be done about it, since editing them all into coherence would be an inhuman task. I just wanted to spout.) -- DavidWBrooks 01:27, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I dunno. It's no more pointlessly detailed than the interminable stuff we have about Star Trek, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings etc. While a bunch of the articles aren't wikied (yet), a bunch are. I suspect untold legions of gundammers will spring from the wiki and polish those to the same degree. -- Finlay McWalter 01:56, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Gundam is more accurately a series of series, and is often tedious and incoherent itself. There's a lot of info (I think there are 14 series or so... most a season long, some longer), but hardly server-swamping. I could list a lot of TV series, books, etc, with much more detailed and tedious descriptions. Just ignore it unless you're in a position to improve it. -- Jake 02:01, 2003 Nov 7 (UTC)
One person's pointlessly detailed is another person's heaven. m:Wiki is not paper memory is cheap, so there is no reason for Wikipedia not go into detail about everything and have the limits of existing encyclopedias: ChrisG 02:26, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I'm prepared to tolerate such indulgence, mainly because achieving consensus for deletion is impossible. But what really annoys me is when they branch the article out into dozens of short subpages. Some hard-working wikipedian usually comes along and adds context to each article "in the Gundam Anime series...", but the practice still pollutes the namespace and makes it hard for fans to gather significant amounts information. Ruthless merging is often necessary. If you ever see one of these articles with all the characters, all the concepts and all the places linked to as-yet non-existent articles, defuse the timebomb and remove the links before it is too late. -- Tim Starling 08:46, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)

See also: wikipedia:check your fiction and m:Kill the Stub Pages

Can't find "Post a Comment"

I must be stupid, but I can't seem to find the "Post a comment" feature on talk pages. All I see are the usual "Main Page|Recent changes|Edit this page|..." links in the header, as well as "Edit this page|View article|..." links in the footer, as well as the sidebar links. "Edit this page" never shows me a "Subject/headline" box, just the text area, Summary box, "Minor edit" and "Watch this page" checkboxes, and Save and Preview buttons. What am I doing wrong? Tjunier 12:48, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Nothing. You are probably using a non-default skin. Certainly the blue and yellow skin I use doesn't have the "Post a comment" button. Pete 12:51, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Ok I set my skin to "Standard" and I'll see what happens. Thanks anyway. Tjunier 13:38, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In the Standard skin it's in the navagation page on the left of the screen just under Edit this page. Bmills 12:53, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well one weird thing (IMHO) is that the navigation page seems to randomly disappear (e.g. when I log in), only to reappear in some mysterious circumstances. Thanks anyway. Tjunier 13:38, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

- I had something like this the other day. I went playing with my preferences and eventually went back to set Standard as the skin, but found I had no navagation pane. I went back to Preferences and found that the skin had reverted. It took three or four attempts before it would stick with Standard, but when it did the pane was there alright. Bmills 13:42, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well finally it was a matter of preferences (unfortunately I had some trouble just finding the prefs page, since the link wasn't there :-). Now everything seems to be working. Thanks for your time! Tjunier 13:40, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Recent Changes

I've (sigh) grown used to Wikipedia timing out just when I've reached the peak of boredom, but now I'm finding every page I try to go to is fine except Recent changes. Is that sort of situation common? The text box here is also responding quite slowly; SimpleText isn't. I'm not demanding someone fix this, I'm just trying to see if there's an explanation. --Calieber 20:29, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)

The sluggishness is probably just length -- now that I'm just editing in this section rather than the whole page it's fine. --Calieber 20:31, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)

The reason recent changes was not accessible while some other pages were is because the en server was down whilst en2 was still up, owing to Apache being stuck in some weird state where it wouldn't restart cleanly apparently. It should be working now that Brion's restarted Apache. Angela 22:09, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)
Again, I didn't mean to come off like I was complaining, I understand computers sometimes go down; I guess I was just trying to get a glimpse of the underlying structure as displayed by this particular issue. I wqas merely motivated by curiosity (else I'd probably have gone to Bug reports. --Charles L. 02:17, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
Curiosity. The seed of Wikipedia! I think it is, as you mentioned, because the length of the page. RecentChanges is quite large, compared to most articles. It's been like that -- slow -- for a long time now. But then once it finishes loading, you get all sorts of surprises and weird articles to read and to copyedit. Like waiting for a gift to be unwrapped. Except there's no Christmas tree and blinking lightbulbs. --Menchi 02:25, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Comma usage

Without mentioning names, does anyone agree or disagree that these sentences are incorrect grammar and punctuation?

