Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive K

Stating the basics
This is mentioned elsewhere, but I think it's worth reminding the collectivity of it: remember to state the obvious -- or rather, remember that that is obvious to you is not so to the average reader. I had to add this to the start of the new article on the Ford Thunderbird: ''The Ford Thunderbird is a car manufactured in the USA by the Ford Motor Company. '' -- the authors did not stop to suppose that the reader does not necessarily know it's a car. This ties in with news style and the 5Ws. -- Tarquin 17:23, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Ah, that one was mine. One forgets, also, that a reader might not have arrived from a related page and therefore have context.  The word 'car' DID appear a sentence or two later, though, so it's not that it was never mentioned, just not probably as soon as it might have.  What I did utterly forget to mention was this was a vehicle by Ford USA; as a transplanted Brit myself, you'd think I would know better than being so americentric, but clearly not!   That's why second pairs of eyes help, to catch the first author's assumptions. -- Morven 06:26, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Pretend an alien anthropologist from Alpha Centauri somehow understands English, and is reading Wikipedia to learn about humans. You can't assume anything. -- Wapcaplet 19:37, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tarquin, I am not sure whether you do, it may be irony. - Patrick 20:43, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Irony? I think the word you want is sarcasm. And no, it's not :-) -- Wapcaplet 00:19, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Okay, we agree then that stating the basics is good (some people disagree and object against sentences like "A female child is called a girl, a male a boy." and "Sleeping is typically done lying in a bed"). - Patrick 06:56, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between including the necessary basic information as suggested by Tarquin and treating your reader like a moron. Everyone knows that one sleeps in a bed; not everyone knows what a Thunderbird is. -- Viajero 09:36, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * The alien anthropologist from Alpha Centauri does not. - Patrick 09:41, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Of course he does! He understands English. He couldn't have learned it without acquiring a certain amount of basic information, like what a bed is for. -- Viajero 10:03, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * He may know what it is (seen it, felt the soft surface), but not what it is used for. - Patrick 10:16, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think a better rule of thumb than imagining your audience is from Alpha Centauri may be to imagine that our civilization is destroyed utterly, and our descendants are fortunate enough to uncover an operational Wikipedia while digging through the ruins. We have so much trouble learning about the basic details of ancient civilizations because their writers generally failed to state the obvious... let us not make the same mistake. --Nelson 13:28, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Recent changes
On Recentchanges the requested articles "Ruth Barcan Marcus - Panjshir - YWHA - wage rate - Ed Fagan - modal logic -Dingle" haven't changed in about four days. Can we get rid of them and put up something else? Mintguy 18:38, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I see no reason why not. Four days is enough and it's not like you're going to run out of choice. Angela 03:39, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Votes for Deletion
Any particular reason someone savaged the VfD page?

Votes for Deletion
Any particular reason someone savaged the VfD page?


 * good question. It's dreadful. If it's too long, I think we should split off by type: "suspected copyright", "illegible junk" for example - Tarquin 09:17, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I especially like the part where someone made a unilateral decision to drastically alter the whole page and then botched the job.


 * It's not undoable, and it wasn't the unilateral decider (me) that botched it. Nonetheless, if sorting by type is better, let's do that. Yes, 93K is too long. -- Someone else 09:38, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Read the edit history. When you stopped you didn't do anything past Aug. 21. If that's not botching it, I don't know what is.


 * I wasn't "stopped" till it was done. I was, however, considerably slowed down by the "help". Comments on the VfD format should go on the VfD talk page, BTW.-- Someone else 09:53, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Just testing
Just testing that bug is fixed.

American or "international" names on videogames
The user WhisperToMe is moving all videogame systems to their Japanese rather than English title. I checked on Google "Super Nintendo" returns 373,000 hits, while "Super Famicom" returns 32,700. I think they should stop and return the pages to where they were originally to avoid creating confusion. M123 16:50, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * This is the English language wikipedia. The names he is using are the correct international names used in most of the English speaking world. For example, I'm English and I am used to the names he is using (in most cases). CGS 17:02, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC).


 * I've never heard of Super Famicom. If the page exists as Super Nintendo, it should be left there and Super Famicom set up as a redirect. There is no need to create extra work by moving pages around. Angela 17:10, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I've followed the video game market a little, and have heard of Super Famicom. I'm fairly certain that in Japan, only, was the SNES marketed as the Super Famicom; almost everywhere else in the world, it was marketed as the Super NES. I think it should stay at its old title, with perhaps a mention of the Super Famicom name. Same for Famicom and NES, and any others that had different Japanese market names. -- Wapcaplet 17:58, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Since almost the entire world (except Japan) calls the system SNES, the article should be Super Nintendo Entertainment System and not Super Famicom. Marknew 19:25, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Super Famicom is only one example. A better example is moving Genesis to Megadrive because that is the name most people know it by. CGS 18:12, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC).


 * The terms Famicom and Megadrive are unknown in North America. As for Genesis/Megadrive. Google gives 196,000 for "Sega Genesis" and 47,200 for "Sega Megadrive". Whisper is moving pages from where they've been for years to new places, which I think is unneccesary. M123 18:16, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Just moved "Mega Man" to "RockMan" a quick googling 109,000 '"Mega Man" Nintendo' vs. 1,660 '"RockMan" Famicom'. M123 18:48, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * One of the problems created by these moves is that throughout the entire article it apparently becomes necessary to say "Mega Man/Rock Man" or "NES/Famicom", which makes it pretty hard to read. I don't have a problem with articles being moved to a new name as long as the majority of the English-speaking population knows it by that name, but I disagree with moving Mega Man to Rock Man. Every gamer I have ever met, and even a lot of non-gamers, are familiar with Mega Man. Only the more dedicated gamers are aware of the name Rock Man. -- Wapcaplet 19:37, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * That's gamers that you have met. Unless you have travelled a lot, that's just your neck of the woods. CGS 20:35, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC).

