Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Village pump archive 2004-09-26

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Angela (talk | contribs) at 16:21, 19 October 2003 (redirect - fixed). 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. On the other hand, please consider skimming through this page to see if your question might have already been asked (and even answered) by other people already. Also, please do not push the "save page" button multiple times when posting this way! The server is overloaded, but it usually will respond eventually, dutifully adding your question to the page several times in a row.

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
    • some visits to www.wikipedia.org redirected to en2.wikipedia.org on the faster pliny
  • The new database monster is going to be ordered real soon.
    • 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

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
  1. Title the question (by typing == title ==)
    • If you use the edit link above, just enter a subject
  2. 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#October 2003 moved discussion.

Hrmm, we seem to be going through logos rather quickly. The current one needs transparency. Evercat 23:27, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Who decides on these logo changes? I guess that the big contest and vote that we had a while ago was completely meaningless, since the results were discarded a few days later? Steven G. Johnson 00:10, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It's been discussed on meta. I've not been paying much attention to it myself, but it's there. --Camembert
These are just variants of Paullusmagnus' winning concept. We are trying to optimize it in a way that pleases (almost) everyone. The latest version has the advantage that it is already internationalized, although I think it could use a touch of color. Nohat is working on it.—Eloquence 00:19, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)~
Almost everyone? You mean the small subset of the original voters who are now second-guessing the ratified design? How about you leave the ratified design up while you bicker about alternatives, select an alternative, and then have another publicized vote on whether to switch to it? Steven G. Johnson 21:09, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
There should probably be a page (if there isn't one already) displaying all the different versions and their names of the logos used. At this time, I don't know how to refer to them. I made a comment on one version, and up comes a new version and changes the meaning of my comment. ¬ Dori 01:14, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I created a page on meta giving the m:Logo history in hopefully a NPOV way (I am biased so someone strongly for the logo should probably debias it). Jrincayc 15:29, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to point out a problem with the new logo. It displays poorly on my Mac using an older version of Netscape. It doesn't appear at all on my Mac using Internet Explorer 4.5. As a matter of fact, MSIE version 4.5 doesn't display PNG files at all. Transparency also seems to be a problem. This file should be viewable with all browsers. --Fernkes 21:53, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)

Netscape 4.x is more full of bugs than a compost heap, don't use it if you can help it! Internet Explorer 5.0 for Mac seems to deal with the logo ok, but IE for Mac has many problems; like Netscape 4 it cuts off long articles when editing and damages non-ASCII characters on wikis using unicode for internationalized text. Its not a high priority to support either of these browsers when they cause this much trouble; try Mozilla if possible. There's a MacOS 9 version of Mozilla 1.2 available for download at: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/mozilla/releases/mozilla1.2/ --Brion 23:37, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There seems to be a new vote happening at http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_logo_variants. It's not currently publicised on the Main Page, or at least not nearly so prominently as the previous votes, but it was foreshadowed at the time of those votes. And it seems to include departures from the original design that I (and I gather at least some others) consider to be sufficiently different to call them new logos, including the one currently being promoted (I guess that's a POV comment but I think it's needed) on the English Wikipedia. But I guess that's a matter of opinion, and I guess that's the place to express it, and I've done that. To do this properly you need to set up a meta account if you don't have one already. Andrewa 20:07, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Edits

Just a reminder:

  1. Please use the Minor edit selection ONLY for spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text. Many people have the Hide minor edits in recent changes feature ON in their settings.
  2. Please use the Summary function when posting non-minor edits. This makes all of our lives easier when we look at Recent changes and Page histories. Thanks Kingturtle 00:28, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This is kind of interesting

User:Stevertigo recently created [[Talk:User:Eloquence]], which I'm pretty sure was a mistake. What's interesting is that the "View article" link (not "View user page", mind you) does actually link to User:Eloquence. This means everybody has two talk pages (sort of), a real talk page, and a talk page in the main Talk namespace. (I, of course, have a third talk page, at Talk:Cyan ;-). -- Cyan 02:11, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yeesh.-戴&#30505sv 02:35, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Would actually making use of this unintended (?) feature be deprecated? I could think of several possible ways to make use of it. And I don't mean me personally, but there might be a more general consensus for what the Talk:User:Foobar page could signify, if we really put our minds to it. BTW. does it give Eloquence the You have new messages indicator, when it has text that he has not read yet? -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 11:07, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)

Similarly pages like [[Talk:Wikipedia:Namespace]]. - Patrick 12:29, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I did not get notification of messages left at Talk:User:Angela when someone was writing there by mistake. What possible uses do you see for it Jussi? Angela 17:39, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)


Very inchoate ideas, as usual, maybe we had best discuss it at [[Talk:Wikipedia:Namespace]]. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 21:42, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)
That discussion should be discussed at m:Talk:en:Talk:Wikipedia:Namespace. Why not use [[Talk:Wikipedia:namespace]] instead of [[Talk:Wikipedia:Namespace]], anyway? Κσυπ Cyp 10:58, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Logo

Its too small (bitwise)-- it looks too choppy. Can we find a happy compromise (bettween the too big 50k and the too small (what it is now) maybe 25k?? Hint--try different background colors to test it for jaggies.戴&#30505sv

Can we find a happy compromise? I very much doubt it. CGS 14:33, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC).
The jaggies are a necessary evil due to Internet Explorer's having a hard time dealing with alpha transparency in PNGs. If you know of a workaround for this that doesn't involve losing antialiased text edges (very bad!) or a slight 'halo' that looks fine on the intended background colors but ugly if you switch your browser to purple-on-black, please advise. --Brion 21:28, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Thanks Brion-- I will bring it up with Nohat, and well have...well... a new (sub) contest for the best no-jaggy logo. ! ;) -戴&#30505sv

Was GrahamN blocked on Saturday?

No he wasn't. See User talk:GrahamN.

Shortpages should be deleted

See Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy for the full discussion.

Change User ID in credit for new article?

