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 Zocky (talk | contribs) at 17:45, 19 December 2003 (Not intentionally annoying). 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! Even if the server temporarily slows down it will almost always respond eventually and repeatedly pressing "save" will then post the question to the page as many times as you pressed "save"!

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 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#December 2003 moved discussion.

Requests for help and comments

  1. Daniel's redirect project still needs your help with fixing thousands of broken links
  2. Muriel Victoria and Bmills urge you to vote at Wikipedia:Refreshing brilliant prose
  3. mav invites you to discuss expanding the focus of the Sep11Wiki at meta:Wikimorial
  4. Jiang requests comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries
  5. Adam suggests every American Wikipedian visits List of Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and contributes a short biography of their local Congress-person (see also public domain congressional biographical directory)
  6. Dysprosia requests comments on the new login text
  7. Viajero asks for your help in expanding the Guidelines for controversial articles

Another topic

related to comments made in Wikipedia:Village pump/December 2003 archive 2

I have to agree with the section title which describes hostility. I think that copyright notices are placed a lot of times out of spite. other users' thoughts? Greenmountainboy 20:10, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't really think that's the case (from reading over a lot of the cases). I'll grant you that the copyvio notice is a tad abrupt, and there are several wikipedians with the social skills of a tasmanian devil, but in general I think most notices reflect someone's honest caution in the face of any amount of willful abuse. -- Finlay McWalter 20:18, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Agreed. If people are hasty -- it's often simply that they want to bring attention to a problem before it grows into a big problem. We certainly don't want someone to go to a huge amount of work and create something huge and THEN tell them, weeks or months later, 'Oh, by the way, all that stuff you did, we're deleting it'. Better to question it early.
It's not helped, of course by the facts that a) Not every volunteer editor understands copyright law very well, b) that exactly what our standards are for IMAGE copyright aren't too well defined, and c) that the laws are not all that clear in the first place ('fair use', especially, is open to question at times). --Morven 02:36, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Of course copyright notices aren't added out of spite! They are added because the person finding them believes a violation has occured and genuinely wants to do something about that. Angela.

Thomas Edison

I would like to upload : Cattle driven to slaughter / Thomas A. Edison, Inc. ; producer, James White as an example for both the cattle article, and the motion picture history article. It is in both MPG(4mb) and Quicktime(1mb). Should I upload the MPG? Its in public domain as it was created in 1897. I assume thta Wikipedia would not be friendly towards proprietary formats like quicktime. See the Library of Congress site where I downloaded it [1] Greenmountainboy 21:36, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)


I, as a Wikipedia reader, would personally prefer to have access to both versions, or at least to the MPEG version. But if I was wikipedia owner (paying the bandwidth fees) I would suggest you just to put an external link to the MPG and/or Quicktime file at lcweb2.loc.gov website (there is no reason to duplicate the file here in wikipedia, I suppose lcweb2.loc.gov isn't going to delete the file from its servers in the near future). Optim 22:17, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, there is a 2MB size limit on media files. So the MPG format would be too large, unless split in two. I'm not sure about the use of quicktime, but I've never seen it on Wikipedia, so that could be a reason :) Alfio 23:14, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Question about tetrahydrocannabinol moved to Talk:Cannabis, with an answer. Tuf-Kat 00:37, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

Simple syntax for simple tables

I've dreamed up a simple, yet quite useful syntax to enter tables into articles in User:Zocky/Table_syntax. Please look at it and comment there. I'd like to hear some thoughts before I make it a request. Zocky 00:47, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How is that different from what's already done? m:MediaWiki User's Guide: Using tables. Angela. 00:59, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Mine's simpler and less powerful, and as such, not needed. It is better looking, though, especially for col and row spans. How come I've never seen one of those used in an article? Zocky 01:09, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
This format is less than a month old, so very few articles use it yet. —Noldoaran (Talk) 01:32, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)
I like Zocky's format alot, it is simple enough for me. The HTML format of tables is actually horrible, and as such actually misfitting in the wiki concept, with simple, fast and easy to remember syntax. I favour Zocky's syntax because it is similar to that of my home wiki's and actually Zocky's "howto use this syntax" page is a lot better. Look att than media wiki article!(m:MediaWiki User's Guide: Using tables) It expects me to know HTML, and comes with only few examples. Un-wiki and not simple. We should really strive to simplify the table syntax.
I understand that this was what we wanted to do when we added the | pipe syntax described at meta, but I have to say that I favour this even more. —User:Sverdrup|Sverdrup(talk) 17:47, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A thought about rowspans: their most sensible use (apart from formatting) is classification. It's not unlike bulleted and numbered lists. Wouldn't it be nice if this produced an expected table? (This is somewhat different from the syntax on my page). Zocky 23:07, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC) 

