Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 1

(untitled)
It's possible that we'll have a CVS system up and running pretty soon. One way or another we certainly do want to make it as easy as possible for programmers to help develop Wikipedia's code. Please see also UseModWiki for essential information. --LMS

FAQ
Do you suppose that starting /FAQ pages would be appropriate? Perhaps the function is already covered by /Talk, but I think that an article subsection that is specifically for questions about the content could really help to refine the content of said articles.

International Wikipedias
The main article uses the term "international wikipedias" to refer to the non-English versions. I wouldn't call them international; in fact they are arguably "national" and the English version is closer to an "international wikipedia" since people from many countries can read English and several non-native speakers contribute to the English version. --AxelBoldt


 * Sounds logical. However, also the 'national' Wikipedia's have 'international' content. The difference is the language and some information typical for that nation. That is also the case for this English Wikipedia. It has far more 'American' topics than, I suppose, other Wikipedia's will ever have. In that sence the English Wikipedia is a 'national' one. Maybe we could just refer to non-English Wikipedia's as 'Wikipedia's in other languages'?


 * Where do we actually refer to other Wikipedias as (individually) "international Wikipedias"? We should just change that.  "International Wikipedia" is just a quick name meaning "Wikipedias in non-English languages."  Is there a better name we can use, Axel?  If so, we should use it. --LMS


 * Why not simply write "The original Wikipedia uses English, but now Wikipedias in many other languages have been started." --AxelBoldt


 * Go ahead, then! --LMS


 * May I be too bold in suggesting, that in future the word national and international (as yet no articles) be replaced with community and virtual community.

I think politics and its social boundaries may be a bit out of date and on the nose right now. Maybe this statement belongs under Meta-wikipedia --JW Apr 19,2003

Wikipedia on CDROM
Oct 17, 2001 Is it possible to get the Wikipedia on a CDROM? Perhaps someone could sponsor a download site with the whole wikipedia zipped up or something so people could download it and use it on their PCs without having to be connected to the net. CR
 * It seems a little early for that yet. I know that there's lots of interest in this idea though. It'll just be a little while... --Stephen Gilbert


 * It would be really grand if someone would move all the various Wikipedia policy pages, and change all the major links to them :-/, to the wikipedia: namespace. I'd do this myself but, er, I haven't got the time.  But I can see that it needs to be done.  Any takers? --Larry_Sanger February 19, 2002

Wikipedia should be in the article namespace (discussion in March 2002
Shouldn't Wikipedia be the one wikipedia article that is not in the wikipedia namespace? I think the project itself has risen to a degree of importance to deserve its own article in any online encyclopedia -- especially this one. Just my two cents. --maveric149

I agree. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia article and belongs into the main namespace. AxelBoldt

OK - I will move it back. --maveric149
 * Done --maveric149

I think that the Wikipedia should have its own encyclopedia article, but some of the content should be moved to, say About Wikipedia. --Stephen Gilbert (April 2002)

Script for automatically linking dates
I was wondering whether it wouldn't be a good idea if there was a script that went through articles and found references to dates that weren't linked to the actual dates themselves. Then someone could go through and add the events to the dates in the timeline... Right now all the timeline dates seem very sparse in terms of events. --The Ostrich, March 23, 2002


 * Just because a date appears in an article doesn't mean that the author necessarily wants it linked to the timeline. It may, for example, be a provisional one pending further clarification of the facts.  Eclecticology, March 23, 2002


 * Absolutely, agreed. But the process would in any case require human input, details the events the articles describe might need to be added to the year... This was, in fact, the main motivation for finding such links. --The Ostrich, March 23, 2002 17:55 UTC

Searching problem
It would be nice if you could search for items of 3 letters. Consider that it is almost impossible to search for some topics due to this restriction. Try searching for 'Art' or 'DNA'. --The Ostrich, March 24, 2002.

Pornographic images
Someone appears to have been uploading pornographic images - it might be an idea for someone so enabled to delete them. Example 1003015.jpg. --The Ostrich, March 24, 2002.


 * (That's a quite old one, according to the log it's been sitting there since january 26.) As a stopgap measure, upload a clean file with the same name. --Brion VIBBER, 07:23, 25 Mar 2002.

1911 encyclopedia material copyright claim
The article states that a copyright claim has been added to the 1911encyclopedia materials; by my reading of the "Legal" section this claim is only on the edits and changes. -- User:Khendon (September 2002)

Wikipedia's competitors
Who are wikipedia's competitors? Lir 13:11 Oct 27, 2002 (UTC)

"Low-cost paper version"
The article says "there is a plan to produce a low-cost paper version". Is this so? I was only aware of some discusstion about making a CD. And I thought Wiki is not paper. Could someone please clarify? Arvindn 17:36 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)


 * Anyone actually interested in making a paper version is welcome to do so, and if nothing else I'd be curious to see if it worked! Most likely this would involve some culling to 'known good' articles and search/replace to use abbreviations etc. (For the curious; someone at Enciclopedia Libre has done an experimental printable conversion: http://linuxopensource.com.mx/enciclopedia/ . Only 1200 pages -- you may want to print it at work when the boss isn't around. ;) --Brion 17:45 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

http://www.voguereplicawatch.com
 * Does anyone object to separate history section and make an independent article called History of Wikipedia? -- Taku 22:36 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, I object, the history is important to keep here for those who really know nothing about encyclopediae. It's also very important to show that we take the history of compiled knowledge seriously, know it has crossed many cultures, and do not have a naive view of what's required to do it right.  Of all things on this page, that history makes historians take us seriously, as it will probably include at least one thing they don't know, get them clicking, and viola' - another contributor!  For journalists, they need to see it all on one page. (August 2003)