I just created the Norton Juster page, but didn't realize that I'd been switched to en2.wikipedia.org from en.wikipedia.org and therefore logged out. Credit for the page is given to my IP address, rather than me -- which is okay, but I'd rather get the appropriate blame and credit if possible. Can the originating page author be switched? -- Scarequotes 18:20, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)

See my previous reply at Backdating attribution. Angela 20:58, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)
I thought it might be a hassle. Thanks for the info -- I clarified on the Talk page. -- Scarequotes 21:51, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)
It isn't really that difficult. I think I will invent a policy for it, at Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit (or should that be "of an edit"?). -- Tim Starling 02:53, Oct 15, 2003 (UTC)

I heard Wikipedia was having a contest for their new logo. Who won? I think the new logo is really cool.

I agree - it's not the one I voted for, but I think the current revision looks pretty darn nice. Good job all! Axlrosen 21:22, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The current logo is the creation of User:Nohat, based on the winning concept by User:Paullusmagnus. I also like it a lot myself, but we will continue to try to find ways to improve it, so if you have comments, head to m:logo feedback.—Eloquence 02:50, Oct 15, 2003 (UTC)


Hello! I would like to propose a new WikiProject: Popular Lastname. "Popular" in the sense that about 20 people of the lastname having an article in Wikipedia.

Anyone back me up? wshun 21:33, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why don't we have simply a project about lastnames like where do they come from, what do they orignally mean and so forth. I don't think each lastname deserves to its own article but there should be some way to orginize such information? -- Taku
We already have list of people by name. But some popular lastnames will soon dominate the list, so I guess single them out should be a good idea. I personally prefer a separate wiki on lastnames but I don't think anyone will support it. -- wshun 22:14, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Just set them up as disambiguation pages... 1/2 :-) They'll probably sniff out some links needing fixing. I've done a bit of that with Roman names, Valerius for instance. Stan 22:23, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Can't undelete

A newly created article Bobbing for apples was edited by somebody else (Deb?) and more or less at the same time I (mistakenly) deleted it. I then went back to that page and undeleted it, received confirmation that it was undeleted, but now the article seems to be gone. What happened? Kosebamse 21:35, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It hasn't gone. It's there. Try clearing your cache. Angela 21:36, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)


OK, no prob then. Thanks and N/G/W. Kosebamse 21:47, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Using GFDL materials with the GFDL as an invariant section?

I was thinking about including some material from some GNU manuals in several Wikipedia articles. While these materials are released under the GNU Free Documentation License, they use the GFDL itself as an invariant section. Two things:

  1. Isn't the GFDL essentially an invariant section already? You need to include it with any copy of the text. Why is it necessary to include it as an invariant section?
  2. Can I post the material at all, and if so, do I need to include a note such as: This material requires the GNU Free Documentation License as an invariant section, or is that already implied?

Thank you, -- Mattworld 22:04, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Legally a puzzler, but the first question should be: which parts of GNU manuals are encyclopedic? All the bits I can think of are inappropriate for Wikipedia; we should be summarizing the manuals if anything, not dumping them in here verbatim. Stan 22:23, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
There was a history section in one of the manuals that would have fit perfectly in Wikipedia; however, I now plan to summarize it, so this isn't that big of an issue. I'm still slightly curious as to the answer, though. -- Mattworld 22:34, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Invariant sections aren't welcome in Wikipedia (though you're welcome to separately distribute a derivitive of a Wikipedia article that does include invariant sections). I'm mighty curious now about the docs... which are they? --Brion 23:37, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
In this case though, I think it might not be a problem. You already have to distribute an invariant copy of the GFDL along with any GFDL-licensed material, so including the GFDL itself as an invariant section isn't actually adding any new restrictions--it's just being redundant and restating the same restriction in a different way. --Delirium 01:44, Oct 15, 2003 (UTC)
A GFDL text can be redistributed under a later version of the GFDL. If you put a copy of the license in an invariant section, that that older version will need to be distributed with the text even if you're putting it out under a later version. Can somebody please point out the actual texts under discussion so more than speculation can take place here? --Brion 00:50, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
At the GNU site When should a section be invariant? it states that the GFDL is an invariant section [see § 4(H)]. If it is an earlier version of the GFDL that says it can also be released under a later version of the GFDL (i.e. originally ver. 1.1 released under ver. 1.2) then can not the older version be replaced by the newer version as the newer version is already an invariant section in a GFDL work? If it is only released only under ver. 1.1 of the GFDL (does not specifically state that it may be released under a later version) then would that make it incompatible with the GFDL here which is of a "later version" variety? Most of the changes in the later version seems to be just clarifications of the earlier version; is there any reference some one can point to that states how the two versions are incompatible and not just clarifications that have the same legal import? The only two I can find are (1) the five principal author listing (all the authors must be listed in 1.1; this is clearly not problem with Wikipedia as the history pages list all the authors of a particular GFDL work) and (2) 1.2. has the optional warranty disclaimers added so 1.1 is just 1.2 without any disclaimers in that regard; so maybe there is backward compatibility if no warranty disclaimers are used. In the license it is stated that if a use of the license invokes the language "any later version" that a user can decide which version to re-release the material under; as the GFDL is already an invariant section; this indicates that you can release 1.1 under 1.2 even if 1.1 is listed separately as an invariant section because you cannot take away any of the rights granted in the GFDL under § 9 (i.e. the right to use a later version cannot be revoked). BTW if no version number is listed the GFDL (§ 10) states any version can be used; so there is an argument that by making the GFDL an invariant section it then invokes any version of the GFDL even if the version used to release the document does not state that any version can be used. Thus, as a rule, a general statement that the "GNU Free Documentation License" is an invariant section (without reference to the version number) would appear to imply that one can use any version of the license — in such a case it does not appear necessary to provide a copy of the predecessor license as a separate invariant section. — Alex756 05:59, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Streets of San Francisco

So how does "Streets of San Francisco" not represent the city of San Francisco?