|mammalia
||carnivora
|||canis
||||dog|house|woofs|
||||wolf|woods|yelps|
|||felis
||||cat|house|meows|
||||lynx|woods|hisses|
||rodenta
|||ratus
||||brown rat|sewer|squeaks|
||||black rat|middle ages|plagues|

mammalia carnivora canis dog house woofs
wolf woods yelps
felis cat house meows
lynx woods hisses
rodenta ratus brown rat sewer squeaks
black rat middle ages plagues
I like Zocky's format too. I find the one adopted just as confusing as regular tables. In fact, I am not going to bother to learn that, but rather stick to tables. Dori | Talk 23:18, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)
Yep, it's still the same commands, but with different words. And they still expect you to know the HTML syntax to learn the simpler one. No, we need a truly easy way of creating tables. —Sverdrup(talk) 00:06, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You don't need to use HTML now. See m:MediaWiki User's Guide: Using tables.

If you type

Cell 1, row 1 Cell 2, row 1
Cell 1, row 2 Cell 2, row 2

you get

Cell 1, row 1 Cell 2, row 1
Cell 1, row 2 Cell 2, row 2

Angela. 03:44, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)


I'm sure they're aware of that, it's just that that syntax is direct shorthand for HTML and they (and I) think it doesn't provide sufficient automagic. If you want to do even relatively minor stuff, you have to fall back on HTML attributes. The syntax of those is questionable: TD attributes are strange enough, but TABLE and TR articles look eerily unwikilike: there's unmarked text which is not displayed. AFAIK it's unique in that.
Also, providing an easier syntax for fully formatted tables (which the current syntax does succesfully) may not be a Good Thing. If one is needed (seldom), there's always HTML, and others should use standard formatting. Next thing you know we'll be having a revert war over the shade of blue.
My syntax is much more obvious and wikilike, and the hierarchical table thing is very useful and IMHO, really pretty. Too bad I didn't have an internet conncetion at home two months ago. Zocky 04:18, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I don't think the current method is a "direct shorthand for HTML" and I certainly disagree with the notion that you need to learn HTML before using it. It doesn't seem any harder to learn that what Zocky is proposing. The new way of creating tables makes it visually clear how the table is going to look even when viewed in wikitext and seems a lot easier than worrying about lining up the right number of ||||'s. Angela. 06:32, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, worrying about the number of |||'s is just as complex as worrying about the number of ***'s and we seem to do that just fine. And the current syntax is direct shorthand for html:

= /td td

= /td /tr /table

Nothing wrong with it so far. But try to make a country info table without falling back on HTML attributets. Or try to insert brown bear, honeybee and coyotte in the upper table using the current syntax and see how straightforward it is. Zocky 14:25, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Removing NPOV dispute notices

I believe that the current version of the 12th Street Riot article, which is currently linked to the NPOV dispute page seems okay.

How do I go about suggesting that an article currently under NPOV dispute be removed from that list/have the notices removed? I've noted my opinion on the article's talk page with a summary to that effect, so it's in recent changes, and, obviously, here.

Is there a different mechanism for asking people to take a look and comment/vote on removing articles from the NPOV dispute list that I haven't found yet? If there isn't, should there be? I'm thinking of something similar to the brilliant prose candidates page. Thalia/Karen 03:56, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think there is a policy. I would make sure that you really believe the article is in NPOV. Then, what you can do is: first leave a note in the talk page saying that you believe the NPOV notice is no longer needed, wait a while and then remove it. If someone believes otherwise they will come and put it back in. Dori | Talk 18:08, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Dori. Any thoughts on whether it would be useful to have a page listing candidates for removal from NPOV dispute status? If there were such a thing, would you (or anyone else who's reading this) use it? I'm willing to put one together; I just don't want to do it if no one else thinks it would be worthwhile. Thalia/Karen 21:18, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

