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 Andrewa (talk | contribs) at 19:45, 2 December 2003 (heading). 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 delivered
    • 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.
    • Jason has installed the new box (2003-12-01)
    • After configuration and testing, it should take over database duties in the early AM UTC on 2003-12-03 (evening US time 2003-12-02). There will be some read-only downtime while the database is transferred.

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.

Requests for help and comments

  1. See User:Daniel Quinlan/redirects if you want to help out with fixing thousands of broken links prepared by Brion and Daniel.
  2. See Wikipedia talk:Interlanguage links for Hashar's information on using RobBot to add interlanguage links.
  3. See Talk:Historical anniversaries/Example for mav's idea to add table to day page articles
  4. Should more than three reverts be allowed? Comment on Martin's proposal.
  5. snoyes requests that people who are not logged in and adding inter-language links please put "de:", "fr:" etc. in their edit summaries.
  6. Aoineko has set up an international Egyptology project for all Wikipedias. If you would like to join it, see m:Egyptopedia.
  7. Comment on Kokiri's Wikipedia Quality Assessment at User:Kokiri/WQA

Trolling below the radar

Take a look at Special:Contributions/66.157.94.151 some seem legitimate, but some seem suspicious, but I cannot confirm as inaccurate. I reverted the Michael Jackson one which seem an outright troll. This seems to be the biggest danger to the Wikipedia. This kind of vandalism can go unnoticed, because it is not possible to tell at first sight whether something is accurate or not if it is written in a certain manner. Have you guys run across the more sophisticated vandals? Dori 17:25, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

On a second though, after JeLuF's investigations, it seems that this user's edits may be legitimate, but the points about under the radar trolls remains. Dori 17:30, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
A quick look at Special:Contributions/66.157.94.151 makes it clear that this user is Easter Bradford or an EasterBradford sock-puppet or supporter, so misuse of Wikipedia is no surprise. Can you enumerate what else you find suspicious, Dori? And what did JeLuF determine? orthogonal 17:33, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I checked the facts that were added to Michael Jackson, Dorothy Parker, Eminem and Spike Lee using http://news.google.com . All edits were backed up by news articles. -- JeLuF 17:39, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Which does create some credibility. The problem is, that might be the whole reason for them. Wikilove is blind. It's a very complex issue. Andrewa 14:19, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I see no clearly-defined dividing line between trolling and POV. At one end there is deliberate vandalism and at the other there are contributions with perhaps just a very slight bias. Somewhere in the middle is the grey area where most discussion page arguments take place.
The most subtle problem is an article or section that contains nothing but a few negative statements on a subject. Such statements may be obscure but verifiable facts, but on their own can give an article a complete bias.
A recent example is an addition on "Saudi Culture" which said only that Saudi Arabia banned the burial of non-Moslems (untrue)and the practice of other religions (partly true - non-Islamic religious ceremonies are only permitted in private). Even if true, this is hardly a sound representation of "Saudi Culture" and not of much use to a schoolchild doing a project on the subject. What about camels, tents, songs, stories, carpets, desert-life, legends, musical instruments and so forth?
Do we need "balance police"? Anjouli 06:55, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't talking about POV or cases where editors really believe what they are adding is true. I am talking about cases where vandals pick an obscure topic and make remarks that are not true, but not easily verifiable. Thus they slip through until someone else takes an interest in that topic and discovers the "blatant" vandalism. Dori | Talk 20:54, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC)

Wrong contribution dates

I just discovered that officially my first contribution was moving Brutus to Marcus Junius Brutus in Augus 23, 2002. Neat. Problem is that i did it yesterday! Is there something wrong in the kingdom of Wikipedia? Muriel Victoria 10:51, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes, moving will cause weird time travelling events. I thought the bug's fixed. It was mentioned in the Pump a while back. --Menchi 10:54, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I'm assuming that Marcus Junius Brutus already existed a redirect to Brutus? If so, that's a known but minor bug. If not, that's something new and existing. --Brion 21:36, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Actually i dont remenber... But i think that if MJB already existed, then i couldnt have make the move of Brutus to there. Or could I? Muriel Victoria 11:23, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Time traveling in wiki... Hummm. What are the philosophical repercussions? Michael was a vandal before he was born?... Current events are being posted before they actually happen? The list is endless. Muriel

Bugs -> wikipedia:bug reports


Watchlist

How can I move my watchlist from one account to another account? --Yacht 02:58, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible to do using the current software. You might view the list on the first account, open another window and login using the other account, open a new window for each entry and click Watch this page (from the new account). This should be easier with a tabbed browser. Another alternative is to save the links to one of your user pages, and then click Related changes from that page (or create a link [[Special:Recentchangeslinked/page_containing_links]] Dori 03:08, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Changing username, maybe that's what you need. I think maybe when you merge, the watchlists merge as well. I never merged, not sure. --Menchi 03:32, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, how long will the User contributions be kept? can I check out one's contribution 2 years ago? --Yacht 03:14, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)

Forever I think, just set the maximum limit to 9999999 or something. --Menchi 03:32, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Where to set that? --Yacht 04:10, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)
In http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Dori&limit=20&offset=0 , change limit=20 to limit=999999 . --Menchi 06:14, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
You really don't want to do that; some accounts have tens of thousands of edits. --Brion 06:20, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Maybe a "show edits from January 2001 to March 2001" feature could be handy. I don't think currently we could just zoom back to see contri-list 2 years ago without also getting the ones before that. Could we? --Menchi 06:23, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
no need for 2 years, but the default setting of 1hours really upsets me, 'cause i have to click the 7days every time when i check out my watchlist. --Yacht 08:49, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)
sorry, i missed the point, i thought you were talking about the watchlist... --Yacht 08:54, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)

Database corruption?

In Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (slogans), (Revision as of 15:26, 16 Aug 2003) The following header (h3) string (emphasis mine) :

3iyZiyA7iMwg5rhxP0Dcc9oTnj8qD1jm1Sfv4 ?

replaces the header (h3) string (emphasis mine):

Because the worldwide spread of AIDS has had such a tragic effect on millions of ... ?

in the previous revision of (Revision as of 16:11, 7 Aug 2003)

In revision as of 15:26, 16 Aug 2003, the same nonsense string also replaces a portion of a comment by Jtdirl.

NEITHER CHANGE IS REFLECTED IN THE VISUAL DIFF.


In the revision as of 16:11, 7 Aug 2003, Jtdirl's comment seems corrupted as well but with a different replacement string (emphasis mine):

As the defining characteristic of slogans is that they are slogans, it seems logical to state that they are slogans up front, in the form ...ng sexual intercourse with a virgin will cure AIDS has gained considerable notoriety. This myth has... . Drawing links to books, films etc is irrelevant. Books & films etc are real, existing items. A slogan is a propagandistic statement. Quoting them without calling them a slogan is POV because it can be seen in the manner of the title's use that you are endorsing the slogan. Calling it a slogan makes it clear that you are not endorsing it, merely stating it, hence the need to use the word. The defining characteristic is that it is a slogan, therefore it is logical that that word is stated first. Readers should not immediately that they are dealing with a slogan. There is always a danger that in a long slogan, on a google search the slogan qualification might not be seen, but cut off at the end. So the fact that it is a slogan should be stated at the begining where it cannot be lost or cut off. I propose this methodology. Jtdirl

The "3iyZiyA7iMwg5rhxP0Dcc9oTnj8qD1jm1Sfv4", in both the header and Jtdirl's comment, persists (is faithfully copied) to the current revision.

orthogonal 05:55, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That's a parsing/rendering error and does not indicate any sort of problem with the database. A number of things, such as <pre> tags, <math> sections, and <nowiki> text, store chunks of source text outside for different processing and then replace the placeholder string after the regular wiki parsing is complete. Sometimes when things are incorrectly nested, a placeholder is duplicated and shows up incorrectly in the output.
The culprit here was "=== <nowiki>[[slogan 'X']] or [[X (slogan)]]</nowiki> ? ==="; a <nowiki> inside a section heading is guaranteed to get messed up. Don't do it. --Brion 06:09, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)


When I go into the lobster article, American lobster shows up as a red link. But when I click on it, the redirect is already in place. Same problem clicking Pakistan Air Force from Islamabad International Airport. I've tried logging out and using a different browser. - Hephaestos 10:06, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Alas, it looks like the new experimental persistent link caching suffers the same fate as the last similar attempt and isn't getting updated correctly. It's now disabled pending further testing. Force a reload of the page, it should appear correctly. --Brion 10:13, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Is this related to a problem with the WhatLinksHere I just found - I changed several links to ATP to their correct disambiguated target, however the pages still show in the WhatLinksHere? I just reported that bug on SourceForge... andy 10:25, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
And another missing link oddity - I just uploaded a picture which in it's image description page says that no pages use it - but it is used and displayed quite fine - see the coat of arms of Nordvorpommern. andy 22:56, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Okay, tracked that one down. Should be fixed now (though similar cases will be scattered throughout the databases; as linking pages get editing this will right itself). --Brion 00:16, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Moving page to redirect without history

Brunswick is a redirect with no history. Why am I not able to move Brunswick, Germany there? - Sandman 10:55, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It's a redirect to a different page. --Brion 10:57, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Interesting, I didn't know about this limitation - Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page not only doesn't mention it, but describes a procedure for swapping two pages that is made impossible by it. - Sandman 16:37, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
You may want to fix the manual then... :) Martin
Given the number of things listed in Brunswick (redirect to a disambiguation page), I would not swap it with Brunswick, Germany. The last link is more specific. At18 11:10, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Redirect page

Should we list the redirect pages which redirect to non-existing page on the VfD? --Yacht 09:15, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)

No, please list them on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Angela

Is this allowed? See: Karkikailash --Yacht 09:27, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)

It's not not allowed. If the redirects are old they are usually kept (not wishing to break links and all that). If they are new (like in the last few days), then normally the user would be told and then the redirect deleted in a day or two, which is what I expect will happen with this one. Angela 10:03, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)



Sandbox history

Is it crucial that we keep the edit history of Wikipedia:Sandbox? Because if so, there are 6055 deleted edits under Raqs al sharqi. - Hephaestos 07:57, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


The edit history of the sandbox is wrong anyway as it has more than once been moved to another page and not all moved back. When Raqs al sharqi was deleted, the sandbox still contained some history, so not all had moved to the Raqs al sharqi page. The current sandbox has 1154 edits, some dating to before it was moved. Personally, I don't think it is worth trying to restore 6000 edits, though if someone can think of a use for it then they could merged back. Angela 08:25, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
IMO the whole concept of the Sandbox is that this history is expendable. Andrewa 08:52, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I don't see why it would be needed, but I also see no reason to get rid of it on purpose. It's probably fine as it is. Dori | Talk 20:50, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC)

Declaring outside interests?