Is this a riddle? What are you referring to? Axlrosen


I think this user had some additions to the San Francisco article nixed by mav. OP, if you have things like this about specific articles to discuss, do it on the article's Talk: page. You can get there from the "Discuss this page" link found on every article. :-) —Frecklefoot 01:27, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
It doesn't look like the addition was nixed... It is still there. dave 02:04, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Right-o. All I did was change the bizarre Streets of San Francisco, The to Streets of San Francisco. Maybe it should be The Streets of San Francisco... Oh well. --mav 05:06, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

WikiProject: Space Missions

After the successful launch of Shenzhou 5, and looking at similar pages (Mercury 3) for reference when helping to write/update/edit the article, it got me thinking (particularly considering the bottom of Mercury 3) that there perhaps should be a WikiProject standardizing the appearance of space mission entries. I'm not sure whether it would apply to both crewed and uncrewed missions, or just crewed missions, but I figured it might be a good idea to at least standardize on a footer to help navigate through the various missions, much like rulers of countries (e.g. George Washington and Elizabeth II) have a navigation system. It wouldn't hurt to standardize on a method of describing the ___location/time of launch, ___location/time of landing, crew names, and mission badges (if applicable). Anyone else agree? I'll lay out the template if people say it's a good idea. -- Pipian 02:58, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Go for it. Ark30inf 03:01, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)


There's a "de facto" scheme I've been trying to implement - look at the early Soviet pages - Vostok, Voshkod, Soyuz 1-12. But yes, I agree standardisation would be nice :) rlandmann
Please check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Space Missions then while I'm working on solidifying a possible standard. I'll probably adopt most of your existing one. -- Pipian
Please also, set up a standard for what we call the crewmembers. Someone removed astronaut and changed it to taikonaut. Someone else removed the Chinese (Yuhangyuan) because they said "it looks ugly". We need a standard. Ark30inf 03:53, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Alright. I might just make a whole groups of Space WikiProjects.... -- Pipian
Just commenting that the "buff" coloured background on the tables was already kinda standard from many of the Shuttle missions - might be worth reviewing those pages as well before settling on the final version of the template... not really an issue, of course! rlandmann
Quite some time ago I started with adding a factsheet to some of the space mission (I did e.g. STS-9), but never came to more then just a few when the next project absorbed me. As that was when I was new to Wikipedia I didn't know about the Wikiprojects yet, and then didn't find the time to return to the space mission except to add minor details sometimes. So it's a good idea to revive this project, and at first unify those space missions already existing. andy 11:59, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)


When you click an ISBN link, it takes you to a page offering links to buy that book at all major book sellers. Why isn't the link set up so that Wikipedia gets 10% or whatever. In my experience, Amazon will willingly do this. This could prove very profitable.

This was suggested a while ago on list. We may in fact make revenue from this now. I dont know. There are some potential conflicts (like creating an captialist incentive for click-adding). I dunno. Sign your name, next time, BTW.戴&#30505sv 03:51, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I didn't follow the previous discussion (is it archived somewhere?) but it seems to me that it could work very well now that Wikimedia is up and running. Is there any reason we shouldn't leave it to the booksellers to decide what they will pay, and just report in a low-key way what they each decide? That could get a nice auction going! Perhaps the lower-margin booksellers can't afford to pay as much as others, so we leave it to the public to decide where in the spectra of price, service and Wikipedia support their priorities lie. Yes, it's capitalism, in fact I think it might even be monetarism as well. Andrewa 06:50, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Photo overwriting

This section was moved to the archives with some unfinished work. Hence pasting it again :

It'll be helpful if the following line is included in Special:Upload page, beginning of the 2nd para. "If a file with the name you are specifying already exists on Wikipedia it'll get replaced without warning. So unless you deliberately wish to overwrite a file, it'll be a good idea to first check if such a file exists."

Above warning line has not yet been added in the Special:Upload page. Can someone with permissions to edit Special pages add it. Jay 19:49, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Good things come to those who nag. I'll shortly be putting this into the four different places necessary to make an immediate but permanent change to MediaWiki. I changed the wording a bit: "If a file with the name you are specifying already exists on Wikipedia, it'll be replaced without warning. So unless you mean to update a file, it's a good idea to first check if such a file exists." "Get" is such an ugly word. -- Tim Starling 09:35, Oct 15, 2003 (UTC)

A public announcement for transparency sake. No need for comments.

A while back I created a user account Sockpuppet purely for demonstration purposes. (Wanted to show this wonderful virtual place to my direct female antecedant, and not freak her out with all the sysop functions... she wasn't really interested.)

In any case I chose a (I think) transparently descriptive username and posted on the user and talkpages the following (in part):



"I am a sockpuppet username for a sysop (Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick) who wants a nonsysop username to use when demonstrating the system. There should be very few edits made outside the sandbox by this user (except perhaps editing from a public terminal when away from home)."

I also later logged in as Cimon Avaro and confirmed that it was I who had created the account, so that everything would be aboveboard.

It has been a while and I haven't had cause to use it since, nor do I expect to use it except in extremely rare and special circumstances. But I have forgotten, whether I made a public announcement of the fact at the time, so this cannot hurt. I have Read The Fine Manual, and know that there is nothing wrong with what I did per se, but I do want to come "clean" anyway, in light of recent events.

Respectfully,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 08:35, Oct 15, 2003 (UTC)
Well since I'm paranoid, I've created a whole bunch of user accounts and variations of my name just to make it more difficult for people to pretend they are me. But I haven't used the accounts for anything other than that. I do edit anonymously sometimes for various reasons (public computer, too lazy, need to see what anons see, etc). --mav 08:42, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)


I sometimes make edits from a public computer. If they are substantial, I put "tarquin" in the comment line. -- Tarquin 08:48, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I'm too paranoid for that (don't want to expose any IP I use except to people I know I can trust). --mav

Nationmaster

What's the relationship between this website and that of www.nationmaster.com? I thought that I'd stumbled onto a case of blatant plagarism of wikipedia material on this page until I saw the copyright note at the bottom. Arno

Found another one also showing the Sydney Opera House article! Its this one from www.4reference.net.
See Wikipedia:Sites that use Wikipedia for content. -- Tim Starling 10:02, Oct 15, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't known about this at all!

stroud new south wales australia

At stroud gloucestershire we have a link with the stroud in the usa and in australia. Ive visited stroud NSW and it is an interesting historic town dating to the early development by europeans. can you add more information about the town? they have an active history society and get a lot of visitors to the area.