Karen, I don't know if it would be useful to have such a page. I am more likely to put an NPOV notice than to remove one. Perhaps you could just list such topics at Wikipedia:List of controversial issues. Dori | Talk 23:15, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

When you believe the neutrality of an article is no longer disputed, remove the dispute notice. See also wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute, IIRC. Martin 23:52, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Usernames

Would it be feasible to put a 32-character limit on usernames? - Hephaestos 04:57, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You read my mind. Actually I think you read the mind of many people. It might interest you to know that the longest apparently non-trolling name on the English Wikipedia is 37 characters "Johann Peter Gustav Lejeune Dirichlet". The longest name overall is our friend "What most..." at 62 chars. -- Tim Starling 06:59, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)
I agree that such a limit would be a good idea. I think 32 or 40 characters are enough for everyone, but the limit could be just 20 or 24 too. Peace. Optim 07:28, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Maybe the limit could be 3-4 characters, actually... That would probably deal with long usernames completely. Κσυπ Cyp   09:16, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
With a maximum of 3 characters and with the English 26-letter alphabet, we can have up to 15600 different Wikipedians. With 4 characters we can have 358800. With 5 characters 7893600. Check Permutation. how many registered users do we have right now? Optim 20:57, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Just FYI, 32 bytes may be as little as 8-10 characters for some languages. --Brion 09:19, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Can the limit be on characters (i.e. Unicode codepoints) rather than bytes? --Delirium 03:21, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)


er...

Where do i click to just tell you guys that this is a really cool site!!

You just did. Alternatively, you could click on this one: [2]   :)  -- Finlay McWalter 20:37, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Definite articles in article titles

We've been having a lively discussion on Talk:List of Marvel Comics characters about whether to name articles of superheroes whose names have traditionally included the definite article "the" in their name. Examples:

  1. The Scarlet Witch
  2. The Vision
  3. The Wasp
  4. The Incredible Hulk
  5. The Avengers
  6. The Sandman (vs. Sandman (comics) - these pages need to be merged sometime, but that's another issue)

We seem to have reached an impasse, and with only 3 people actively debating (myself, User:Lowellian and User:UtherSRG) I don't think consensus can be reached. (For points from both sides of the debate, see Talk:List of Marvel Comics characters/Archive 2.)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions doesn't seem to provide any guidance on this issue, as far as I can tell. The only relevant advice seems to be Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), however there is even debate about which form is the "common" one.

My feeling is that there are certain characters - including those above - whose article titles should include the definite article. Others, such as (The) Batman have evolved to the point that the definite article is optional or has fallen into disuses, and leaving it off those pages is fine. And in particular, names which are also names of actual comic book publications which include the definite article (The Avengers, The Sandman) should include the article in their article titles.

One point for me is that it's generally much more natural to write about these characters using the definite article (e.g., "The Scarlet Witch married The Vision", as opposed to "Scarlet Witch married Vision"), and it therefore seems more natural to linkify The Scarlet Witch rather than The Scarlet Witch.

What is the general feeling about this issue? --mhr 21:38, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No one has been consistent on this over the years - least of all the publishers. Every Managing Editor's attempt to achieve consistency has devolved into a Tower of Babel. As a searchable database, however, consistency is something we do have to achieve. Omitting definite articles seems definitely more intuitive for searching. Making links look nice can be achieved by [[Vision|The Vision]] which comes out as The Vision - unkamunka. 23:46, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I say use "the" where it's a part of the name or title. The only reason I can see to drop it is to appear in the right place in alphabetized lists. Since this is not an issue really (and even if it was, redirects would fix it), there's no sense in living them out. Zocky 03:26, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Not in every case. The Tasmanian Devil points to the Loony Toons charactor, while Tasmanian devil points to the actual animal. The same is true for The Tick and Tick, and I'm sure many others. Gentgeen 07:27, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Numbers vs. years