I am doing some editing on Good News Translation and American Bible Society. In the past, I have donated to the American Bible Society. Should I declare this fact on the talk pages for each article and/or my user page so that other Wikipedians (and general users) don't get the idea that my edits are biased because I have donated to the ABS? --hoshie 08:22, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it unless a controversy comes up. There's plenty of people here with outside interests, many much more "conflict of interest"-like than the one you cite. It's always good to look for your own biases though and try to make sure they're not showing through in the article. --Delirium 08:44, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
Sounds like a good and ethical example to set. I know that many people think of Christians as bad people without morals, so I think it's especially appropriate for you to challenge these prevailing stereotypes. Perhaps you'll be known "The Good Christian", and who knows, maybe we can hope that sometime in the future only academics will remember the original, negative connotation of "Christian", and that the word "Christian" primarily will make people think of "The Good Christian" instead, the one person who did the right thing when all others, with better reputations, did nothing or did evil. Oh, wait, never mind, that's "Samaritan" and "Good Samaritan" I'm thinking of. Still, it sets a good example to reveal your biases. orthogonal 09:18, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I would judge a NPOV by what you write, not by anything else. But it is always interesting to know who people are. Anjouli 09:52, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


19th century (and earlier) art

"Accurate photographs of paintings lack expressive content and are automatically in the public domain once the painting's copyright has expired (95 years after initial publication). All other copyright notices can safely be ignored." Public_domain_image_resources
Am I correct in reading that as meaning that any jpg, gif, etc. of a painting first produced in 1908 or earlier found on the web can be safely appropriated for use here? Or do we need to be more subtle about it? Guidelines? (This is specifically in connection with the discussion at m:Talk:Egyptopedia. –Hjr 17:59, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If the scanning guy in addition done some graphic manipulation on it, then the image's copyright magically becomes his. Does such graphic manipulation include resize and highlight?! I dunno. --Menchi 01:52, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

OK, thanks for taking the time to answer. Definite grey area, then; I'll hold back. –Hjr 17:28, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There is one thing that you could do, if you want: if the image does not have digital watermark (I'm not sure how to check it), you could crop/resize/enhance it yourself so that it is not identical to the original image, and it could not be proven whether you or someone else scanned it. If you then post it to Wikipedia claiming that you have the copyright, it is not illegal for Wikipedia to use the image, only for you. Nikola 18:06, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm... interesting. But it's still not entirely kosher, is it? Let's try a different tack: what's the legal position of scanning in 19th C. art from late-20th C. books (books which have the "No part of this publication may in any way be reproduced... etc., etc." blurb in the front)? Still a grey area? –Hjr 01:51, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wikiedia: Article name discussions?

Is there a place in wikipedia where dialogs take place involving suggestions for renaming articles that already exist? Kingturtle 20:15, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Only the talk page of the article in question, AFAIK. Pete 22:11, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Start there. If, however, you have the conviction that the present name is really just not the right one, then move the page to the new name and keep the old article as a Redirect. You may need to go in and fix all the links on the Reduirect Page. Also check the page history first to make sure you are not changing a name to something that it was before and moved away from for an equally (to yours) valid reason. In that case you really do need to make your arguments on the Talk page. - Marshman 22:35, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Also try wikipedia talk:naming conventions, for broader issues. Martin 23:01, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Image Bug?

I just noticed that this image: Image:Closeuppineneedlessm.jpg lists only leaf as where it is presently used, but that is just the last place I placed it. It is still used at spruce and Pinophyta, perhaps elsewhere in Wikipedia. Is this a bug or justy a consequence of the wiki being spread over two servers? - Marshman 23:40, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Same here: See Image:NEO_sulaiman_small.jpg which thinks it isn't being used anywhere, but Sulaiman Mountains shows it. --snoyes 23:49, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
This bug was fixed yesterday. When the pages that use the image are next edited, the links should be re-recorded. (We'll rebuild the whole link table at some point in the near future once we think we've got most of these fixed.) --Brion 01:23, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Excellent! thanks. snoyes 01:55, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Cool. Can't wait for the new server to be up a running. And thanks Brion. - Marshman

Disclaimer needed on main page?

RickK recently expressed concern that WP may be liable if someone followed a herbal remedy that had been posted and got poisoned.

I went to look at the disclaimer on the main page and was surprised to find that there isn't one - unless you count GNU Free Documentation License via Wikipedia:About

Should we have one? Anjouli 08:36, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Anyone who takes a berbal remedy they find on the internet deserves to get poisoned. Adam 12:55, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
If this is really necessary, put one on the page with the herbal remedy. -- Viajero 10:27, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I think that has already been done. I meant something more general to protect against future postings. Safer than trying to police everything and post warnings after the fact. Anjouli 10:58, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
We have Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, which IIRC correctly makes specific mention that we don't give medical or legical advice. There is also Wikipedia:General disclaimer. There was definitely discussion here on the pump about where these pages should be linked from... at the moment Wikipedia:About links to the content disclaimer but only in the context of us using rude words rather than medical/legal contexts. There was a chorus of disapproval about putting it in a prominent place on the main page (which happened for a couple of days). A less prominent place on that page would've been "consenus-ok" IIRC. However given that most visitors will "parachute in" to a particular article rather than visiting the main page whether much is gained by this, I don't know. Pete 11:20, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Well I must admit I was specifically looking for a disclaimer and failed entirely to find Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, which must prove something - if only that I'm a silly old bat. My concern is protection of WP against malicious litigation which could wreck the whole thing.Are we unwisely exposed? Can somebody with legal qualifications please advise? Anjouli 11:52, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I suppose a general disclaimer would have to apply not just to herbal remedies but to other potentially hazardous uses of Wiki information. For example, there was a (sort of) dislaimer on the nitroglycerin page, which read The making of nitroglycerin is obviously potentially very dangerous, because of the product's explosive nature. Do not attempt to make it yourself! - so I have now strengthened it by adding a link to Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer -- Gandalf61 16:07, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)