You seem to know quite a bit on the subject. Why don't you do it? CGS 14:15, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC).
See also: Why Aren't These Pages Copyedited? and wikipedia:requested articles. Martin 21:04, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

External Links?

Does anyone have any opinion they can reason of excluding an extremely, I think, valuable source of information to AMD64?

The link is: http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_4699_7980%5E875%5E4622,00.html

and provides free IA-64 documentation in CDROM, bounded book or download format. The books they supply you with are instructions for how to code with AMD64. It's a rather large 4 book reference library.

So the question I guess is, is it appropriate to allow wikipedia to act as a portal to other places of information kind of like dmoz but much more specific? I think if the links are highly tailored like this one then yes, but what do you think? --Dtgm 17:13, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem with that as long as it pertains to the article in question; some articles already have plenty of links. Evil saltine 16:01, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Dtgm, is your question like "Is it appropriate to have external links in articles ?" Jay 16:18, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Latin Wikipedia

Is it possible to move pages on the Latin wikipedia, like it is here? Or delete a page even? I created "Imperatorii Romani" but it should be "Imperatores Romani" (I should probably learn the language before I start making pages in it :)). Adam Bishop 16:26, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It looks like it's on the old software, so maybe that's why you cannot. ¬ Dori 16:44, Oct 15, 2003 (UTC)

You need a password from Jimbo to be able to delete a page on the old software Wikipedias and until they're moved to phase 3, the only way to move a page is by copy and paste. If it needs to be moved, I would recommend making the old page a redirect to the one you move the content to and stating the title of the original page in your edit summary when you create the new one. Angela

Thanks, that's what I've done. Adam Bishop 17:07, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
UseModWiki does not use a database backend but rather its own file format to store pages. However, someone with admin access should be able to move pages using the editlinks feature of the software (it allows moving and deleting pages as well as mass-replacing links).
The "proprietary" file format used by UseMod is the main reason it's taking forever to upgrade the wikis -- converting this stuff is really tricky.—Eloquence 21:52, Oct 15, 2003 (UTC)


Actually, it's pretty easy to read (particularly as the code that reads it in UseModWiki is GPL!) The holdup is in automating conversion of an entire wiki to our format and features: renaming pages to deal with changes in case sensitivity, fixing subpage link syntax that doesn't work, renaming talk pages and removing their redundant links; importing images; fixing up other syntax bits that have changed. I've made a quickie version of the conversion script that skips all this (requiring humans to do it manually), which should be suitable for small wikis but requires a lot of manual labor for larger ones.
As soon as I've got the link table rebuild script working again I'll offer upgrading to any wiki that is willing to do the work manually. --Brion 22:42, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Edit count?

I always hear people mentioning the count of how many edits a user's done -- where can this be found? --Morven 00:23, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

For the more active contributors, the number often comes from Wikipedia:Wikipedians by number of edits. For a user who's not on the list, or for an up-to-date count, you can use the user contributions page, by hand-editing the URL. If you click on "user contributions", then "next 50", a URL appears with offset=50 and limit=50. I think most people just set offset to 0 and limit to some huge number, then count the lines using a text editor. Alternatively you could adjust offset until you find the end. -- Tim Starling 00:39, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)
The offset doesn't work right. --Brion
Are you saying offset=0 limit=5000 would or would not list every edit by a user with less than 5000 total edits? --Morven 00:55, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
That would. But offset=4999 limit=1 would not show someone's 5000th latest edit. Only offset=0 works properly. --64.163.244.155 01:30, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
You have 598 edits. I copied the content of [1] and paste it into a word processor and convert bullets to list-number. --Menchi 00:59, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
For the *nix inclined: curl 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=username&limit=99999&offset=0' | grep -c '<li>'
Don't forget to replace "username" with your own username. Ed Cormany 00:14, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

en2 doesn't have logins

I've been mucking about a fair bit tonight, and this was the first time I got forwarded to en2... odd, given how many articles I visited. On en2, I'm listed as not logged in... but login redirects to en. I realize this is temporary, but might it not be better to have login not redirect, and just log in twice? -- Jake 05:11, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Correction. I apparently wasn't redirected to it, the link specified en2 explicitly. This may affect things. -- Jake 05:13, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Logging out very often

What is the session timeout period for the en2 server ? Looks like I need to login every 5-10 minutes even if I'm working on the page and have not left it idle. By the time I have made edits and its time to save the page, I notice that I've been logged out again. Session timeout was never a problem with the other server. Is this an intended functionality to handle server traffic ? How do frequent timeouts help in this case ? Jay 07:58, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You can't log in to en2, it's just a redirect to en. So if you log in, then use the back button to go back to the article you were editing in en2, you won't be logged in. -- Tim Starling 10:06, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)
Sorry, it was a typo. It's "en" and not "en2". Jay 10:54, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Try checking the box that says something like "remember my password". Then, using a cookie, you stay logged in indefinitely. LDan 01:18, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Thanx LDan, that was it! It works fine now. Jay 09:51, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Should go on articles requested, but don't remember the exact phrase...

In brief: anybody who knows the story to the point of titleing it properly, please start an article on the USENET historical event of the one autumn student rush that did not end, because those rushing in were not students any more... I feel we are heading towards an unending slashdot effect. Arhechgm, Was It Ythe "Unending September", "The September That Did Not End", "The September Without End", (August?, different phrasing?), Anywhay thisi is an important subject whe havent kovered. If somevody knobs the corect subject, I weill feeeel free to elaborate on the historical detail... -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 08:46, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

  • "Eternal September" or "September That Never Ended". See the Jargon File: [2] -- Jake 09:24, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Timeline for New Server/Status

The entries at the top of this page regarding what is happening on the new server are very useful, but would have more meaning if a date was added to each entry. The phrase "real soon" means nothing without a reference date. --Fernkes 12:46, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

Logo

Uuurgh! What's happened to the colours and the logo on the Main Page?! I've been away for a long time!

That's what happens if you go away. You can still give your feedback on the new logo and vote for your favorite variant.