Would it be better to move the years to "xxxx AD" instead of just the number, and move the actual number to the numerical name? For example, move 101 to 101 AD, then move One hundred one to 101. This seems simpler to me, and right now it seems strange to have "For the number 101, see one hundred and one," at the bottom of 101. Evil saltine 22:38, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't think that would be very intuitive. How many people do you think will link 2004 AD when they mean the year instead of 2004 the number. Very confusing and very unnecessary in my opinion. Dori | Talk 22:46, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)
Okay, I see your point. It just seems strange to me to have the actual numbers relegated to Number 1, Number 2, Number 3, etc. Evil saltine 22:50, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Maybe a better solution would be to put the numbers at 1 (number), 2 (number), etc... and leave the wordings (one hundred, etc.) as redirects; of course this isn't much different than the way it is now.. ehh oh well. Evil saltine 22:53, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I like the idea of xxxx AD, but that would probably be extremely confusing. I think "for the number 101 see" should be at the top however. Greenmountainboy 00:15, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Isn't convention to use CE and BCE anyway? Dysprosia 02:52, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I dont think so! Most people use AD so we should too. Greenmountainboy 03:01, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
CE and BCE are NPOV, while BC and AD aren't. I prefer CE/BCE. Optim 06:22, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
CE/BCE express the point of view that identifying the era's start as the birth of Christ is somehow bad form; BC/AD express the point of view that it's ok to admit that the Gregorian Calendar is based on a Christian event. Neither is a neutral point of view. -- VerbalHerbal 06:27, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
In the same way that not using terms like "civilised world" for the west is POV in that it assumes a point of view that it is wrong to classify non-western civilisations as uncivilised. This is a fallacy of definition the normal use of POV means avoiding a term that applies to a specific point of view. To extend the definition to say that POV includes a decision that biases should not be given is fallacious. -- Chris Q 12:11, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
For numbers 1-100, it's possible that they are linked more often than the years. For the 1500-2003, it's definitely more convenient to link them as dates, e.g. 19 December 2003. It might be easier to read if the numbers were at Number 101 Number 102 or 101 (number) 102 (number), rather than [[one hundred one]] [[one hundred two]]. BTW I suggested an addition for the link to numbers at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Years. -- User:Docu

Please don't move the years! All the ones I checked had at least 500 links to them. It would be a nightmare to try and fix them. :) Angela. 08:40, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes. Renaming the year entries is not a trivial exercise, and any change would need to be carefully justified. My feeling is that the current standard is quaint, by which I mean not entirely logical but workable and strangely appealing. So IMO the years should be kept as is and other standards adopted for other numbers, as at present. I'm not too worried about these other standards, but others in WikiProject Mathematics might be keen to contribute ideas. Andrewa 11:56, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

GFDL vs Fair Use

At Talk:Settlers_of_Catan/copyright_and_fair_use there's a point that no one seems to have noticed, at least on that and related pages:

... As Wikipedia is a free, open content encyclopedia, we encourage commercial companies to help us redistribute our material, possibly for a fee. So although Wikipedia is not-for-profit, and therefore could in theory take full advantage of fair use, we like to steer a slightly more conservative course in order to preserve our freeness... Martin 02:25, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

End quote. But hey!

'The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially.' -- from the GFDL itself [3].

Isn't this a problem? If we rely on fair use, and we rely on being non-profit to make it fair use, then we can't "assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it", and we can't release it to the world under GFDL. Can we? Dandrake 07:20, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

Merging pages - technicalities

Hi everyone - I was involved in a thorough rewrite of baseball, done at baseball/temp. The new text is now ready to be moved, but I'm not sure about the technicalities involved. Methinks it would be best to follow the procedure given at Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page#Fixing cut and paste moves, however the original page was edited in between, so that might not work. Any suggestions? Thanks, Kosebamse 07:30, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Talk