Declaring interests again

I also have a potential conflict of interests I'd like advice on. I was scanning List of English language poets for red links, looking for articles I'd like to write. I found one that has been there for seven months (long before I started wiki'ing) that I'd very mucg like to write and that I think would be worth having. Problem is, the poet in question is a friend of mine. Should I go ahead or leave it for someone else to do? Bmills 09:53, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I would give it a try if I was you. You may have better insight than most. If you are not impartial, somebody will soon edit it. Anjouli 11:58, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I don't see why there is any reason why it would be impartial to list just the biographical facts. Someone else can add qualitative aspects. -- Viajero 12:01, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll think about it for a day or two and see what I can do that avoids judgements but isn't a stub. Bmills 12:09, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If someone else has listed this person as a poet but failed to write even a stub, I think you're still on good ground. It's a shame they didn't create the stub and an excellent example of why stubs are helpful.
IMO this is an excellent chance to get important and accurate information perhaps not available elsewhere. We should grab it. But certainly, be conservative regarding assessment of their work. Others will add this. As to listing their major publications to date, do!
Check the article with the person by all means, but remember it's your contribution, not theirs. You understand what Wikipedia is and isn't. They might not. So as to the accuracy and completeness, get their OK. As to what goes in and how it is phrased, you may need to be firm. Good luck. Andrewa 01:07, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Article now at Tom Raworth. I did not talk with him and kept it very short and factual. I may come back to it again. Thanks for all the advice, and I'd appreciate any suggestions for improvement. Bmills 09:42, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

articles are getting sloppy

The first paragraph of a biographical entry should always mention birth and death years, nationality, and brief descriptions of three or for of that person's most important accomplishments. If the person is still alive, the first sentence should say what that person is (in terms of position, occupation, etc.)

It is getting a bit frustrating seeing biographical articles that don't help the naive reader along.

The most important bits should be in the forefront. As you write, don't assume the reader knows the topic at hand. Kingturtle 19:32, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) for this and similar hints. There are also links to and from Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. As to putting yourself in the readers' place, that's really good advice, but not always easy. It's a skill that can be learned IMO and all serious Wikipedians should try.
On the other hand, IMO we'll always have some sloppiness in the 'base' Wikipedia. This slop-friendliness is part of its charm and strength, and part of the reason I'd like a sifter project. Andrewa 20:07, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Sloppiness may well always be with us, but one thing I've noticed about biographical articles a tendency to have a selection of random facts (information) added in no particular order over a period of time with no real attempt to arrange them in a way that illuminates the importance of the person in question (knowledge) which comes back to a discussion I've seen here a few times on the privileging of process over product in the Wikipedia experience. Would love to know what the answer is, especially as I seem to have been engaged mostly on biographical articles myself and may well be one of the sloppy ones referred to. Bmills 12:20, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

New Messages

deleted, see wikipedia:bug reports

Why do I occassionally see internal links that are brown and without underline? Kingturtle 23:22, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

stubs - you can set in your preferences to highlight stubs below a certain size. Secretlondon 23:26, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)
  • Is there any consensus on a sensible value for this preference? I've set it at 250 and haven't actually spotted any yet. Phil 13:43, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC)
The problem is that a stub with boilerplate is nearly always bigger then 250 - the complete stub notice has 130 bytes by itself. But of course those stubs can be found using the WhatLinksHere list of the stub article. I personally have the threshold set to 200, and I did find several vandalized pages otherwise lost that way already. And I found stubs without the stub boilerplate as well :-) andy 14:05, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
For reference Andy, your comment is 206 bytes long so would be not be a stub by your standards. I set mine to 2000, but I think I probably use it in a different way to most people... basically as a minimum guard when I start a new article... if I can't write 2000 bytes then I don't enough about the topic. Pete/Pcb21 14:16, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)


The only sensible setting is 0 (which turns it off; this should be the default setting). "Stubs" are a qualitative designation, not one of size, so the 'stub threshold' is not so useful as it sounds. --Brion 23:49, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Organization of biographies

When reading biographies of individuals, I find that the introduction part is chronologically organized rather than being organized by their importance. A case in point is Eduard Shevardnadze. I would normally expect people to know him as a former President of Georgia first, and then as a former foreign minister of the erstwhile Soviet Union. The article prefers to introduce him in the reverse order. Is it a convention in wikipedia to follow this methodology or is it upto the editors? Left to me, I would change the order, but I find simply too many articles like this, and I thought I would ask first.

I tried to find the answer in Wikipedia biography style guides. But, I found no specific answer. chance 06:22, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC)

Left up to editors, not least because "importance" is subjective; for instance, some would argue that Shevardnadze was more important as foreign minister of the SU than as president of a small country. Also note that sometimes it works better to list the most important notability last in a paragraph, because you can make it stand out more - a sort of mini-conclusion. Read it out loud both ways before deciding. Stan 08:22, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
What you describe is not limited to biographies, but very common in the natural sciences where I like to work. Lots of "good" facts added over time with no thought to any logical arrangement/organizatioon. But that is how this place works for a lot of people: "Hey, I have a factoiid, I'll go add it to Wikipedia!" IMHO that is just fine. My forte is to go into those articles and do the organizing; I love it, especially if I'm confronted with numerous interesting factoids. It is called copyediting, and a valid persuit that many spend their time here doing. Great system in my opinion; not a short-coming - Marshman 21:02, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Made a mistake moving a page

I happened upon Oswiecim while random-paging around, and tried to move it to the accented [[Oświęcim]]. In the process something blew up, though; the article got moved to [[OÅ›wiÄ™cim]] instead and now when I try going there to move it back Wikipedia thinks the link leads to O instead. I pasted the text of the article to Talk:Oswiecim just in case I've done something horrible and unrecoverable. Has anyone got suggestions on how I can fix this? Bryan 08:00, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Update: The text I copied and pasted has been restored to Oswiecim, but the edit history is still gone so I still want to move the original article back if possible. Bryan 08:03, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've restored the page history revisions to Oswiecim. Clear your cache if you don't see the additional entries in the history right away. --Brion
Hi, the problem you experienced is related to the Unicode UTF-8 encoding, or lack thereof - it's needed to handle some characters that are not found in the traditional Latin alphabet, and the English wikipedia is not using it (it's on iso-8859-1 instead). So I guess that the wiki will have problems handling those characters. Moreover, some browsers handle UTF8 correctly, others translate them into HTML entities, others leave them alone, others don't know what to do with them. I'm not sure if the problem is the browser or the fact that certain characters in the title are not allowed at all. Alfio 10:14, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The problem is that this wiki (and several of the other european languages) are not set up for UTF-8 internally, but interpret non-latin1 character entities as UTF-8 for generating outgoing links to the rest of the languages. When you try to put these characters on an internal link, the wiki gets very confused. Just use Latin-1 for now here; it'll get moved to full working UTF-8 at some point once we get some more 'armor' code against problem browsers that don't support it well. --Brion 10:42, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a suitable place for *constructing* knowledge?