I think the Google counts are a good indicator of which name is more popular in the online English-speaking world. We are not interested in English speakers who are not online because they are not reading Wikipedia. Therefore, let us bow to the majority, and put everything back to their US names. --Nelson 00:20, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, Google counts are a good indicator of which name is more popular among those who are involving "English web-site creation"! The first change is not necessary, but a revert maybe equally unnecessary. wshun 01:33, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I seriously think that English pages on the WWW are definitely skewed towards the United States. So it should be no surprise that most names would be the American version. I myself know MegaMan as RockMan. --seav 05:00, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)

Brazilian rocket explosion
moved to Talk:Current events

And thus we see our US bias. Nobody has bothered to write up anout any of this: Brazilian Space Agency? Alcantara space base? Do we even have these articles?. Current Events for that day starts with a HUGE paragraph about Alabama, knocking events in Brazil, Ecuador, and British Columbia into the minor details. You can bet if a rocket had exploded and killed 19 on US soil, an article would have been whipped up in a frenzy, with full biographies of all the dead, telling us everything down to their favourite flavour of jelly bean. -- Tarquin 08:50, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, could it possibly be that the only available info at this point seems to be from Reuters and gives hardly enough information to justify an article? Also, I don't happen to speak Portuguese (as is the case for many Wikipedians, especially on the English 'pedia, I'm sure) and most of the source information from Brazil is in that language. Have YOU written the article yet, Tarquin? Perhaps you have a US bias too. ;) --Dante Alighieri 10:57, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm not much of a current affairs hack myself. plenty of material, and we should cover the Brazil space programme in general, surely -- Tarquin 12:30, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC) PS I thought of contacting the ambassador of the portuguese wikipedia -- but there isn't one listed at the Embassy.

Protected pages
Help? I just protected Homelessness because User:JoeM continues to vandalize it. I know I'm supposed to list that the page was protected somewhere, but I can't find the page to do it. Can somebody point me there? RickK 23:52, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Protected page --Evercat 23:55, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Ugh. I tried to do a search for "protected" and it wouldn't come up. :( RickK 00:01, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * The quick search only searches the actual articles. To specify that you're searching for a Wikipedia: page, you have to use the search form with all the checkboxes at the bottom of the search results page. &mdash;Paul A 06:12, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Different pages for different meanings of the same word/ phrase
Getting too long for the Village pump so moved to Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

Is weasel terms really a good term?
Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel terms

American or "international" names on videogames
moved to Talk:Super Nintendo Entertainment System

Skeptic influx?
moved to Wikipedia talk:Skeptical solicitation

Brazilian rocket explosion
moved to Talk:Current events

The use of Lists
For the last couple of days I have taken a break from writing articles and have concentrated on compiling lists of business articles. The following lists cover all the business articles that I have been able to find:

Finding related topics

 * list of management topics
 * list of marketing topics
 * list of human resource management topics
 * list of economics topics
 * list of finance topics
 * list of accounting topics
 * list of information technology management topics
 * list of production topics
 * list of business law topics
 * list of business ethics, political economy, and philosophy of business topics
 * list of business theorists
 * list of economists


 * list of corporate leaders


 * list of companies

I have placed this at the end of about 20 articles as an experiment. My objective is to make every business article easy to find and available with only two mouse clicks.

My questions to the wiki-experts are &#8220;Will appending this list to articles conflict with the new category system being developed? If so, how should I modify it to prevent future problems?&#8221; mydogategodshat 06:06, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * My answer is: I think it's a very bad idea to place a whole slump of often little significant links on the bottom of pages, whether we have a category system or not. A single link to an encompassing subject, I can imagine, but 14 categories when it belongs to one or two? You may be happy that I'm not much on the English version or on business topics, as I'd delete them on sight. Andre Engels 14:08, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * You have stated your opinion that having easy access to these lists are a bad idea but have given no reason why you feel this way.
 * You then state that there should only be one or two lists. It is true that all of these lists could be compiled into one or two lists but the list would be so long and so diverse in scope that they would be useless. Who can find what they are looking for on a list of 1000 entries? That is why I subdivided them into the catagories that are taught in business schools. Business schools offer either majors and minors in all these the fields (with the exception of lists of people, of course). When someone tells me that these are all one topic, what it says to me is that the person is not familiar with the depth or scope of the topic. It is equivalent to a non-scientist saying that all science topics belong on one list. The number of subdivisions we include reflects the level of expertise we have in the field. I do not feel we should revert back to a time when Wiki was a project by and for geeksmydogategodshat 15:52, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I am not saying that they are all one topic. Rather the reverse. I am saying that they are rather different, sometimes closely sometimes less closely related topics. And because of that, if you put this whole list on a page, most of the links will not be closely related to its subject. The reason I think it is a bad idea, is that a page with subject 'X' should be about subject 'X'. Some links to subjects closely related to X are good. But a long list of links of subjects that are often of just little significance to X are not. One page will probably fall under one or two of the topics above. Add links to the lists for those topics, and leave out the rest. Andre Engels 18:06, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * We seem to be starting from different first principles. You seem to be starting from a category scheme that you feel is ideal (or at least optimal) for organizational reasons. I am trying to create a user-freindly environment and I feel this first principle takes precidence over categorical or organizational conciderations. Being from a business background, I see customer satisfaction (or user friendliness) as the prime driver of all decisions. If a venture is to be sucessfull, all other considerations, no matter how important, must first pass this criterion.
 * That is why having easy access to the lists are so important. As you are aware there are currently two ways of using Wikipepia ; Seaching and browsing (the "see also lists"). Using the search engine is effective if : 1) you know exactly what you are looking for; 2) you know the term commonly used to describe what you are looking for ; 3) there is only one or two common terms for the item you are looking for; 4) you know how to spell the terms involved. Browsing or surfing is useful when you do not have a specific goal in mind. Unfortunately, in most cases these criteria are not met. That is why most people find specific online searches so frustrating. You know that the information is available somewhere but finding it can take hours. What these lists do is address this void. They provide access to related topics so that users can find what they want without having to do ten or twenty searches. And do it with just two mouse clicks. I have yet to hear a sound argument for why this additional functionality should not be used to make Wiki a more user friendly place. mydogategodshat 22:06, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Apparently I am the only one against here, and seeing that I am less active on at least the English Wikipedia, I'll bow my head here. I'm not happy, though. Andre Engels 06:40, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think could be a good idea but in a sligter shorter form like the links to other languages. Jensp 07:09, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC) Like this:

Lists of business topics: management, marketing, human resource, economics, finance, accounting, information technology, production, business law, ethics, political economy, and philosophy, theorists, economists, corporate leaders, companies


 * I think that the lists should be easily accessible from the articles but not in this way. Firstly, it's too big. Secondly, and more important, imagine that you want to add new list to the list: you'd have to do so in all articles with the list and there could easily be hundreds of them. I think that the right solution is to make List of business lists (List of business topics has already been taken and has another purpose) and link that to the articles. Nikola 07:49, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I prefer the streamlined version too. The only reason I used the "title and bullet" format is I thought that was the direction Wiki was going with the new TOC format of multiple edit points. Having a single link to a list of lists is not a bad idea. However it has two dissadvantages. It reduces flexibility. We should be able to modify these to suit each page. Articles in the information technology management area, for example, would benefit from the inclusion of list of computing topics and list of Internet topics. The other disadvantage is that it would require three clicks each time rather than two. mydogategodshat 09:05, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'd add the list of lists only to the lists themselves (as the box on List of people by name).
 * On the article, I'd just link to the list(s) (or the topic) it belongs to. Once (if ever) a category feature is available, I'd suppose it might be possible to use the lists to add that to the articles automatically. Of course, you'd better ask a developer about this.
 * -- User:Docu


 * So I'm not alone in my opinion after all. Good to hear. Andre Engels 17:18, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Docu, Why would you not make a range of lists of related topics readily available?mydogategodshat 19:49, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree with Andre that huge lists at the end of articles are not a good idea. Angela


 * Thanks for your opinion Angela. I am still waiting for someone to give a reason why they don't want the lists available. mydogategodshat 10:56, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Default settings for Table of Contents
Is having "Show table of contents" OFF the default setting? I hope it is. Kingturtle 02:06, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * It's not, and it shouldn't be. If you see a broken TOC, fix it.&mdash;Eloquence 02:30, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)
 * I think he means that we should have an option for having our TOCs show up either shown or hidden -- I already put it on BriansTDL. - &#25140;&#30505sv 04:58, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)

Teaching with the WikiPedia - curriculum development project
Hello all. This is my first post here.

I'm thinking about developing a "Teaching with the WikiPedia" curriculum. It would be aimed at kids from about grades four through eight (US). The idea is for the kids to use the WikiPedia as the main reference source to complete their assignments, but also to understand the special issues associated with it. For example They might look up civil rights on the Wiki. What do they see? How to the entries in the Wikipedia differ from what they may see in a mainstream encyclopedia? Is it better or worse? Does the ability to edit other people's work improve the content, or is it a chance for personal opinions and political philosophies to creep into the entries?

I think this could be a great teaching tool because of the classroom discussions it would inspire. But this prompts two questions.

1) I don't want to re-invent the wheel. Is anyone else working on this?

2) I worry that kids, being kids, will quickly figure out they can add to the Wikipedia, and they will make a mess of it. (Swear words, spam, etc.) I know that’s the way I would have behavved if left unsupervised back in 7th grade. So I'm thinking of creating a read-only version of the Wikipedia just for use in this curriculum. That would solve potential vandalism, of course. But it would sort of also change the way The Wiki operates for them. (Though this might be a necessary compromise.)

Thoughts? --Shawn McCarthy service@diagonalmediagroup.com


 * Regarding your second question, I'd have to say that this would be wrong. If they're using a pedia they can't edit, they might as well use some other (and officially approved thinking about school) pedia. I think there's a kid-wikipedia being made somewhere, I read about it here not so long ago. Maybe you could use that instead? I want that everyone can edit, but I don't want 11 year olds spamming the place, either. - Sigg3.net 15:36, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I think we can handle a class-full of kids trying to muck about with articles. We've had far worse! There's a textbook wiki project, that might be what you're looking for -- Tarquin 17:12, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you might want to try finding that kid-friendly Wiki. In addition to academic subjects, this 'pedia discusses some subjects you may not want kids delving into. For an example of what I mean, you probably wouldn't want kids following all the links from human sexuality. &mdash;Frecklefoot 18:04, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * That's the web. -- till we *) 18:14, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)

Brazilian rocket explosion
moved to Talk:Current events Please stop moving this guys -- this really is an important example of our US-POV. Some sniper in the US takes out three people and we have an article on it in hours. Whereas the Brazillian space programme isn't covered at all -- not even the recent events, it isn't covered at all. Shame on us. -- Tarquin 13:58, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Spelling
Can someone post a link to a free, English English dictionary? I don't want to pay the $550 the OED wants. I usually will correct spelling mistakes i run across but I don't want to mistakenly use American English spelling for an acceptable British English spelling of the word. I'm aware of words like colour and programme, etc. Today it was "likelyhood" that I sorely wanted to change to likelihood but didn't want to start an across the pond dispute. Thanks, StinKerr 22:27, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Webster has American English as main entries, but include British English as See-also entries. But it has no redirect. :-) --Menchi 22:36, Aug 18, 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Menchi, I usually use Webster and have noted the "middle English" entries but I want to be sure I don't miss anything. I've already offended by making an entry to a link from the U.S. Constitution too "U.S.-centric" StinKerr 02:04, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

On the general topic of spellings, can I add an appeal for people to check for variant spellings with a dictionary, e.g. http://www.onelook.com/, and in general not change spellings if it's an acceptable one? Sure, if you see "Pearl Harbour", then it's probably OK to change that as i) it's a US topic, and ii) that's not the normal spelling. But some of those of us who use British spellings would rather the rest of you not implicitly accuse us of being illiterate morons by "correcting" our spellings. Thanks! Noel 18:50, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I second onelook.com as a good site for spellings and definitions. Martin 19:03, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks Noel and Martin. That is exactly what I want to avoid. Onelook.com is now on my reference list. StinKerr 06:53, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Video on wikipedia
I seem to remember a discussion about using video media on wikipedia, but can't find it. Does anyone recall where it is? I have some .avi files that I think would be a welcome addition.. what (if anything) can I do with them? Pete


 * Well you can transcode them for a start. We would have to look at open video standards. I think Xiph (people behind Ogg Vorbis) has an open video codec. CGS 11:40, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC).