  • "The British could be removed from the sentence, and it would remain accurate."
  • "The Germans invested more heavily, in the development of science and pure research, than the British."
  • "The Germans invested more heavily, in the development of science."
  • "The Germans invested more heavily, than the British, in the development of science and pure research."

I contend all four are only made correct by removing each and every comma. Daniel Quinlan 02:03, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC) (Oops, I should add that the third sentence is missing a "than something", so it is doubly ungrammatical. Daniel Quinlan 02:08, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC))

Agreed, especially the last three sentences. Btw, I think this is better at Wikipedia:Reference desk. --Menchi 02:07, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I agree for the last three. The first one is not incorrect, I believe, since the two parts of the sentence are independent clauses connected by a ", and". However, when one of the two independent clauses is short, the comma does not have to be included. So, all four would be correct without the commas. The first one is the only one that could pass as correct with the commas. -- Minesweeper 03:52, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I think the commas due to dividing the the sentences especially the second and fourth into seperate logical parts are useful.
I think the commas, due to dividing the the sentences, especially the second and fourth, into seperate logical parts, are useful.
The commas in the first and third seem a bit redundant, however. Instead of commas, maybe a different form of punctuation, including brackets, labels, goto commands, and things like that, would be more consise. Κσυπ Cyp 09:13, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I agree they all should be removed. But I am sympathetic with the author as I tend to overuse commas as well. Fernkes 13:46, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
The first one is OK. The other three should not have any commas in them. BTW, the third sentence could be OK even in the grammatical sense, if the overall text is: "The British invested heavily in .... . The Germans invested more heavily, in the development of science." At18 20:31, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Second skin titles

How should I deal with these two articles: Second Skin && Second skin, the content are different, but the titles are alike! :O --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 03:01, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It's fine, since both link to each other, but you may want to put some sort of See also thing on Second skin up the top of Second skin. Dysprosia 03:03, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Parallels exist, e.g., Quantum Leap & Quantum leap. Dysprosia is probably referring to the disambiguation block at the bottom of that page, which can redirect the reader if they get to the wrong page. --Menchi 03:05, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
No, I'm thinking of something along the lines of John Neumann and John von Neumann :) Maybe try this? Dysprosia 03:09, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Do I need to creat a disambiguation page? I mean the movie Second Skin can be written like Second skin too! :O --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 03:08, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
A block is enough. It's impossible tell if one should create [Second Skin (disambiguation)] or [Second skin (disambiguation)] anyway. --Menchi 03:13, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Writing on subjects close to your heart