Though Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopaedia, would it be appropriate for researchers in a set of overlapping fields to use it for collating fragmentary information - that is, for *constructing* knowledge rather than for *referencing* knowledge?

My example: I recently discussed setting up a collaborative Wiki for early modern historians to collate information about minor personages in Quattrocento Northern Italy. This kind of information is normally extremely fragmentary, strewn carelessly (by the winds of time) across multiple sources of varying reliability and accessibility - diaries, letters, footnotes, etc. Collaboration would help the community of early modern historians bring together these shards of knowledge into a more complete whole.

However, while this would satisfy some of Wikipedia's objectives and match its collaborative methodology, it would also implicitly contain a content mismatch (typically book references rather than URLs), while also relying on internal completeness to be useful (rather than on summaries plus links).

True, I could easily host it on one of my own (personal) mini-Wikis... but building it directly into Wikipedia would seem to be an inherently better approach. I'm really in two minds about this - what do you think?

Nick Pelling --Nickpelling 11:55, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Constructing existing knowledge, sure, Wikipedia is collaborative. Just as long as an article looks relatively presentable if someone was to come across it, it should be okay. But constructing new knowledge, probably not, you may want to check Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Thanks Dysprosia 12:00, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

My instant reaction is that you should use your personal mini-wiki to build the content, then pipe it through into Wikipedia in a controlled fashion. You could include links back to the originating mini-wiki for anyone who wanted to see the process, or contribute further. This would localise the traffic and relieve the main Wikipedia site of some pressure. YMMV. Phil 12:03, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC)
An interesting question that lines right on the border between two of our current practices. We routinely sift through sources, often biased and/or inaccurate media sources to try to build an accurate and balanced article. In this sense we do gather primary sources together into a secondary source article. However Wikipedia is emphatically not a repositry for original research. I think the main driver for this is that many of the people who've tried to add original research have been of the crankish/crackpotty type that frequent many of the sci.* hierachy newsgroups. Your plan - to gather together very primary and fragmented sources into a coherent article is on a border line. My feeling is that other encyclopedias don't do this "close-to-the-knuckle" sourcing - they probably coallate secondary sources. However if you achieved your goals I am sure it would be very valuable addition to Wikipedia so would hope that the rules could be interpreted to accommodate you as you piece together Quattrocento Northern Italy. Interested in other opinions.... Pete 12:36, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
If a Wikipedia article can present a primary source then that is excellent providing that primary source has been subject to academic peer review and ideally other similiar studies have been done. The issue with a primary source is whether it can be considered reliable. I'm struggling with the Dolphin brain article because it is cutting edge stuff, which has a lot of controversy around it, and the lack of reliable primary sources to fill in all the sections. Looking on the internet there does not seeem to be an article that has carefully considered the existing evidence in the way we are now trying to do. Wikipedia can provide a real service by tackling such controversial issues in a sensible non-partizan way. : ChrisG 16:40, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Walk away; WALK A-WAY! :-) Seriously, Wikipedia can't be its own authority on anything; otherwise the crackpots will take over. If you're struggling with contradictory primary sources, that's a sign that your subject is not yet ready for a WP article; wait for the book or review article to come out, and work from that. You might have to wait a while, but WP isn't going anywhere, and it isn't a science news magazine anyway. There are thousands of topics for which the research is settled, and that WP needs in order to be a good encyclopedia; by the time those are done, current controversies will likely have have been resolved by the experts. Stan 17:17, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback - I held back from adding any pages for precisely the kinds of reason given. However, does anyone know of any existing larger-scale Wikis out there which try to act as a genuinely open and collaborative forum for (what one might call) the "social construction of new knowledge"? I take Phil Boswell's point that it might be a good thing to build in a cross-reference to related Wikipedia articles... though where one should begin and the other should end might be hard to judge in practice.

I suppose what I'm talking about is a kind of "Wikipository"... any suggestions? Nick Pelling --Nickpelling 19:16, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)~~

I'm not sure its a 100% fit, but http://sources.wikipedia.org/ should be a good place to start such a project. --snoyes 19:22, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Project Sourceberg, eh? I suppose what I'm describing does amount to collaboratively constructing a primary source... unfortunately, while the French/German/Nihongo versions are all running OK, the English appears to be crashing ATM (perhaps because of a recent server move?) I'll keep trying though... thanks! --Nickpelling 23:12, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)~~

Edit conflicts confined to a single section

Is the software clever enough to detect whether an edit conflict is confined to a single section of an article? I ask because Dysprosia and I just clashed heads on this page whilst editing what was at that point the final section. I was explicitly editing that section, but I have no idea what Dysprosia had selected. Whatever the odds, I was presented with the entire page to sort out, just for the sake of about 10 lines at the bottom. Phil 12:06, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC)

Oh yeah, gotta love that kind of edit conflict. And currently the software is that dumb :)
Best bet is to copy an addition ready to paste back if a conflict occurs - if your changes are less monolithic then there's no other really easy way... Dysprosia 12:09, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Agree. I learned during the many past times when one would save only to be told that page no longer exists. I always block and copy my additions in anticipation of something going South before the save goes through - Marshman 20:53, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
See MeatBall:EditConflict and MeatBall:MergingAutomatically for alternatives. See wikipedia:bug reports to suggest them to the developers. See Wikitech-l to volunteer to help develop the software. Martin 00:51, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Automated / Scripted Wiki Migration