 * Given the load on the Wikipedia server, the bandwidth costs of making video available, and the various format issues (in terms of freeness, availability, video quality, and required bandwidth). I think some extended discussion might be wise before people start uploading videos.  --Robert Merkel 11:38, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Workaround for Mozilla Bug no longer necessary
I noticed that in Mozilla Firebird 0.6.1, there are serious problems with the handling of  in general, and in an especially obvious way on the Postal Service. Apparently this is due to a workaround for a bug older versions of Mozilla had in displaying , there's a temporary hack that reverts to quirks mode for Mozilla browsers. So the people on the Mozilla Forums (http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=20420) told me to tell you guys that the bug is fixed. --Nelson 00:02, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Possible spam?
...at Abstract interpretation; see talk. I want someone else's opinion before I delete the offending links. k.lee 00:27, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Spelling
Moved to: Writing resources

Past tense vs. present tense for history
moved to Talk:Nikola Tesla

Not exactly vandalism
The discussion on removing dates that can not be verified can now be found at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Dates.

Workaround for Mozilla Bug no longer necessary
moved to Village pump/August 2003 archive 4

The use of Lists
''move to ... ????''

For the last couple of days I have taken a break from writing articles and have concentrated on compiling lists of business articles. The following lists cover all the business articles that I have been able to find:

Finding related topics

 * list of management topics
 * list of marketing topics
 * list of human resource management topics
 * list of economics topics
 * list of finance topics
 * list of accounting topics
 * list of information technology management topics
 * list of production topics
 * list of business law topics
 * list of business ethics, political economy, and philosophy of business topics
 * list of business theorists
 * list of economists


 * list of corporate leaders


 * list of companies

I have placed this at the end of about 20 articles as an experiment. My objective is to make every business article easy to find and available with only two mouse clicks.

My questions to the wiki-experts are &#8220;Will appending this list to articles conflict with the new category system being developed? If so, how should I modify it to prevent future problems?&#8221; mydogategodshat 06:06, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * My answer is: I think it's a very bad idea to place a whole slump of often little significant links on the bottom of pages, whether we have a category system or not. A single link to an encompassing subject, I can imagine, but 14 categories when it belongs to one or two? You may be happy that I'm not much on the English version or on business topics, as I'd delete them on sight. Andre Engels 14:08, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * You have stated your opinion that having easy access to these lists are a bad idea but have given no reason why you feel this way.
 * You then state that there should only be one or two lists. It is true that all of these lists could be compiled into one or two lists but the list would be so long and so diverse in scope that they would be useless. Who can find what they are looking for on a list of 1000 entries? That is why I subdivided them into the catagories that are taught in business schools. Business schools offer either majors and minors in all these the fields (with the exception of lists of people, of course). When someone tells me that these are all one topic, what it says to me is that the person is not familiar with the depth or scope of the topic. It is equivalent to a non-scientist saying that all science topics belong on one list. The number of subdivisions we include reflects the level of expertise we have in the field. I do not feel we should revert back to a time when Wiki was a project by and for geeksmydogategodshat 15:52, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I am not saying that they are all one topic. Rather the reverse. I am saying that they are rather different, sometimes closely sometimes less closely related topics. And because of that, if you put this whole list on a page, most of the links will not be closely related to its subject. The reason I think it is a bad idea, is that a page with subject 'X' should be about subject 'X'. Some links to subjects closely related to X are good. But a long list of links of subjects that are often of just little significance to X are not. One page will probably fall under one or two of the topics above. Add links to the lists for those topics, and leave out the rest. Andre Engels 18:06, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * We seem to be starting from different first principles. You seem to be starting from a category scheme that you feel is ideal (or at least optimal) for organizational reasons. I am trying to create a user-freindly environment and I feel this first principle takes precidence over categorical or organizational conciderations. Being from a business background, I see customer satisfaction (or user friendliness) as the prime driver of all decisions. If a venture is to be sucessfull, all other considerations, no matter how important, must first pass this criterion.
 * That is why having easy access to the lists are so important. As you are aware there are currently two ways of using Wikipepia ; Seaching and browsing (the "see also lists"). Using the search engine is effective if : 1) you know exactly what you are looking for; 2) you know the term commonly used to describe what you are looking for ; 3) there is only one or two common terms for the item you are looking for; 4) you know how to spell the terms involved. Browsing or surfing is useful when you do not have a specific goal in mind. Unfortunately, in most cases these criteria are not met. That is why most people find specific online searches so frustrating. You know that the information is available somewhere but finding it can take hours. What these lists do is address this void. They provide access to related topics so that users can find what they want without having to do ten or twenty searches. And do it with just two mouse clicks. I have yet to hear a sound argument for why this additional functionality should not be used to make Wiki a more user friendly place. mydogategodshat 22:06, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Apparently I am the only one against here, and seeing that I am less active on at least the English Wikipedia, I'll bow my head here. I'm not happy, though. Andre Engels 06:40, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think could be a good idea but in a sligter shorter form like the links to other languages. Jensp 07:09, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC) Like this:

Lists of business topics: management, marketing, human resource, economics, finance, accounting, information technology, production, business law, ethics, political economy, and philosophy, theorists, economists, corporate leaders, companies


 * I think that the lists should be easily accessible from the articles but not in this way. Firstly, it's too big. Secondly, and more important, imagine that you want to add new list to the list: you'd have to do so in all articles with the list and there could easily be hundreds of them. I think that the right solution is to make List of business lists (List of business topics has already been taken and has another purpose) and link that to the articles. Nikola 07:49, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I prefer the streamlined version too. The only reason I used the "title and bullet" format is I thought that was the direction Wiki was going with the new TOC format of multiple edit points. Having a single link to a list of lists is not a bad idea. However it has two dissadvantages. It reduces flexibility. We should be able to modify these to suit each page. Articles in the information technology management area, for example, would benefit from the inclusion of list of computing topics and list of Internet topics. The other disadvantage is that it would require three clicks each time rather than two. mydogategodshat 09:05, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'd add the list of lists only to the lists themselves (as the box on List of people by name).
 * On the article, I'd just link to the list(s) (or the topic) it belongs to. Once (if ever) a category feature is available, I'd suppose it might be possible to use the lists to add that to the articles automatically. Of course, you'd better ask a developer about this.
 * -- User:Docu


 * So I'm not alone in my opinion after all. Good to hear. Andre Engels 17:18, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Docu, Why would you not make a range of lists of related topics readily available?mydogategodshat 19:49, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree with Andre that huge lists at the end of articles are not a good idea. Angela


 * Thanks for your opinion Angela. I am still waiting for someone to give a reason why they don't want the lists available. mydogategodshat 10:56, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Video on wikipedia
Move to Multimedia

I seem to remember a discussion about using video media on wikipedia, but can't find it. Does anyone recall where it is? I have some .avi files that I think would be a welcome addition.. what (if anything) can I do with them? Pete


 * Well you can transcode them for a start. We would have to look at open video standards. I think Xiph (people behind Ogg Vorbis) has an open video codec. CGS 11:40, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC).