Hey folks, I just wanted to ask for the community's help on this. I'm intimately involved with the Diebold issue, as a co-plaintiff in the EFF's lawsuit, and a founding member of the Swarthmore Coalition for the Digital Commons which was one of the first student pages to host the memos. I'd like to expand the Diebold article to reflect the recent events that my friends and I have been involved in, and I'd like to fill out the "wishful thinking" link to an SCDC article that I found on that page. However, I want to be careful about stepping over the line of writing about myself and rehashing the Boyer controversy. Could people look at the sources and tell me whether either of these actions would be a good idea? I've read Wikipedia:Auto-biography, and I think the first case falls under the acceptable category of "writing on subjects close to your heart", and I think that filling in the empty link to an SCDC article may be borderline acceptable as I found the link already in existence, but I would like some feedback. --Nelson 04:45, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It sounds like you are very involved, well beyond it being something close to your heart — I mean, you're a co-plaintiff. I would personally recommend not adding any first-person information and stick to just making simple corrections (that do not rely on first-person information) to obvious mistakes. If you want to add something more, mention it on the talk page and let someone else do the work. Daniel Quinlan 05:25, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
Hm, it is indeed true that I am super-close to the issue, and that suggesting changes on the talk page may be the best way to go. However, if you look at Wikipedia:Auto-biography, the example they give for something "close to your heart" and acceptable is an athlete or official actually involved in the Olympic Games writing about them. At what point does it cross the line from being close to your heart to being actually about you? The athletes and officials sound pretty close to the Games. It would seem to me to be the difference between an event that involves you and an event that IS you. So, maybe it might be OK to write about a march on Washingon that you helped organize, but not all about how your latest scientific discovery saves the world. Or am I missing the point? What is the reason for the Auto-biography policy again? --Nelson 07:55, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I'm quite certain that if you happen to have made the "latest scientific discovery saves the world", there'll be tons -- and I mean tons -- of Wikipedians rushing to describe that discovery for you. Some of the most exciting news have became articles that way, as I've found thru Current events. Auto-biographies and the likes easily lead to POV, no matter now hard you try not to. Hey, it's brain. We don't know why it works that way! (I mean, I don't.) --Menchi 08:02, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
N.B. But I agree with Daniel's advice. Talk about it on the Talk page (mm.. the pun), and somebody who knows enough about the matter can go on and do something with it. Good method indeed. --Menchi 08:05, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Also, as a co-plaintiff, Wikipedia policies aside, you might want to think carefully before you comment on the issue. IANAL though. -- Pakaran 05:29, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Good point. It seems that simple statements of fact should not be an issue, but thank you for reminding me to think about that. --Nelson 07:55, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
To me the Diebold article seems POV, but I can't put my finger on why. Have you considered listing it in Peer review? Andrewa 08:54, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hm, now that you mention it, it does seem POV, probably because all of the links at the bottom are to websites and news stories that talk about the recent scandal, and all of the comments are like, "critics say that Diebold sucks". There is also no information about their ATMs and other things that they make. On the other hand, the scandal is why Diebold is in the news, and the primary reason why people care about the company. Note that there is no article on Avante or any of Diebold's other competitors. This is of course not an argument for deleting the info on the controversy, I actually wanted to add more information on the latest developments (Wikipedia is not paper), but it is an argument for writing a less narrowly-focused article. --Nelson 05:43, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Formatting country templates

Can someone reduce the width of the United Kingdom and Niue tables to be like the rest of them? --Jiang

I narrowed Niue, but UK looks already narrow on my computer. So I wouldn't narrow if what I'd do is working or not: a break code for a long line. --Menchi 09:23, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Warnings

I was wondering if there was a standard adult warning for article links? should editors just put in "Warning, contains adult material" after the link? and what about offensive content (which some may view adultcontent as)? any feed back would be appreciated .. reddi

I'm not aware of any standard text for such warnings. You may want to add some at Wikipedia:Boilerplate text. Angela
"Offensive" is impossibly POV. CGS 01:31, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC).

There has been an excessive amount of discussion on this point at Wikipedia talk:Content disclaimer. Read and be damned. Martin 02:23, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The solution is not just a disclaimer, but a G-rated version IMO, probably with its own URL space. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia approval mechanism for more on this. Andrewa 19:33, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Help me name this article idea

I want to make an article that lists songs that tribute other musicians by referencing those musicians. For example:

  • "All the Young Dudes" says "Oh man I need TV when I got T Rex" and "My brother's back at home with his Beatles and his Stones"
  • "Who's Gonna Fill Their Shoes" says "Old Jerry Lee and Charlie And old Go Cat Go still echoes through the years"
  • "Sir Duke" says "there’s basie, miller, satchmo and the king of all sir duke; and with a voice like ella’s ringing out there’s no way the band can lose"

But what I need is a solid name for the article...something like List of songs that tribute other musicians by referencing those musicians....but something that will leave no doubt what it is about while not be overly complicated.

thanks Kingturtle 01:20, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hm. List of songs containing overt reference to real musicians might do if you are satisfied with categorising into tributes and non-tributes within the article itself. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 01:38, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)
Cross-referenced songs? --Menchi 02:14, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)
List of songs that contain musician's names seems the simplest.
Adrian Pingstone 09:30, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)


New Messages Revisited

Is there a way to get rid of the "you've new messages"? I've already visited my talk page, and it still persists. Poor Yorick