Is there any software around or under development to migrate pages from the old Usemod wiki to the new MediaWiki ? 5pectre Fri Nov 28 13:16:01 GMT 2003

See the script importUseModWiki.php in the maintenance subdirectory. It's incomplete currently, requiring manual cleanup of case sensitivity changes, subpage links, etc. User accounts need to be recreated, and the article count is not set. There's an older, non-functional copy in maintenance/archives which has half-implemented a few of these other things. --Brion 23:55, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Is there a conflict with this image: Image:Urchintest2.jpg. The description says: "Copyright ©2003 by Daniel P. B. Smith. Licensed under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." It doesn't sound right to me. Dori 22:41, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me, though it should probably say "GNU Free Documentation License" by name rather than the vague "Wikipedia copyright". Remember that contributors retain copyright in their submissions here, and are licensing them under a common redistributable license. --Brion 23:43, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I asked Brion above the same Q months ago. Here's his A: [1] --Menchi 23:47, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
OK, just wanted to be sure (thought that Copyright and Copyleft were not compatible). Dori 23:51, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC)
Copyleft requires copyright (and if those articles don't explain that, they should do). Martin 00:49, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Please answer!

How can you figure out who wrote the articles?

Click on "page history" along the bottom of the screen. --Jiang

Natacha Rambova

Why is Wikipedia's entry on Natacha Rambova filled with so many errors? -- Michael Morris

If you feel that there are errors, you should feel free to correct them. The information that is there was entered by other editors like you. Dori | Talk 05:06, Nov 30, 2003 (UTC)


That is to say, just click here, Mr. Morris, and correct away. ScareQuotes

GFDL from other authors

If we copy text from an article from another source released under the GDFL, into a wikipedia article, are we required to link to the other site and mention that the original text came from that site? Alexandros

Yes. See Bacterium and anachronism and time travel and Hydatius for recently updated examples that are (IMO) 100% compliant. Do you have a particular article in mind? Martin 19:22, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Someone has written new policy, wikipedia:blank page idiomatic link, about adding interwiki links to pages that don't exist. I think this is a bad idea. Having a link to a page in another language at the top, only to click on it and find that there is actually no such page is annoying and a waste of time, I really wish they would stop adding such links. Maximus Rex 18:41, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree - it should be policy that at least a stub should be created when adding a interwiki link to a not yet existing article. As interwiki links cannot be red it is not possible to see that the article exists or not. But even worse than a interwiki link that points into nothing is a page which only contains the interwiki link back - that one will make the red links in that language disappear with brown small article links. What I do when I have a interwiki link which will exist soon (e.g. the german districts which are created on both de: and en:) is that I add the interwiki link with HTML comments around it like <!--[[de:Kreis Neuss]]-->, so they are easy to activate once the target is created. This can also be useful for animals or plants - if one knows the name of an animal in the other language then a commented link can help to avoid that link being missed later. However too many commented interwiki links cluttering the beginning of the article is a drawback. andy 21:48, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hmmmm... are policies on instant deletion of sub-stubs and similar issues the same in all the various languages? It seems to me that such policies should to some extent reflect the culture associated with the particular language. Is this how it works?
I've watched with interest the development of this new policy. There are more issues here than might at first meet the eye IMO. Andrewa 22:59, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it a new policy. More like one person's ideas on how these links should be treated. The policies on sub stubs are certainly not the same across different Wikipedias. For example, on the Arabic Wikipedia, pages with no text at all, but some interlanguage links are not deleted, whereas here they usually are. There seem to be objections to the creation of these empty pages at the Hungarian, French and Dutch Wikipedias that were expressed on the mailing list when a Polish was sent round to create these, but it's unclear whether the issue was more with the fact it was a bot than the pages per se. Angela 23:37, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Google search not finding main entries

Back in October, I wrote new entries for Carl Spaatz and Lyman Lemnitzer. Today I decided to do a search and see if there were any mentions of their names that were not linked back to the main entries. I did, in fact, find two such mentions. But I also found that a google search under "Spaatz" or "Lemnitzer" failed to provide a hit on either of the main entries for these men. Obviously both names were mentioned several times in the relevant entry. Other entries with links to these entries were listed (such as List of people associated with World War II). Google even had the links from my user page which post-dated the creation of these entries. So why doesn't google pick up on them? MK 15:34 (EST) 30 November 2003

One month isn't that long for Google to find something, particularly if the pages that link to it have a low page rank. Angela 23:37, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Consensus decision-making--original article

How could I find out who wrote the original text on consensus decision-making or where it was taken from? I'm curious about the sources for certain assertions. Page history only seems to go back to January 2003. I was hoping to go back to the root article. Sunray

Voting on Brilliant Prose

The Wikipedia:Brilliant prose has articles which were added before the Nomination system. Some of the articles rise some doubts and there was a discussion on Talk: BP candidates about what to do. A voting was decided. So now, everybody, please vote on:

Cheers, Muriel Victoria 14:28, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Adding certain html codes

Well, after viewing a long article, and wanting to make a link into a certain section, which couldn't be defined in the table of contents with the double = sign without making the article all screwed up (Namely, I'm trying to link to the part in Modem about echo cancellation in the history section

So, rather than split it, I thought I would try changing 'Echo Cancellation' to '<a name=echo>Echo Cancellation</a> so I could link from Cancellation to Modem#echo

Any way to go about this other than to split the article --Fizscy46 14:46, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow manual insertion of anchors. However, for general stylistic reasons, the words Echo cancellation should be made a heading, using ===heading=== syntax. It is my understanding that such a heading is automatically made an anchor. -Smack 01:39, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Why or why not? Has anyone worked on an automated tool to do an import?