 * Given the load on the Wikipedia server, the bandwidth costs of making video available, and the various format issues (in terms of freeness, availability, video quality, and required bandwidth). I think some extended discussion might be wise before people start uploading videos.  --Robert Merkel 11:38, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Wikimedia article naming
Discussion moved to Talk:Akhenaton/rename


 * They don't seem useful and add clutter. They are too broad - not specific to the topic. Angela

Stating the basics
move to establish context

This is mentioned elsewhere, but I think it's worth reminding the collectivity of it: remember to state the obvious -- or rather, remember that that is obvious to you is not so to the average reader. I had to add this to the start of the new article on the Ford Thunderbird: ''The Ford Thunderbird is a car manufactured in the USA by the Ford Motor Company. '' -- the authors did not stop to suppose that the reader does not necessarily know it's a car. This ties in with news style and the 5Ws. -- Tarquin 17:23, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Ah, that one was mine. One forgets, also, that a reader might not have arrived from a related page and therefore have context.  The word 'car' DID appear a sentence or two later, though, so it's not that it was never mentioned, just not probably as soon as it might have.  What I did utterly forget to mention was this was a vehicle by Ford USA; as a transplanted Brit myself, you'd think I would know better than being so americentric, but clearly not!   That's why second pairs of eyes help, to catch the first author's assumptions. -- Morven 06:26, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Pretend an alien anthropologist from Alpha Centauri somehow understands English, and is reading Wikipedia to learn about humans. You can't assume anything. -- Wapcaplet 19:37, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tarquin, I am not sure whether you do, it may be irony. - Patrick 20:43, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Irony? I think the word you want is sarcasm. And no, it's not :-) -- Wapcaplet 00:19, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Okay, we agree then that stating the basics is good (some people disagree and object against sentences like "A female child is called a girl, a male a boy." and "Sleeping is typically done lying in a bed"). - Patrick 06:56, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between including the necessary basic information as suggested by Tarquin and treating your reader like a moron. Everyone knows that one sleeps in a bed; not everyone knows what a Thunderbird is. -- Viajero 09:36, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * The alien anthropologist from Alpha Centauri does not. - Patrick 09:41, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Of course he does! He understands English. He couldn't have learned it without acquiring a certain amount of basic information, like what a bed is for. -- Viajero 10:03, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * He may know what it is (seen it, felt the soft surface), but not what it is used for. - Patrick 10:16, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think a better rule of thumb than imagining your audience is from Alpha Centauri may be to imagine that our civilization is destroyed utterly, and our descendants are fortunate enough to uncover an operational Wikipedia while digging through the ruins. We have so much trouble learning about the basic details of ancient civilizations because their writers generally failed to state the obvious... let us not make the same mistake. --Nelson 13:28, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * This scenario is just as ludicruous as the previous. How do we know, for example, what the ancient Greeks reallywrote about since virtually all their manuscripts were filtered by medieval monks? And a lone server running Wikipedia under the ruins of our civilization??? Get real! How about writing for an audience of people with high-school educations? That would imply an assumption of basic knowledge of common things, such as what a bed is for and why people go the beach, and behoove us to write about matters of depth and complexity, ie the arts and sciences, and current affairs. -- Viajero 17:50, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * You can't assume that people know "why people go the beach". I agree the bed thing is stupid though. Angela

Technical term definition style
I would like to start to develop a consistent style on marking up technical terms and defined terms in articles (especially technical or scientific articles) to be put somewhere in the Style Manual. I've looked and I see only a few pointers and how to's &mdash; no style definitions. Should I just go ahead and add where appropriate in the Manual(s), or has something like this been done before and 1) I missed it or 2) it proved too controversial ? I was thinking of an intro paragraph, a list of options (bold, obique, underline), then perhaps a bulleted list that others could alter or add to until the details are solidified. Any suggestions? - Marshman 18:09, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * With term definition lists, wouldn't there be many overlaps in the same sub-field then? --Menchi 18:14, Aug 23, 2003 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question, but what I have in mind is a guide (in the Style Manual) as to when to put words in oblique, bold, link, or other mark up such as underline . I have my own style and I can see others doing the same sorts of markup in technical articles, but without (at least I have not) a consistent style (One consistency that seems to exist is foreign words). - Marshman


 * No underline, please, that interferes with possible underlining of links. - Patrick 19:04, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Good point, and that could be part of the "article" I'm envisioning - Marshman


 * Are you talking the style of the technical terms? Like those Latin species names? Because most chemistry, physics and other biological technical terms are not italicized, in the first or third mentioning.
 * Or are you thinking of textbook keyword bolding style? If it's really important, it deserves its own article. --Menchi 19:14, Aug 23, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, this all makes sense. Add it to manual of style or create a subpage. Martin 22:49, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I can see there are people ready to comment, although I think their questions can be best answered by doing it and putting it out there (then the questions can be real specific). I'll work on it this weekend and provide a link. - Marshman 01:57, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I have created a Style Manual page for what I am proposing at Technical terms and definitions. The discussion can move to the talk page for that article - Marshman 18:09, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The use of Lists
move to List?

For the last couple of days I have taken a break from writing articles and have concentrated on compiling lists of business articles. The following lists cover all the business articles that I have been able to find:

Finding related topics


 * list of management topics
 * list of marketing topics
 * list of human resource management topics
 * list of economics topics
 * list of finance topics
 * list of accounting topics
 * list of information technology management topics
 * list of production topics
 * list of business law topics
 * list of business ethics, political economy, and philosophy of business topics
 * list of business theorists
 * list of economists


 * list of corporate leaders


 * list of companies

I have placed this at the end of about 20 articles as an experiment. My objective is to make every business article easy to find and available with only two mouse clicks.