I had the pb today, just re-edit your talk page. Ant
Thanks!Poor Yorick

"See also:" formatting

Michael Shields just made me aware of the fact there are two different styles advised for formatting the "See also:" section. In Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a simple, unitalicised version is 'declared' the standard. While Wikipedia:Boilerplate text advises to italicise "See also:". We should definately have one standard. What are your preferrences? Why? What about bullet lists? (I don't like them but quite a few people use them) --snoyes 22:26, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Agree, we should probably standardize this. I like the bullets, both in lists and elsewhere. My preference for "see also;" is one of these:
but I'm easy - Marshman 02:31, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
An example of what I meant when I said bullet list can be seen on Chinese written language. Every article in the "See also" list is a bullet point. --snoyes 03:34, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
If there's only one or two items in see-alsos, there's no point to list-fy them. It looks ugly. --Menchi 03:48, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I don't see any reason for it to be different than the "External links" section, which has a subheading and a bullet list. That is what the manual of style already recomments for multi-section articles, but it says the section should be called "Related topics" instead of "See also". I'd probably suggest deprecating inline "See also" paragraphs in favor of using a "Related topics" section for all articles. --Michael Shields 05:25, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
What do other encyclopedias do? If you'll notice, most of them have different styles of "See Also/Related topics" formats depending on the importance and length of articles. For example, in the World Book Encyclopedia, major articles have a full-blown Related Articles section with articles listed under appropriate subsections. In minor articles, related topics are listed inline in a separate paragraph as in "See also ..." --seav 05:32, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)
I would like to note that the style exemplified on Chinese written language is the most consistent one, with "external links", "references" and "see also" in similar formats. Also, it offers enough structure for the reader who wishes to look up something quickly. Whether it is called "related topics" or "see also" does not make much difference IMO, but it might be desirable to be keep this consistent throughout Wikipedia. Kosebamse 07:41, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I asked this question a while back here (can't find where it ended up now). Since then I have decided to use bullet lists on a separate section for See also to make stand out and uniform. I think it should be a separate section because it "moves" readers to a different page. Therefore you need the bullet list to make it look cleaner. Also, it should probably be near the end (the only thing I could see after it would be an External links section). Dori 07:58, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer this:
See also: plant, tree
for short lists. For sections that have numerous entries (i.e. over four or five entries), I prefer the seperate section with a list afterwards. But I really don't like the latter "secion-ified" version—it's ugly and obstrusive. The only reason I use it is because with numerous entries, the former version looks worse. But I agree that the "see also" section—whatever the format—should appear directly before the External links section. If a See also item pertains to only one section of a very long article, however, it can appear at the end of that section. Just my $.02... :^) —Frecklefoot 17:36, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I confess I've personally slid towards using the sub-heading and bullet-points format even for just one entry on the list. My thinking has been that the format is more encouraging for others to add to the list, and is easier for the reader to grasp visually. But that is just me; I'm not bothered if someone reverts them. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
I think it depends upon the number and the emphasis needed for the "See also's". My suggested style(s) (above) would be for one to several links. If the links are pretty significant and there are many of them (often the links are to rather dubious connections), then a bulleted list seems appropriate and most helpful to the user. Order at the bottom (IMHO) should be "See Also", External Links", "References" - Marshman 19:18, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

RobBot on fr: and interwiki missing on en:

Hello,

I ran the RobBot on the french wikipedia for the last 4 days. It generated logs for a lot of interwiki missing on all wikipedia. I am wondering if someone on en: might please use the data to update the en: wikipedia ? Maybe you already know people able to take care of this on other wikipedia ?