Yes they are, but with some limitation. The most important one is that the information can be outdated, a minor one is old spelling. You can find most already discussed in Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, as that encyclopedia is the prime one used for import already. So a automatic import isn't recommended, most articles need at least a bit work. And don't forget the scanning/OCR errors of the internet version of the 1911 EB. andy 20:13, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
An example of suckiness, Britannica 1911 includes, as a norm, lengthy references on books written around late 19th century -- which are basically unreadable and impossible to find even in large library easily. But EB 1911 does have some applicable info that doesn't expire too. So, automatic import is not good, but taking stuff from them with good taste and selection is good. --Menchi 04:42, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Redirect question

The Whatlinkshere page for Baltimore Oriole shows Geography of Equatorial Guinea which links to Maryland, USA but certainly not to Baltimore Oriole. Is this a bug or a feature? Big Iron 20:13, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The Whatlinkshere page lists redirects, of which Baltimore oriole is one. Maryland, USA redirects to Baltimore oriole (this is called a double redirect, and is nonfunctional) and Geography of Equatorial Guinea links to Maryland, USA. The redirects should be sorted out by someone (of which you might be an excellent candidate) by redirecting Maryland, USA to Maryland and eliminating entirely the comparison in size currently at Geography of Equatorial Guinea, because the comparison means something only to a relatively small number of people worldwide, and could not be reasonably made more accessible without losing functionality. Feel free to leave a question of my talk page if needed, or consult Wikipedia:Redirect Tuf-Kat 05:08, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)
No, the double redirect is how it is displayed. But in fact Maryland, USA redirects to Maryland (everything else would be nonsense), and that one contains the link to Baltimore Oriole. Maryland USA should be listed in that list at all, as pages which link to pages which contain the link are not listed normally. So it is an actual bug in the WhatLinksHere, but IMHO not a serious one. andy 08:50, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Actually, because of the reference above, the Village Pumps is now showing as a double redirect, but it doesn't appear in Wikipedia:Defective redirects so it isn't a true double redirect. Big Iron 21:28, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How to set up a disambiguation page

List of Australians lists a link to Daisy Bates, which the page describes as "self proclaimed psychologist" yet the link points to an article about an American civil rights activist. I want to set up a disambiguation page points to Daisy Bates (psychologist) for the Australian and Daisy Lee Gatson Bates for the American. I've never done such a thing before. Any tips on doing it well? Dmbaguley 22:16, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from some Aussies on whether a "self-proclaimed psychologist" is ever going to have a page of her own. If not, then remove Daisy Bates from the List of Australians and there ios then no need for a disambiguation page (I would not assume there is such a need). If later, any "other" Daisy Bates does deserve a page then the disammbiguation page can be created at Daisy Bates and the Daisies separated by middle names or some such - Marshman 03:16, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How-to to Wikibooks?

I think that that page should be deleted, and all of the articles that it links to should be integrated into Wikibooks. I got a vote of consent on talk:How-to, but I want a little more discussion before I undertake such a significant change.-Smack

Are you proposing one or more "How-to" books for Wikibooks using as starters these articles at Wikipedia? If so, sounds like a good idea. How-to articles consolidated into one or more texts would probably be more suitable as a Wikibooks project IMHO - 24.94.82.245 02:59, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)- Marshman 03:18, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I have no doubt that that is a good idea. What I meant (sorry I wasn't clear the first time) is that the Wikipedia articles (or sections of articles, as the case may be) should be deleted. -Smack 07:15, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Would it be possible to leave the how-to pages but replace the contents of each one with a link (maybe even a redirect ?) to the relevant part of Wikibooks ? Articles that link to the how-to pages would then not be left with broken links. -- Gandalf61 10:10, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)
That's a sensible idea. Is it possible to create redirects like this ? Smack might I suggest you start with the cookery pages, as It is clear where you could put them in wikibooks. Drop me a line on my talk page when you are ready to start and I'll give you a hand. theresa knott 11:07, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Slow page

I can't guarantee it wasn't just a browser anomaly (especially since it's MS-IE), but at one point most pages seemed normal, but Computational_geometry wouldn't load, but it would load quickly, with [2]. (But still wouldn't load the normal way.) At the same time, there was a several minute hole in recent changes. Doubt whether any of this has any significance, but mentioning it in case. Κσυπ Cyp   03:02, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have never seen the system more unstable than it is right now. I assume the sysops are busy converting over to the new computer, but I cannot get anything in without one or two "server does not exist" errors and when I do finally get something accepted, the system has logged me out. Wikibooks is almost completely dead in the water. - Marshman 03:18, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
For someone who claims to have been here since July, I find that difficult to believe. ;)
We had a network accident waiting to happen in the configuration, which caused some problems (IP conflict) after the new machine was brought into the network. Pliny was offline for a little while, but this should now be resolved. --Brion 03:28, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I do try not to complain because invariably (due to you and other sysops' fine work) I'm going to eventually be embarassed by fantastic performance - as was the case this time (came back fast). Yes, there have been some bad days since July, and maybe this afternoon was not the worst (I'm known to exaggerate ;o), but the bad day at hand is always the worst, and I had as many as 3 or 4 inserts saved on my computer working file, for inability to get them in. And Wikibooks was just gone (could not raise). So - you are right, probably not the worst and seems very good now. - Marshman 04:52, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Watchlist defaults

I've mentioned this before, but once the new server is online, I wonder if the watchlist default could be upped to 12 hours or maybe 1 day? I presume that the watchlist default was changed to one hour (some months ago now) for performance reasons, though I suspect that those who use the watchlist feature will generally immediately ask for a redisplay with a longer interval (I know I do) which negates completely the performance advantage - the server is having to generate two lots of watchlist instead of just one. The result is that the not very useful default actuallly increases server load, the opposite of what was intended. I know I can craete my oen link with whatever default I wish, but then it's only accessible from my user page, not in the sidebar as I would like. GRAHAMUK 04:24, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Make a button in the Links button bar if you're using MSIE or Firebird, or make a bookmark in your browser. Fuzheado 04:27, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
My watchlist defaults to a lot more than 1 day (all the way to 2002) and I wish it would stop at 1 day :) Dori | Talk 04:34, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)
Mine too (to way back before I joined up) but that has to do with the total number of pages you are listing as "watching". You are in the lower number group (usually means a new person) that will get lots of time span. - Marshman 04:57, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Cancelling user account

is it possible to cancel my account? i.e. i no longer wishes my handle (p0lyglut) to show up in wikipedia in articles i edited or anywhere. Thanks. 