My questions to the wiki-experts are &#8220;Will appending this list to articles conflict with the new category system being developed? If so, how should I modify it to prevent future problems?&#8221; mydogategodshat 06:06, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * My answer is: I think it's a very bad idea to place a whole slump of often little significant links on the bottom of pages, whether we have a category system or not. A single link to an encompassing subject, I can imagine, but 14 categories when it belongs to one or two? You may be happy that I'm not much on the English version or on business topics, as I'd delete them on sight. Andre Engels 14:08, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * You have stated your opinion that having easy access to these lists are a bad idea but have given no reason why you feel this way.
 * You then state that there should only be one or two lists. It is true that all of these lists could be compiled into one or two lists but the list would be so long and so diverse in scope that they would be useless. Who can find what they are looking for on a list of 1000 entries? That is why I subdivided them into the catagories that are taught in business schools. Business schools offer either majors and minors in all these the fields (with the exception of lists of people, of course). When someone tells me that these are all one topic, what it says to me is that the person is not familiar with the depth or scope of the topic. It is equivalent to a non-scientist saying that all science topics belong on one list. The number of subdivisions we include reflects the level of expertise we have in the field. I do not feel we should revert back to a time when Wiki was a project by and for geeksmydogategodshat 15:52, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I am not saying that they are all one topic. Rather the reverse. I am saying that they are rather different, sometimes closely sometimes less closely related topics. And because of that, if you put this whole list on a page, most of the links will not be closely related to its subject. The reason I think it is a bad idea, is that a page with subject 'X' should be about subject 'X'. Some links to subjects closely related to X are good. But a long list of links of subjects that are often of just little significance to X are not. One page will probably fall under one or two of the topics above. Add links to the lists for those topics, and leave out the rest. Andre Engels 18:06, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * We seem to be starting from different first principles. You seem to be starting from a category scheme that you feel is ideal (or at least optimal) for organizational reasons. I am trying to create a user-freindly environment and I feel this first principle takes precidence over categorical or organizational conciderations. Being from a business background, I see customer satisfaction (or user friendliness) as the prime driver of all decisions. If a venture is to be sucessfull, all other considerations, no matter how important, must first pass this criterion.
 * That is why having easy access to the lists are so important. As you are aware there are currently two ways of using Wikipepia ; Seaching and browsing (the "see also lists"). Using the search engine is effective if : 1) you know exactly what you are looking for; 2) you know the term commonly used to describe what you are looking for ; 3) there is only one or two common terms for the item you are looking for; 4) you know how to spell the terms involved. Browsing or surfing is useful when you do not have a specific goal in mind. Unfortunately, in most cases these criteria are not met. That is why most people find specific online searches so frustrating. You know that the information is available somewhere but finding it can take hours. What these lists do is address this void. They provide access to related topics so that users can find what they want without having to do ten or twenty searches. And do it with just two mouse clicks. I have yet to hear a sound argument for why this additional functionality should not be used to make Wiki a more user friendly place. mydogategodshat 22:06, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Apparently I am the only one against here, and seeing that I am less active on at least the English Wikipedia, I'll bow my head here. I'm not happy, though. Andre Engels 06:40, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think could be a good idea but in a sligter shorter form like the links to other languages. Jensp 07:09, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC) Like this:

Lists of business topics: management, marketing, human resource, economics, finance, accounting, information technology, production, business law, ethics, political economy, and philosophy, theorists, economists, corporate leaders, companies


 * I think that the lists should be easily accessible from the articles but not in this way. Firstly, it's too big. Secondly, and more important, imagine that you want to add new list to the list: you'd have to do so in all articles with the list and there could easily be hundreds of them. I think that the right solution is to make List of business lists (List of business topics has already been taken and has another purpose) and link that to the articles. Nikola 07:49, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I prefer the streamlined version too. The only reason I used the "title and bullet" format is I thought that was the direction Wiki was going with the new TOC format of multiple edit points. Having a single link to a list of lists is not a bad idea. However it has two dissadvantages. It reduces flexibility. We should be able to modify these to suit each page. Articles in the information technology management area, for example, would benefit from the inclusion of list of computing topics and list of Internet topics. The other disadvantage is that it would require three clicks each time rather than two. mydogategodshat 09:05, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'd add the list of lists only to the lists themselves (as the box on List of people by name).
 * On the article, I'd just link to the list(s) (or the topic) it belongs to. Once (if ever) a category feature is available, I'd suppose it might be possible to use the lists to add that to the articles automatically. Of course, you'd better ask a developer about this.
 * -- User:Docu


 * So I'm not alone in my opinion after all. Good to hear. Andre Engels 17:18, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Docu, Why would you not make a range of lists of related topics readily available?mydogategodshat 19:49, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree with Andre that huge lists at the end of articles are not a good idea. Angela


 * Thanks for your opinion Angela. I am still waiting for someone to give a reason why they don't want the lists available. mydogategodshat 10:56, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * They don't seem useful and add clutter. They are too broad - not specific to the topic. Angela

it.wikipedia.org instead of .com
Moved to Wikipedia_talk:Software_updates, Fantasy 20:45, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Video on wikipedia
Moved to Multimedia

The use of Lists
moved to List

Default settings for Table of Contents
move to Table of Contents

Is having "Show table of contents" OFF the default setting? I hope it is. Kingturtle 02:06, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * It's not, and it shouldn't be. If you see a broken TOC, fix it.&mdash;Eloquence 02:30, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)
 * I think he means that we should have an option for having our TOCs show up either shown or hidden -- I already put it on BriansTDL. - &#25140;&#30505sv 04:58, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)

Mailing list access
I am trying to post to the mailing list using the news gateway. It doesn't work. Shouldn't it? I do not have a suitable e-mail address to use for participation via e-mail. Kat


 * Get a free mailbox from Yahoo or Hotmail. After signing up, for Hotmail, go to Option -> Mailing Lists -> add wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org and/or wikien-1@wikipedia.org . Then you can send and receive. --Menchi 22:22, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)