The logs are available at:

http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LinksFR.20031109.zip

Hashar 23:37, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This sounds like something many people (including myself) would be interested in helping with. But I think some better explanation is needed for this to happen.
I've downloaded the ZIP file from the above link, and extracted the 39 logs it contains, and I'm a little the wiser. It seems that these show missing links between various language Wikipedias, for example logs.en.txt shows links missing from the English Wikipedia to the French.
I'm already worked out that there is a standard software-supported way of linking to articles in other Wikipedias, but I don't know where this is documented.
I'm guessing that these logs are not reliable enough to generate these links automatically, and that what is therefore needed is someone with knowledge of both languages to verify each, and then create the missing link(s). This sounds like something that software tools could help with, for example showing both articles in some sort of split screen and providing a button to approve the links. I don't know whether any such tools already exist, or what the basis is for compiling these lists, ie what does an entry actually mean? Knowing this would help me a great deal.
For the links in logs.en.txt my French is probably up to the job, if my guesses are correct.
But could someone check my understanding above, or perhaps provide a better explanation, or even wikify some of the text to point to existing explanations? TIA.
Perhaps we should also come up with a way of dividing the log between those interested. It could be quite time-consuming, and frustrating if it turns out that large numbers of the links have been created since the list was compiled. Andrewa 19:17, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The software that produced this, and can be used for automated link-adding, can be found at http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/pywikipediabot/pywikipedia/.
The list has been created by going through the French Wikipedia, checking language links, language links from those, etcetera, and when no problem occurred (a problem being two pages from the same language, or an fr: link to a page that does not exist), all pages found that way were added to fr:, and any other lacking links between these pages were written on the log. So for example: "WARNING:en:[[.NET Messenger Service]]does not link to[[fr:MSN Messenger]]" means that the French page links to the English, but there is no link back, "WARNING:en:[[Émile Zola]]does not link to[[da:Emile Zola]]" means that there is a French page that links to both pages, but the English page does not link to the Danish one, and "WARNING:en:[[Émile Zola]]does not link to[[fr:Émile Zola]]but to[[fr:Emile Zola]]" means that the English page links to "Emile Zola" on fr:, but "Emile Zola" either does not exist or is a redirect page, while "Émile Zola" on fr: links to the English page. If wanted, the entries can be added automated or semi-automated. Andre Engels 14:22, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thanks Andre Engels, you are way better than me when it comes to explaining things :p Hashar 15:32, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

calling all sysops, brush up on the limitations of your powers.

I noticed that people are getting seriously sloppy with the guidelines on protecting pages. We are all human (Ghu knows I have made my share of mistakes). Please remember that protecting a page should always be done by an uninvolved party (even if it is your own user page); I'll try to remember that too. Just ask someone else to do it for you. As you likely have a good case for the protection of the page, getting another sysop shouldn't be so hard. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 23:57, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. User:Viajero's protection of the ever controversial Mother Teresa article to stop User:Aplank's edits (which others were reverting) is a case in point. Viajero had been a participant in the debate over weeks and so was not a neutral person to do the protecting. FearÉIREANN 00:04, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Sysops have be desysoped for doing as much. The only time when I've protected a page I was actively involved in editing was when it was being repeatedly blanked (vandalism) and I wasn't one of the main parties involved in the edit war. Use your common sense, people. Daniel Quinlan 05:34, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)
On this I have to disagree most strongly. No sysop has ever been desysoped for making an honest mistake. And I would thank it if no-one suggested it was a policy to do so. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 21:26, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)


User sub-pages

I have noticed that some Wikipedians have added sub-pages underneath their main user page to hold a personal sand-box, to do list etc etc. But I couldn't find anything about this in any of the help pages or FAQs. So I have two questions ...

  • Is this discouraged ? Am I breaking some rule of Wiki etiquette if I do this ?
  • If I want to do this, do I just create a link on my user page (called, say, User:Gandalf61/blick) then go to it and edit it ? Or is there more to it than that ?

Gandalf61 12:05, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Gandalf, - while subpages in the main article space are discouraged (I don't really know why), you are free to create them in your user space, and 2. that's indeed the easiest way. Cheers, Kosebamse 12:17, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Here are some arguments both ways: Wikipedia:Do not use subpages. I personally think keeping subpages out of the main article namespace is one of the best decisions made in Wikipedia's early history. It usually keeps things more appropriately titled and allows for articles with slashes like Nip/Tuck. Subpages are good in the user and talk namespaces, though. --Minesweeper 05:51, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia is not a place for personal homepages. Thus, subpages of your homepage that have something to do with Wikipedia (a list of pages you created, ideas about the wikipedia project, a list of pages you would like to work on, possibilities are still almost endless) are welcome, but to create them for personal ramblings, lists of what you ate on various Wednesdays, or whatever, would be considered very bad Wiki-etiquette. Or such is my opinion at least. Andre Engels 13:31, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I don't eat on Wednesdays, you insensitive clod! Oh, sorry, thought I was on Slashdot. orthogonal 18:01, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Questionable text in Bar Association

Hi,

I removed some text from Bar association that I found questionable, and that seems to be a rehashing on the urban myth that the word "testimony" was based on an ancient Roman practice of holding one's gonads and swearing on them.