The title of Cardinal

Firstname Cardinal Lastname v. Cardinal Firstname Lastname.

Discussion too long - moved to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (cardinals)

Disclaimers after quotes?

Ed Poor Recently added after a quote on the SEPP article:

"Note that Grist's view that there is a "scientific consensus" is neither endorsed nor disputed by Wikipedia."

I dislike this, because (a) quotes are quotes, and are always neither endorsed nor not, and (b) if it becomes common practice to add such disclaimers to quotes you don't like, the wiki will become littered with such disclaimers. Or is it already? I don't see anything under policy about this. Comments? (William M. Connolley 20:08, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)).

I think we have no business editorialising like that, otherwise we'll have caveats all over Wikipedia. Quotes either stand or fall on their own merits. -- Arwel 20:58, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Agreed. Same as with the articles on religious topics. If we made a note of every disagreement there would be chaos. DJ Clayworth 21:03, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Avoid self-references.—Eloquence 23:29, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)
Agreed. It's the line between being neutral and being neutered. -- Jake 23:43, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Love it, Jake! It's a very fine line to walk between NPOV (which is an article of faith around here) and no point of view (which leads to just plain boring articles). I'm fascinated that Wikipedia works at all, but I think we've shown it does. And I have the feeling we ain't seen nothin' yet. Andrewa 00:22, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This article - Palm tree - contains a different kind of disclaimer. Also is it appropriate to mention the source of the article in the body of the article itself ? Or should that be put in the Talk pages ? Jay 13:22, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Mirror Sites

Hi all. Not sure where to ask this question, so I am asking it here. How can one become a Wikipedia mirror site? If the information is Public Domain or GPL or the project is Open Source, how can interested parties get access to the articles for the purpose of setting up a mirror site or setting up their own local Wikipedia site for faster access, development, contributions, etc? -Keyvan 22:52, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Backup dumps of the databases every few days: http://download.wikipedia.org/ (GFDL)
The wiki software: http://wikipedia.sourceforge.net/ (GPL)
There is not (yet) an organized system for whole-site mirrors. If you have suggestions for how to go about this, please join the developers' mailing list: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
If you'd just like to see announcements and get help with setting up a copy of the software, please join the MediaWiki mailing list: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
--Brion 23:51, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

paging quality control

I visited Samothrace, and there I read that "The island is a kaza of the Lemnos sanjak." These were divisions of the Ottoman Empire, to which Lemnos and Samothrace have not belonged since 1912. This information is NINETY years out of date. Doesn't anyone check that material lifted from the 1911 Britannica is brought up to date? Adam 01:32, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Why Aren't These Pages Copyedited -- Tim Starling 01:40, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC)
Yes yes I understand that, and I will write a new Samothrace article tonight. But this is not just a copy-editing issue. Wikipedia encourages people to lift text from the 1911 EB. Surely we should say that people who do so have a duty to check its content? Adam
Yes, according to our lifting stuff from Britannica policy, editors have a duty to check the facts. Sometimes editors don't follow policy, so in that case you can clean up after them, and optionally whinge on their talk page, if they have one, which they don't in this case. -- Tim Starling 01:48, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC)
OK I have left a note at Wikipedia talk:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica but it doesn't get used very often. Can I access a List of articles based on the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica? Adam

Use Special:Whatlinkshere/1911_Encyclopaedia_Britannica. Most of the Britannica articles link to that article. -- Tim Starling 02:11, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC)

Heh, if I did everything that was part of my duty here, I'd be working at this 80 hours/week and still be behind. :-) People should do as much as they're able, which may not include the extensive fact-checking that some 1911EB lifts require. I'm not as enthusiastic about the lifts as I used to be; the only articles that are useful as-is are the ones on long-dead European personages, for the rest it's been less work to write anew than to fix up. Stan 02:14, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Adam Bishop tells me: "There are tons of articles like that...mostly the populations still reflect 1911 numbers, or they don't reflect that something has radically changed because of World War I. Sometimes there are even articles about people who were still alive in 1911. There used to be a Georges Clemenceau article that had minutiae about his political life in the 1890s or whatever, but of course nothing about World War I. I also notice that there are many articles about Greek topics that originally had Greek text in them, which has become unintelligible through scanning. Unfortunately I don't think you can get people to stop copying text from there, since it's such an easy/lazy way out :)"
This suggests to me that the EB is more trouble than its worth. What is the point of an encyclopaedia which is deliberately filling its pages full of stuff which it knows to be incorrect? We would be much better to admit that we don't have an article on these subjects and encourage people to write them rather than delude ourselves with all this padding. Adam
Better get to work and stop hanging around at the pump then! :-) But seriously, most of the ill-advised imports were done a long time ago, and you'll find few if any objections to a program of gutting and replacing. Ironically, 1911EB has the most detailed info about the now-forgotten colony of German New Guinea that I can find online, because it was published only a few years before the colony was extinguished. Stan 03:18, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
By the way, another problem with those articles is that they cite sources from the 19th century, which would be pretty useless now. (A new one with both extremely old sources and incomprehensibly scanned Greek is Longinus...people are still adding these articles!) Adam Bishop 21:23, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I think all historical and economic facts should be checked and double-checked if you are citing from the 1911 EB, in case public and learned opinion has changed about the periods prior to 1909-1911, and new facts have emerged since the original publication. Geographical facts should be ok normally. Dieter Simon 00:31, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Herbs and Spices Template

If anyone has a few seconds, I'd like you to check out my new WikiProject for Herbs and Spices. I'd like to make a consistent template for Herb and Spice articles. This Wikipedia:WikiProject Herbs and Spices aims primarily to provide a consistent article structure for herbs and spices articles so that Wikipedia can become the true online spice bible, since most web sources out there are very scattered and there is no one true free source...many of them say different things depending upon the nationality and experience of the author, and other factors. Eventually this comprehensive information could all move over to the Wikibook:Cookbook. The template is available here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Herbs and Spices/Template and I'd appreciate anyone's improvements to it...I'm sure everyone knows about spices, if you were looking up a spice, what would want to find out about it?