Xah P0lyglut 04:27, 2003 Dec 2 (UTC)
I hope you're not leaving us! If you just want to change your username, see Wikipedia:Changing username Dysprosia 04:29, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A question fixing disambiguation on a redirect

I am trying to disambiguate Hindu. There is an article referring to The Hindu (newspaper), and an article referring to Hinduism (religion). Hindu is the redirect clause presently for the latter page.

Converting the redirection page for Hindu to a disambiguation page seemed like a solution. But, the newspaper page has only three pages linking to it, whereas the religion page has hundreds. And every reference to Hindu redirect page presently, is to the religion and not to the newspaper. And hence, that seemed like an extreme step.

Nevertheless, considering the newspaper's popularity in India, sooner or later there will be more articles referring to it, and an early disambiguation seems necessary. So how do I proceed? chance 07:02, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)

I think the best way would be a disclaimer at the top of the Hinduism article:

This article is about the Hindu religion; for other meanings, see Hindu (disambiguation).

Then list the other meanings at that disambiguation page. - Hephaestos 07:06, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I agree with Hephaestos's solution. The [... (disambiguation)] format is suitable for situations like this. The newspaper will most likely never be more famous than the religion. It is, after all, named after the religion. Not the other way around. --Menchi 08:56, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Orphaned Pages

When will the list of the first 125 orphaned pages Special:Lonelypages be updated again? I believe that virtuall all the pages on the current list are either disambiguation pages or no longer orphans. -Anthropos 07:38, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Whats the criteria for a page to be included in that list? -Antonio Fatal Attraction for Men and Women Martin

Stub warnings, instant deletions, search engine

I created a page from text on a web site I am a contributing member of

spent a lot of time setting up the links to other enteries and potential enteries

and someone decided that as on paragraph of the text was the same as the web site that I was breaching copyright and the whole text was deleted.

My points are

  1. Only one paragraph was taken from the web site so why was the whole page trashed? - I had to do the work over to recreate the links
  2. As a contributing member I was not breaking copyright - so would not it have been better for someone to email me first to ask IF I had copyright.
  3. I could not find out how to reinstate the original page.

Another point

I showed my 12 year old daughter the system and encouraged her to enter something - eventually we noticed her school was mentioned but had no entry so she typed in a short entry saying where it was a what type of school it was - just a couple of lines but factual.

Someone then put in a line saying 'THIS IS A STUB' etc. etc. and it just seemed to me to be insensitive and discouraging - given that the information did tell you the status of the school and where it was - may have been short but it was not valueless.

I'm sure many people have made this point - but the absence of an uptodate search engine seems to be a major major flaw in the credibility of the project.

Kevin Flude

As to your copyright issue - the page was not trashed and its content is all still visible. You merely need to make mention you own the copyright on the talk page and everything should be okay.
As to the stubnote thing - this is standard procedure to add a short note as an indication and an invitation for others to expand on an article. I trust the user who added the stubnote meant not to be insensitive or discouraging, but is merely a courtesy to other users. A stubnote is not a judgement of lack of value, but in my eyes an invitation for expansion.
The search engine issue is unfortunate, but I'm not sure how it impacts credibility - considered the Wikipedia runs on donations and support from Bomis, I believe. Dysprosia 09:01, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
To re-iterate and expand on Dysprosia's comments:
Sadly the number of people who simply take content off other people's websites and submit it as their own vastly exceeds the number of people who write their content, put it on the web, and then submit to Wikipedia as you did. To avoid legal problems we _HAVE_ to take down material as soon as its legality is questioned - happily in cases like yours when the fact that it is a false alarm is realized the material can be easily recovered. If this has not been done in your case yet, tell me the name of the article and I will do it. I hope this answers your questions 1&2. In response to 3, it is easiest if I point you to Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version.
Re the stub, I endorse Dysprosia's comments. The "THIS IS A STUB" notice is not a "THIS ARTICLE IS HOPELESS" euphemism. Actually it serves a technical purpose. If you go to the Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub page and click "What links here" you get a list of all the pages with a stub notice... i.e. a list of pages that, in an ideal encyclopedia, would be longer and more complete than they are. Without that notice, the technical trickery would not work.
Re the search engine, thanks to donations, we get a third server dedicated to Wikipedia turned on tonight. (This server alone cost around $6000.) Hopefully search facilities will be expanded as a result of this. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:38, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Conflicts between users

Question by Angelique was moved to Wikipedia:Conflicts between users.

why do I see square boxes in math formula?

Often a square box appears in math formulas where I would expect a character. I guess this means my browser can't render the charachter. How can I fix this or get around the problem to find out what charachter should be in the place of the square box?

Thanks

Machaco Alert!

Please pay attention to the posts of this user, related to a Colombia's dialect that he name Machaco, Bambuco songs and others topics. Even when those contributions will be [3]poorly translated, this guy is very obstinate and bad-mannered and brought [4]us many problems (vandalism, non NPOV, flamewars...). His intentions to promote a wikipedia for this creole dialect has gone [5]quite far, using another [6]nick, or IPs in 200.21.108.xxx. Actually, we were forced to run a bot to delete his 'contributions' because of his intolerance, misunderstanding (read non observance) of the publishing policy and crude attitude with the community. -- Best regards -- 200.45.101.236 18:29, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC) ([7])

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_archive_2004-09-26&oldid=1859969"