Hi. When somebody puts some message in my talk page, where should I answer? I have the options either to answer at my talk page, or to the other user's talk page, or both. Is there a standard practice regarding talk replies? and btw, maybe its time for archivation, the page is already 84k long! Peace. Optim 07:33, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There's more chance of them reading it if you reply on their talk page. That way, they get instant notification of it. If you reply on your page then you have to assume that the person has your page on their watchlist and are actively checking their watchlist. Angela. 07:35, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Not necessarily. They can just monitor "My contributions" and check if their edit to the talk page is still the "top" edit.—Eloquence
That's exactly what I tend to do. If I particularly want to continue a conversation that someone else has started on my page, I'll drop a note on the user's own talk page. But many replies I just put on my own page, figuring if they want a reply they'll watch for it there. Some conversations develop, some don't. Most that do develop quickly move to an article talk page or similar, to enable other interested parties to find the material. Andrewa 11:30, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
This is generally a matter of user preference. I like to reply on my talk page, but if the user is relatively new I send them a little "Replied on my talk page" notice to let them that I've done so. Some people like to reply on their talk page, some people like to reply on the user's talk page - it's up to you to decide! :) Dysprosia 07:39, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
As someone who hasn't looked at my watchlist since December 10th, I strongly suggest you do let the other person know if you have written something you want them to see, even when they're not a newbie. I know Eloquence and mav reply on their own pages and because I know this, I'm more likely to look there if I expect a reply, but in most cases, I don't. Angela. 07:45, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I usually reply at their talk page. If not, I reply at mine and leave a message at theirs. WHen I am expecting a reply intended for me, I also add their talk page to my watchlist. I agree that it's a bit messy and unclear though. Dori | Talk 07:49, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)
There is no standard. If I write something to a newbie, I include explicit instructions on how to reply (i.e. click on my name and click "discuss this page" and click "edit this page") and thus assume they understand. In some cases, I add a talk page to my watchlist, though this is more often if I suspect the user will not answer and I will want to know what others tell him/her. In any case, if someone leaves me a message, I almost always leave a message on their talk page, even if it's only See: Talk:Music of Scotland. Generally, conversation should be kept in the article talk:namespace, and not in the user area. There are no rules though, so your mileage may vary. Tuf-Kat 08:33, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

WikiProject Games

I've started the Wikipedia:WikiProject Games page to help standardize what a Wikipedia article on a game should include, looklike, ect. If you are interested, please check it out. Gentgeen 08:34, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Avoiding edit conflicts

Sick of edit conflicts? Just add the following code at the top of the article you want to work on:

{{msg:inuse}}

This will add the following text:

Please remember to remove the note as soon as you're finished editing.—Eloquence 13:09, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

It strikes me a lot of "vandalism" is a result of an inexperienced user clicking a red link in an article, finding themselves straight on a live edit page, and then typing-in the first thing that comes into their heads - probably with no real idea that they are modifying the live database, since this is not the expected behavior on an ordinary website.

Is this the best default behavior? Should we make users read a boilerplate page before reaching a live edit page? Might reduce the page deletion load on the sysops.

Similarly, a lot of VfD pages seem to have started out as ill-considered red links which got turned into stubs - so we really should not red-link anything that would not make a suitable article in its own right and we should remove any such red links when detected. I generally do this, but it does not seem to be common practice and I have not seen any guidelines. Anjouli 13:50, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The edit page already contains the following notice:

Template:Newarticletext

I think it's a good thing that users stumble across the editability of Wikipedia by accident. It's a quick introduction into the world of wikis. Deleting nonsense pages is really not a lot of work. I do agree about not creating links to articles which we don't want to be written, of course.—Eloquence 13:59, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

I broadly agree. I just think it is a bit too easy to blindly bang the keyboard without reading the boilerplate. Just making it require a little more thought would keep out the real headbangers but not put off anybody with more than half a brain. Anyway, just a suggestion. Not something about which I have any strong feelings. Anjouli 15:08, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Too much boilerplate and instructions and help and pointers has a way of becoming annoying, so keeping it short is a Good Thing. But anyone who hangs around long enough to find it annoying is also likely to make an account. So I'd say: treat anon users to some more boiler plates, info and pointers, carefully chosen not to be overdone, and keep to shorthand philosophy for people with user names. Zocky 17:06, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Keep in mind that some people deliberately choose not to create an account, or not to use it on certain locations.—Eloquence
That's true. In that case they don't get a watchlist, user page, IP anonimity, etc. We already treat anon users differently. Zocky 17:11, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Of course, but this has technical reasons. We shouldn't annoy them intentionally. :-) —Eloquence
It's just as technical as giving them talk pages. And I'm not talking about striving to be annoying: just push verbosity on the edit page up to the level appropriate for somebody who has stumbled here by accident and has never heard either of wikipedia or wiki concept. Zocky 17:45, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Unwanted sign

This may be a minor point, but something I can't ecplain: At Die Fledermaus#Film adaptations, just above the table, there is a -?- in the left-hand corner that doesn't belong there. Does anyone know how to get rid of it? --KF 17:39, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It was between /tr and tr, so it wasn't a part of any row, and hence not a part of the table. I removed it and it now works as expected. Zocky 17:42, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_archive_2004-09-26&oldid=2000146"