The reason I am asking is that I'd like to get started on this soon, so I want to make sure I didn't forget any key things in the template. dave 03:46, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sounds and looks brilliant, I had a quick look. Perhaps a quick-reference table at the top right, similar to the taxbox in evolutionary tree articles, or the similar tables in dog breed articles and chemical elements? A photo of the source of the spice could be included at the top of this table. Looking forward to seeing the content, I may even be able to contribute a little. Andrewa 04:08, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

linking wikipedia pages

I have now become a user at the Simple English Wikpedia. How do I put a link at my User page User:Adam Carr to this SE article http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki.cgi?History_Of_Australia ? Adam 05:04, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Exactly like you have above. Interlanguage links (which appear at the top and bottom of the page can be written like [[simple:History_Of_Australia]] but if you want the link to appear in the body of the page, you have to use the full url. You can write it like [http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki.cgi?History_Of_Australia History Of Australia] which will appear as History Of Australia. Angela 06:29, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC)


Thanks Angela. I wd value your opinion on the article itself some time. Adam 06:47, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
See Peer review at Simple. Angela 07:00, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC)
There is a simpler way to do this, although not in the cases mentioned. [[w:fr:Histoire|History in French]] results in an inline link to fr:Histoire, like this: History in French. However, it seems that simple: is not recognized as a language prefix for this trick, and it will not work on simple: as long as it is still on phase I software (but then, neither do 'normal' interlanguage links). Andre Engels 07:31, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia server offline

Is it just me, or does the wikipedia server go offline every afternoon in the Eastern Timezone? SD6-Agent 09:24, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I do know that the server goes offline a short while every hour at :34, this to clean it from a memory leak with unknown source. Andre Engels 11:22, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
US east coast's afternoon is our peak access period, so that's where our limited server power is going to show up the worst as far as slow / no responses go. --Brion 00:39, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Section Edit

Something's wrong with this function? When I used section edit and saved, only the section part left( whole article became only the section i edited), i've experienced that twice, i am wondering what's wrong? --ILovEJPPitoC 11:08, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Did you get an edit conflict on these occasions? Angela 17:29, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC)
I don't think so. But it seems to work on Opera. --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 02:31, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure if if the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) page is checked often (apparently it isn't), so I thought I'd post this here as well...I've been looking around for an answer to this, but the closest I can find is:

  1. Roman Emperors don't need the "of the Roman Empire" nor would Pericles be "of Athens" ? their names already indicate where they're from. The first line of the article can say when (and which empire) they ruled. Otherwise, we get stuck with Roman Emperor, Western R. E., Eastern R. E., Byzantine E., and (under the Carolingians) Roman Emperor (again).

That's fine for the Roman Emperors, but the Byzantine Emperors are kind of messily named. Some of them have "of the Byzantine Empire" or "of Byzantium" (the latter being especially odd), some of them have "Emperor XXX" (or Empress), and some of them have their family names as well. In this case, would the most common English name be the most common name used by Byzantinists? Most of these emperors don't come in normal English conversation :) Personally, I would refer to a lot of them by their nicknames or their family names, so "Alexius I Comnenus" rather than just Alexius I, or "Constantine Monomachus" (or Con. IX Monomachus) rather than just Constantine IX.

So, I'm not exactly sure what should be done about the naming of their articles, but something definitely needs to be done, as there is very little in the way of a standard for them at the moment. Any suggestions? Adam Bishop 22:21, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Heh, Byzantine naming for Byzantines seems entirely appropriate! It has been worked over by various people in the past - talk pages and history might tell you some of the players. They're halfway between European royalty, for which "of X" is the accepted standard, and Romans, which don't do it, but lots of the names are have high ambiguity, so review all of them before starting to tinker and then finding out the status quo was that way for a reason. :-) Stan 00:06, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
A lot of them wouldn't be ambiguous with any other world leader, of course...unless someone writes about the emperors of Trebizond, but I fixed those links so they will say "X of Trebizond." So I suppose "Alexius I", etc, is fine according to naming conventions, it just feels like they should all have "X, Byzantine Emperor" or something, if some of them do. Adam Bishop 14:59, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Highlighted map

Could anyone make a highlighted map for every country like that in article US? I think that would be helpful since I don't know the position of every country. --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 02:31, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Article: Sheremetyevo International Airport

Why has the article (Sheremetyevo International Airport been "Protected"? I have information to add to it, and I cannot do so while the page is protected.

I don't see it listed at Wikipedia:Protected page, and the last edit was in August! So it must have been a mistake. I've unprotected it. --Menchi 04:06, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Website with tiny font for Wikipedia license

This website has almost unreadable font for Wikipedia license text: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Environment-of-Evolutionary-Adaptedness --Astudent 12:39, 2003 Oct 18 (UTC)

It is still barely readable. It seems the whole site uses rather small fonts. -- Taku

Redirect inconsistency? Strangeness

If you go to Mainboard you get redirected to PC motherboard. However, the redirected page looks like an older version of the one you get going there directly (notice the picture and the temperature section!) How come?! Strange. When you click edit on the 'old' version, you get to edit the normal up to date version. Even stranger! --129.67.17.72 13:26, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Have you tried clearing your cache? They look the same to me. Angela 13:29, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

I have tried that, even used another browser AND with lynx from a very remote different system. Still inconsistent! Perhaps a caching issue on the server side? It is definitely real. --129.67.17.72 13:37, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have just checked out other redirected pages and they exhibit similar problems! For example MRI (as a redirect to) Magnetic resonance imaging. Last edits do not show up in redirected pages! --129.67.17.72 13:46, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It's something to do with users who are not logged in getting cached pages. They do look different if I log out. It has already been submitted to Sourceforge, where Tim wrote "The problem is that the HTML cache for redirects is not invalidated when the target page is updated. It's on my to do list." Angela 13:47, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

A previous discussion of the same problem archived here. Read the section "Google links to Wikipedia articles". Jay 14:49, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

West Tiki

test.wikipedia.org seems to be the same as (en.)wikipedia.org at the moment... I'm even still logged in... Just curious what happened to it... Κσυπ Cyp 18:37, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Pronounciation guides

Why are people putting in those pronounciation guides? They are unworkable in the content of wikipedia. Such guides work where there is (i) recognition of what they mean, (ii) a broad experience of usage of them, (iii) relevant context. Most people writing international english for a non-academic audience run a mile from these things because they are not widely used in much of the world and so in many cultures completely incomprehensible, and because they pre-suppose a clear shared standard of english, which in Wikipedia's case cannot be guaranteed because while for some users it is a first language, for many it is a second or other language that they are not wholly fluent in. The sensible approach in a cultural context where there isn't the culture, comprehension or experience of these guides is to avoid unduly complex pronounciation formulae and explain the pronounciation in basic english of the sort all readers everywhere can follow.