I cannot confirm that the text is false, can anyone help?

Thanks! -- Pakaran 18:46, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This is probably a matter best discussed on Talk:Bar association. -- Finlay McWalter 18:57, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Ok, thanks - I started a thread there. I'm late for class, so I'll head out now. -- Pakaran 19:10, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Most-edited talk pages

Could some kindly developer update Wikipedia:Most-edited talk pages, preferably removing Talk:Main Page from consideration? Tuf-Kat 19:32, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:SQL query requests.

Favourite vs Favorite

OK- I didn't know where else to ask this question. I recently looked at my watchlist, and someone had made an edit at Saved by the Bell, where they had done almost nothing except to change "favorite" to "favourite". Is there a convention about this sort of thing? A quick search reveals a few articles that are particularly troubling, they feature both spellings: e.g. Chateau Chenonceaux -DropDeadGorgias 22:06, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think that it all depends on the writer's accent. Favorite or Favourite, whatever. It means the same. -- Antonio Graphic sexaholic Martin

Wikipedia Manual of Style#Spelling style. As Saved by the Bell is an American program and the original author of the article used AE, it makes sense to keep it AE and not change "favorite" to "favourite". Angela 22:17, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I agree. I think it is "bad form" to go around and change from American to English or English to American, but Angela makes the point that where terms might appear mixed in the same article, go by the rule: "Is this article more likely to be of interest to (or pertain to) Americans or Brits?" If unsure, leave it alone. There may be a proponent of that page that is using the spelling he/she is most comfortable with. One might even consider that the other's spelling version has merit, as I learned when someone changed "groin" (a rock jetty) to "groyne" in one of the articles I was working on. I'd never seen "groyne" before, but I like it better than "groin" for a rock structure (leave "groin" to the anatomists). - Marshman 18:45, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
It is worse form to care about it. :) Martin 19:41, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

List of noted autograph signers

I have been debating for months within myself whether to do this list or not. I decided to post my query here based on the limited encyclopedic value I think it would have: Any autograph collector could look up the list and find out if a celebrity who is in town likes signing autographs or not. I have vast experience in this field, I am an autograph collector myself.

Like I said, the value would be limited, but that value makes me wonder. Antonio Megacrazy Martin

There are quite a few people who are weary of lists of dubious value. I say only go for it if you can tie it with the article of broader scope about autographs in general. Perhaps list of autographs (images) might be more "worthy"Dori 05:50, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)
I think it would be hard to confirm the correctness of additions or deletions; if a celebrity doesn't give an autograph to some annoying person, does that mean the disappointed seeker should then run to WP and delete the celebrity's name from this list? If you can come up with criteria that other editors can use, then the list makes sense. In the meantime, you could always create the list as one of your user subpages and "test-drive" it for a while, see how it works to maintain. Stan 07:06, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Sounds pretty dubious to me and also rather POV. Isn't this the sort of thing that really belongs in a autograph signer enthusiast web site or something. Daniel Quinlan 08:49, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)
It might be of interest if you recorded idiosyncracies. For example, Terry Pratchett has a particular style for each book (or at least he did when he last signed a batch for me). Or maybe a list of authors who really do not like signing books might be more useful :-) Phil 14:46, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

ancient wiki history question

I have an ancient wiki history question. What does it mean when the Conversion script is listed as the first author of a page? Was the actual attribution to the original author lost forever? Maximus Rex 05:48, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The "conversion script" was the script which converted Wikipedia from usemod format to the current phase III format. This conversion occurred in Februrary 2002. Originally, no history could be seen from before the conversion occurred -- every article which existed before phase III appeared to have been started by the conversion script. Brion has now managed to extract most history from usemod and has added it to the database. However, the conversion script entries in history remained, in most cases appearing to perform whatever was the last edit prior to the conversion. See also Wikipedia:Usemod article histories. -- Tim Starling 06:09, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