Brazilian rocket explosion
move to Talk:Current events

This is in the news right now. Does anyone know anything about this? could we get an article on the rocket itself & put it on the main page? -- Tarquin 12:12, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've found this http://www.mrree.gub.uy/iiicea/PAISES/Brasil/Brazilian%20Space%20Program98.htm & http://www.agespacial.gov.br/

Ericd

here is another link : http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/brazil/missile2000.htm

And thus we see our US bias. Nobody has bothered to write up anout any of this: Brazilian Space Agency? Alcantara space base? Do we even have these articles?. Current Events for that day starts with a HUGE paragraph about Alabama, knocking events in Brazil, Ecuador, and British Columbia into the minor details. You can bet if a rocket had exploded and killed 19 on US soil, an article would have been whipped up in a frenzy, with full biographies of all the dead, telling us everything down to their favourite flavour of jelly bean. -- Tarquin 08:50, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, could it possibly be that the only available info at this point seems to be from Reuters and gives hardly enough information to justify an article? Also, I don't happen to speak Portuguese (as is the case for many Wikipedians, especially on the English 'pedia, I'm sure) and most of the source information from Brazil is in that language. Have YOU written the article yet, Tarquin? Perhaps you have a US bias too. ;) --Dante Alighieri 10:57, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm not much of a current affairs hack myself. plenty of material, and we should cover the Brazil space programme in general, surely -- Tarquin 12:30, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC) PS I thought of contacting the ambassador of the portuguese wikipedia -- but there isn't one listed at the Embassy.


 * Granted, there should be an article about the Brazilian Space Agency - but there isn't even an article about the Russian, German, French or Japanese one here, which all are much more "important" then the Brazilian one. I guess there are just not enough space enthuasiasts here - and even though I am I one only contributed very few articles on that topic so far. Spaceflight seems to be not that much interesting for the general public anymore as it was during the Apollo days, so it is no wonder it is a bit neglected here. BTW: we should have look at the articles about the Chinese space program, especially Taikonaut, as it will probably be in the news in October. andy
 * So, now it has an article about Alcantara - now who will do the one about the AEB?. andy

Please stop moving this guys -- this really is an important example of our US-POV. Some sniper in the US takes out three people and we have an article on it in hours. Whereas the Brazillian space programme isn't covered at all -- not even the recent events, it isn't covered at all. Shame on us. -- Tarquin 13:58, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * K - moved back. Martin 14:11, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say it's particularly shameful. There's a lot of Americans here, and not very many Brazilians, which naturally leads to better coverage of American topics. I would expect an encyclopedia project staffed primarily by Brazilians to have the same coverage bias in the opposit direction. --Delirium 17:38, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)

Yes it is. This was on global news and no-one thought it worth covering. This would seem to suggest that US writers have an inflated view of the importance of US events -- or they assume they are writing for the US, not for the world. The fact that we have more USians who know more about the US should encourage us to actively neglect US topics in favour of worldwide ones -- Tarquin 22:11, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I'd really appreciate it if you didn't ascribe motive or intent to Wikipedians in general or an entire nation of people. Thanks.


 * Just to be clear, saying that no one thought it worth covering is lucicrous. You can't possibly know that. There may well have been people who thought it worth covering but were waiting until they could get access to enough information to do a decent article.


 * I'm particularly incensed by the rest of your statement. First of all, it seems to suggest nothing of the sort to me. Also, if NO ONE on Wikipedia thought it was worth writing an article about, why is it suddenly the fault of the US Wikipedians alone??? The assertion that we should actively neglect ANY topic because of its relation to a certain country is also ridiculous. I don't know how you can possibly defend such a position... if it's a topic worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia it should NOT be intentionally neglected.


 * Lastly, I'm just about sick of people complaining about the US bias and then blaming US contributors. You know who's REALLY well equipped to deal with non-US topics? PEOPLE WHO AREN'T FROM THE US. Now, I'll kindly not blame you for living where you live if you'll kindly stop blaming me for where I live.


 * --Dante Alighieri 22:43, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, actively neglect -- consider if things are truly encyclopedic. People should get a sense of global perspective. It sometimes seems that if cat falls out of a tree in the US it gets an article. -- Tarquin 22:52, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * That's a separate argument. We should neglect ALL non-encyclopedic articles, not just US ones. I still think there's no case for intentionally pulling back on articles that are encyclopedia-worthy JUST because they're from the US. --Dante Alighieri 23:01, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Firstly, we call ourselves Americans, not USians, I don't know where you got this strange term from. Second, I haven't seen it on google news, so apparently no one of any importance is reporting it.  { MB | &#12510;&#12452;&#12459;&#12523; } 22:27, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)

The term is frequently used, but that's not relevant here. I found plenty of references to it on Google news. It was on AOL's front page for a whole day. -- Tarquin 22:32, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Maybe so, but it isn't on the front page of the world news section of google news now (at least the us/en/ version) . If I go out of my way and search for it, I find it . This should indicate to you why it wasn't posted to Current Events, and this is b/c it wasn't being widely reported on by US news agencies. Therefore, if you read about it, you should have added it. The same applies to articles related to the Brazilian Space Agency, people write about what they are interested in, and so no one has written about it, since not many wikipedians are interested in it, and most en wikipedians are American. If you wish to fix the imbalance of space articles towards NASA, I suggest you start a WikiProject. { MB | &#12510;&#12452;&#12459;&#12523; } 22:55, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)

I an UKian :-) only briefly heard abotu it on the news dont knwo mcuh about it, would be great t haev an article on it. Tthe reason alot of Americans don't knwo much about the outside world is because of the news in the USA, America is very big so news gernally covers just each state with the eception of the big newstsations like CCN etc. Once again the media is too balme. - fonzy

This is really easy, Tarquin. If you want an article about the Brazilian Space Agency, write it yourself. Don't blame the lack of participation by Brazilian Space enthusiasts on American bias. Daniel Quinlan 23:10, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)