On Taoiseach we are told the word is pronounced /"ty: S'Vx/. Even with a link attached, to many people worldwide it might as well be written in aramaic for all the use it is to them. Previously, to recognise that many people don't have the practical experience of understanding complex pronounciation guides, they were simply told the office was pronounced tee-shoch (the och and is loch). That version could be followed easily by many people. /"ty: S'Vx/ to many would appear to be complete gobbledigook. FearÉIREANN 19:40, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I think that it would be easier still if a pronunciation file was attached. Then it would be even more universal (except for the deaf). I don't know how many times I've wanted to know the correct (or accepted pronunciation of a program or project, especially in the UNIX/Linux/GNU world). Dori 19:59, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)
Many months ago, when I wrote the article for Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz, I searched Wikipedia high and low for pronunciation guide standards. I was disappointed not to find any. Instead, I used the pronunciation guide from an American dictionary.
I don't know enough about lingiustics to proposal which pronunciation guide standards to utilize for wikipedia standards. But I feel such standards should exist, and should be listed.
Pronunciation files can help, but they should not replace the written word. Such files without written symbols breaks the continuity of reading, and cannot be used by many users.
A metapage called Wikipedia:Pronunciations (or something like that) should be created by people who know what their doing in the subject. I'd imagine it would look like http://www.m-w.com/aschart.htm in form, but not necessarily in content. Kingturtle 21:50, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The written pronunciation should stay. Perhaps I didn't make it clear, but I meant we should add sound bytes/clips for words, phrases, etc. to accompany such written guides. Maybe this could be a whole new site accompanying Wictionary and Wikiquote or it could just bee sound files uploaded to the pedias themselves. Dori 22:02, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)
For example, have a look at Albanian_language#Pronunciation guide and Common phrases in different languages#Albanian (Albanian) that I just added. Dori 23:34, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

NUMBEROFARTICLES

Does the variable NUMBEROFARTICLES (used on the main page) include image description pages? I think it might, and it probably shouldn't. I don't know if this has been discussed elsewhere, so pardon the ignorace if that is the case. Dori 21:17, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

Also, what about redirect pages? Pardon my possible ignorance as well :) Adam Bishop 21:23, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Multilingual statistics, the latest counting method (for en: anyway) is that an article = a page with at least one Wikification. But all redirects and some image description pages also have Wikifications too; they're probably excluded. --Menchi 21:33, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The count (should) count only pages in article namespace that are not redirects and contain the character sequence "[[", indicating a wiki link. Image description pages are not in article namespace, and are not counted. --Brion 22:15, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Can I add a page about myself in the Wikipedia?

And I don't mean a user page...

I've wondered this since I discovered Wikipedia a week ago. (What a great place!)

Yes, I admit up front that this question sounds vain, so let's agree on that, shall we, and move to the question:

Can I place a NPOV biography about myself, my life and my achievements in the Wikipedia? Is it done? Is there anything to stop me (policy-wise, I mean)?

Thanks for making this such an addictive and ever-exciting place.

-- Paul Klenk

Are you just some random guy who likes to edit Wikipedia? Then no :) If you have the barest amount fame, you could attempt it, and thereby start months of discussion about whether or not you are famous enough...but I don't know if it's worth the effort :) Adam Bishop 22:21, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Well, do I run into people in NYC who recognize me from my singing in the subway? Yes. Was I the subject of nationwide chat-room discussions when I rallied each evening for a month in Times Square on a live Web camera? Yes. Don't know if that's famous enough for you, but it might spur discussion, as you said. But my real question is, what's to stop me policy-wise? Thanks for your answer. -- Paul Klenk
Adam, I just researched you and discovered you're an administrator. Congratulations. So I think it's safe to say that your answer to me is borderline authoritative. (You can still answer me regarding policy, though). In closing I should say that, before you use your power to get women, first you use it to get 'respect,' THEN you can move to the women.  :) -- Paul Klenk
Ah, I don't know about authoritative, there are dozens of admins who do more admin-related things than I do :) There actually is a Wikipedia:Don't create articles about yourself policy, though. Adam Bishop

I would recommend that you read Wikipedia:Autobiography, have a look at the case study of Daniel C. Boyer (assuming you have a week to spare to read it) and note that Jimbo said on the mailing list "it is a social faux pas to write about yourself" [3]. Angela 22:49, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

There's nothing to stop you from creating an article about yourself, but there's also nothing to stop someone else from blanking, or deleting, or replacing your text with "Paul Klenk is a nobody." :-) So whatever you add has to be agreeable to the 8,000(?) other Wikipedia editors, and to date, nobody has been able to type fast enough to ensure survival of their material if even 10 other editors don't want it there. I have some accomplishments of my own, but somebody else will have to create the article about me; if not one of those thousands of editors thinks the article is needed, that's a pretty strong hint. Stan 22:53, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Stan, if those 10,000 Google hits are about you - you probably do deserve an article. Although two people have said that about me and I definitely don't! Angela 23:32, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)
Heh, it's what comes of spending years with open source - take away all the source code online, the numbers are a little smaller! :-) Stan 03:16, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, all for your answers -- I think I know what I need and we can lay this question to rest. Kindest regards, Paul Klenk 23:02, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If anyone on here deserves an article, it's Jimbo. Has he affected 10,000 people? Hmmm... let me think... ;) But he's too modest to write one about himself. The main criterion used to determine whether or not you're allowed to write an article about yourself is how obnoxious you are. Albert Jacher and Daniel C. Boyer were obnoxious, so they got booted. Jim Duffy and Sheldon Rampton are kind, pleasant people, so they have articles. Florentin Smarandache was obnoxious but unfortunately very widely known so we had to include him. But he was the exception. So take my advice and act nice. -- Tim Starling 05:29, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedian statistics