Idea to add table to day page articles

See Talk:Historical anniversaries/Example. --mav 10:00, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)~

Posters

Can I use posters of movies here? --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 11:52, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes, if: you own the copyright to the poster; or it is in the public domain; or you obtained permission of the copyright holder (in a verifiable manner). Otherwise, no.
(Note this is not an official Wikipedia answer, and may be wrong. orthogonal is not a representative, official or unofficial, of Wikipedia. Note that this is not legal advice. orthogonal is not a lawyer. If you need legal advice, you should contact a lawyer.) orthogonal 17:57, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
What Orthogonal said. Martin 19:40, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Anniversaries

Is Sesame Street really more important than the end of World War I?

Adam, if you are referring to Armistice Day, the custom on the Main page is to add anniversaries after the current day. It may seem an idiosyncratic practice, but there is logic behind it; see: Wikipedia:Selected Articles on the Main Page -- Viajero 12:26, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Sorry, I just realized that this explanation was in a discussion on the Main Talk page, so I added it to the above-mentioned page. -- Viajero 13:23, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
It already is the next day where I am. Adam
Indeed! -- Viajero 13:23, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
...Added. -- Viajero 13:28, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Log In

How can I stay logged in for longer than (whatever the default) is? I'm finding that I'm editing articles only to later notice I'm not logged in. I dislike this because it makes me less accountable. orthogonal 17:53, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If you aren't already, and you are using a private computer, ask it to remember your password. Κσυπ Cyp 18:02, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but won't that just make logging in a bit easier? That's not what I want, exactly; I want not to be logged out in the first place. orthogonal 18:11, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I'm oblivious to the actual way this all works, but it seems plausible that if you do relatively frequently "Show Preview" clicks, your login "timer" will be refreshed on the server. A server sysop can probably confirm or correct this assumption. - Marshman 18:29, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
It's vaguely possible that the old cookie is somehow interfering with the new cookie (but it shouldn't be). Clear out any cookies you may have set on 'en.wikipedia.org' or 'en2.wikipedia.org' and try again. Check your cookies for one named "enwikiSession" set for the domain ".wikipedia.org". Have you got one, and what's the expiration date look like? It should be ~an hour in the future. Could anyone with cookie problems check the date & timezone settings on your computer? If it's off (for instance a daylight saving time glitch) that could expire the cookie early. If that's totally off base, I'd like to be able to strike it off my list of things to check. --Brion 05:47, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Where is that? I am using Windows XP, and only found 3 files in my \cookie, one is called "administrator@wikipedia[2].txt" which is modified 3 mins ago. :? --218.19.141.3 05:56, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
If you open that file in wordpad (not notepad! notepad gets confused) you'll see some gobbledegook inside; looks like the expiry times aren't in human-readable format though, unless you understand seconds since January 1, 1970... I've changed the cookie to expire at the end of the browser session instead of at a time offset. Does this help? --Brion 05:57, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
It works now!! Thanks! --Samuel 05:59, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Awesome! (By any chance, can you check that your computer's clock and timezone are set correctly?) --Brion 06:03, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Right then. Any chance the cookie expiration could be set to, say +12 rather than +1 hours? orthogonal 19:45, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia at lightspeed!

wow, I commend whomever was involved in the latest magic that gave us such great speed on Wikipedia. I've been around these parts for nearly 10 months and this is by far the greatest access-speed I've ever experienced. thanks again to all involved! Kingturtle 18:59, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia is now unbelievably fast, and it's all thanks to Brion. Some pages are served from pliny, some are served from larousse, and no-one should notice the difference, except for the blindingly fast response. -- Tim Starling 03:47, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)
Great, great magic. Shall we vote on a title to bestow upon Brion? Kosebamse 19:37, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

An aside: google notices. But worth it. Martin 19:39, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_archive_2004-09-26&oldid=1714575"