Do we have quick available stats on wikipedia contributors? I know most sign on with user-nics but it would be useful if we knew (1) where wikipedia users are from? (eg, are most in the US? What proportion are from Europe, Canada, Asia, Australia & New Zealand, Africa?) (2) given that there is a high turnover of wikipedians as people are dragged away with other commitments, what is the average length of stay of a wikipedian? It might be an idea if someone could create a program whereby new users (and existing users to wikipedia who had not yet done so) were asked to fill out a confidential questionnaire, not asking names or such but things like gender, ethnic background, educational qualification, physical ___location, etc. The results of each individual questionnaire would not be kept or anything, just the data included in an overall wikipedia profile of itself, giving wiki a knowledge of who it appeals to and why, who uses it, etc? It could appear when someone sets up a user-name, explaining why the questionnaire is there and stressing how the information data, once clicked by the user would simply update the overall numbers database and would not exist as an individual record. FearÉIREANN 00:00, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I suppose some of it could be gleaned from Wikipedia:Wikipedians, although there must be many more people who haven't put their names there. Adam Bishop 00:08, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I wouldn't personally be prepared to quote statistics that were gathered in the way you describe. They'd be too unverifiable. (Hmmm, is that like being "too pregnant"? Well, I think you get the idea). Misleading figures can be worse than none. Andrewa 03:49, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Weird en2.wikipedia

Can anyone explain to me the difference between: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_of_Greece and http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_of_Bavaria , same article on 2 different servers, but with different content (Otto_of_Bavaria redirects to Otto_of_Greece)????? Thanks. olivier 00:23, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

See #Redirect_inconsistency?__Strangeness above. Angela 00:33, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)
oh, OK. Thanks! olivier 01:34, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Archiving

I have seen that people archive their old messages (this is done for the pump too). Is there a reason for not using the history pages instead? Do the histories of pages get flushed after a while, do the URLs change, or is it simply a matter of preference? It seems a bit wasteful to do both. Dori 02:50, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)

Text archived to another page will be searchable, while text archived only in the edit history isn't. (Though I'd be surprised if this directly motivates much of it.) Stuff from the pump tends to get archived to pages more immediate to the discussed subject, which may make it easier for people to find the relevant information later, though it's likely better to refactor and summarize the results of the discussion rather than moving a multi-page thread/flame around from place to place. --Brion 03:03, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Adding photos to articles

I need help adding a photo to an article. I've already uploaded it. I've read the related help sections, but cannot find a usable code to do the format I wish. What I want to do is add the picture to the top right corner of the page, with the article text flowing down and around it. Can someone help, please? Paul Klenk 03:26, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't really know, but there is a page called Wikipedia:Image markup that may help you. Dori 03:31, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)
I added the Ricky Jay picture you uploaded to the article. I learned how to do by example! Samw 03:34, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, Easter Bunny, <buck buck!> Paul Klenk 03:39, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia bedtime

It is late, and I'm getting tired, but a lot of people still seem to be up contributing. What time do we all go to bed? Paul Klenk 03:55, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

  • Wikipedians are alllll round the world, so in all different time zones. But some prefer to stay up and edit till the small hours of the morning! :) Dysprosia 04:12, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
In that case, I'm going to bed. Goodnight, Dysprosia! Goodnight, Moon! Goodnight, Wiki article on the Grapefruit Spoon! Paul Klenk 04:17, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Standard formatting for languages

(Firstly, thanks Dysprosia for directing me to this page, and for your welcome...) Being new here, it's quite possible that I've overlooked a simple answer to this question, but I haven't been able to find it. (Also, I perhaps shouldn't be thinking about this sort of thing until I learn my way around.) But I note that there seem to be standardized formats for pages on countries (eg Germany), some or all animals (eg the ostrich), and so forth. I was wondering if there was something similar planned for languages, showing things such as estimated number of speakers, language family, and so forth. I haven't noticed any, but I wouldn't know where to look. Is there somewhere where lists of such "standardized formats" can be found? Thanks. - Vardion 03:59, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Welcome, Vardion! Currently available "standardized formats" can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject list. And we apparently don't have one yet, but there is a possibility at Xhosa language. --Menchi 04:05, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Non-gender specific language

I'm backing out of an emerging edit war in the Shenzhou spacecraft and a few related pages (shenzhou 5, "manned space flight").

"Crewed spaceflight", whilst admittedly inelegant, is a perfectly valid, non-gender specific term for a spaceflight with a human or humans aboard. It's a term that NASA itself uses (along with human spaceflight).

Nevertheless, use of this term seems to have met with fierce resistance by Wikipedians who defend the use of the older "manned" term.

I would suggest that the deliberate choice of a gendered term where there is a non-gendered alternative readily available is inherently un-NPOV.

Like I said, I'm walking away from it, since it's very clear that the dinosaurs will have their day through sheer weight of numbers if nothing else.

--Rlandmann 09:44, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why can't "Manned spaceflight" include women? I think it's presumptuous to assume "manned spaceflight" does not include women, especially considering all the women who have gone into space (and I'm sure China will follow). Besides, "Crewed spaceflight" is horribly inelegant and silly. Calling people who disagree with you on this point "dinosaurs" is much much much worse. Daniel Quinlan 11:58, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)

Pages on Votes for Deletion should not be changed?

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but it seems that some folks think that once a page has been listed on VfD, it should not be changed in an attempt to make it less offensive. Is this right?2toise 13:09, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If someone can fix an article so that it no longer merits deletion, there's no way that can be a bad thing. If it's not broken anymore, then keep it! Axlrosen 14:32, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Another redirection problem

Why isn't this redirect working? Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/copyvio -- Axlrosen 16:12, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It was a double redirect because the page had been moved twice. It's fixed now. Angela 16:21, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_archive_2004-09-26&oldid=1591522"