Stating the basics
Move to State the obvious

This is mentioned elsewhere, but I think it's worth reminding the collectivity of it: remember to state the obvious -- or rather, remember that that is obvious to you is not so to the average reader. I had to add this to the start of the new article on the Ford Thunderbird: ''The Ford Thunderbird is a car manufactured in the USA by the Ford Motor Company. '' -- the authors did not stop to suppose that the reader does not necessarily know it's a car. This ties in with news style and the 5Ws. -- Tarquin 17:23, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Ah, that one was mine. One forgets, also, that a reader might not have arrived from a related page and therefore have context.  The word 'car' DID appear a sentence or two later, though, so it's not that it was never mentioned, just not probably as soon as it might have.  What I did utterly forget to mention was this was a vehicle by Ford USA; as a transplanted Brit myself, you'd think I would know better than being so americentric, but clearly not!   That's why second pairs of eyes help, to catch the first author's assumptions. -- Morven 06:26, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Pretend an alien anthropologist from Alpha Centauri somehow understands English, and is reading Wikipedia to learn about humans. You can't assume anything. -- Wapcaplet 19:37, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tarquin, I am not sure whether you do, it may be irony. - Patrick 20:43, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Irony? I think the word you want is sarcasm. And no, it's not :-) -- Wapcaplet 00:19, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Okay, we agree then that stating the basics is good (some people disagree and object against sentences like "A female child is called a girl, a male a boy." and "Sleeping is typically done lying in a bed"). - Patrick 06:56, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between including the necessary basic information as suggested by Tarquin and treating your reader like a moron. Everyone knows that one sleeps in a bed; not everyone knows what a Thunderbird is. -- Viajero 09:36, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * The alien anthropologist from Alpha Centauri does not. - Patrick 09:41, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Of course he does! He understands English. He couldn't have learned it without acquiring a certain amount of basic information, like what a bed is for. -- Viajero 10:03, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * He may know what it is (seen it, felt the soft surface), but not what it is used for. - Patrick 10:16, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think a better rule of thumb than imagining your audience is from Alpha Centauri may be to imagine that our civilization is destroyed utterly, and our descendants are fortunate enough to uncover an operational Wikipedia while digging through the ruins. We have so much trouble learning about the basic details of ancient civilizations because their writers generally failed to state the obvious... let us not make the same mistake. --Nelson 13:28, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * This scenario is just as ludicruous as the previous. How do we know, for example, what the ancient Greeks reallywrote about since virtually all their manuscripts were filtered by medieval monks? And a lone server running Wikipedia under the ruins of our civilization??? Get real! How about writing for an audience of people with high-school educations? That would imply an assumption of basic knowledge of common things, such as what a bed is for and why people go the beach, and behoove us to write about matters of depth and complexity, ie the arts and sciences, and current affairs. -- Viajero 17:50, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * You can't assume that people know "why people go the beach". I agree the bed thing is stupid though. Angela


 * We can still write about matters of depth and complexity, while still defining obvious things. Viajero, I think the operational Wikipedia server buried under the ruins (and the anthropologist from Alpha Centauri) are merely thought experiments. They should not be taken seriously :-) But consider what we are writing here: a record of human knowledge. If these are things that "everyone knows", then it makes sense (to me) that they be included in such a record. I've created State the obvious in order to expand this idea a bit. Feel free to comment. -- Wapcaplet 19:22, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Wapcaplet, basically I agree with your ideas. In the course of editing articles I've added quite a bit of informtion particularly to the opening paragraphs, defining the context, which, I agree, is vital. It is amazing how US-centric some of the pieces are! As such, I am all for stating the basics, defining the context, and so on, but always with a distinction between basic information and mundane details. I don't quite know how to define this distinction, only I know it when I see it. A certain user here has a propensity for filling articles with mountains of trivial information which make articles read like easy-readers. What is important? Historial/biographical/technical/statistical information of course, but also some sense of why something is important. For me, this doesn't include explaining, for example, that a towel is used to dry oneself. That's what you learn at home or at school as a kid; that's not what you turn as an adult (young or old) to an enclyclopedia to learn about. The idea that all knowledge belongs in an encyclopedia is a mistaken one; a good editor makes reasoned choices, I think, between basic, vital, and trivial information. -- Viajero 18:59, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Delete page please
I'm uncertain where to obtain this help. I'm trying to move Composite family to Asteraceae to be consistent with other plant family pages and be more modern (Compositae is an old name for this family). But I guess I need the Asteraceae deleted because (partly due to my moving stuff around) it has a short page history which the system wants to keep. - Marshman 21:00, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC) Likewise need Fabaceae deleted for same reason - Marshman


 * You want Votes for deletion. CGS 22:20, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC).


 * I don't think so. I'm not really deleting anything, just moving text. Last time I made this request a sysop just cleared the way for the move within 5 minutes of making the request - Marshman 22:23, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * To clear the way, we have to delete the obstacle first. I'll delete them now and store the history at their respective talk, but they are better placed in VfD, because they require manual deletion. --Menchi 22:30, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)


 * Never mind, Jiang's gotten to it before I did. --Menchi 22:31, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)

I'm here now, so I can make my moves. If there is "Talk" pages to preserve in the deleted stuff, someone else must do that. And thanks ! - Marshman 22:33, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Jiang did the move for you. :-) --Menchi 22:37, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)
 * Yeh I saw. I also took care of Fabaceae move, so this discussion can move to respective Talk pages if there be any descention. - Marshman 23:59, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Pic of fonts copyright
I know that A, B, C have Microsoft puny font sample. What's exactly is the copyright limitation on font size or how much "sample" (i.e., must be under 20% of the entire character database)? Is there any? Many fonts have to be bought, would the company be happy that we do whatever we want to GNU-ize the pictures of it once we bought it? (I'm thinking of doing an article on Eight Principles of Yong using the Chinese calligraphy fonts). --Menchi 18:01, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)


 * I thought that one can't copyright a typeface (a legacy thing), only the file that produces it. If it's a rasterised image of a font, I think you can use whatever you want. I may be very wrong... CGS 18:27, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC).


 * IANAL, but I think CGS is dead-on. I've run into this a few times in the past.  You can't copyright a font, but you can sell typefaces.  But the user can do whatever they want with the font, with the exception of giving the typeface away for free (or selling copies of it).  &mdash;Frecklefoot 19:12, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * This is potentially much more problematic than that, especially given international issues. In the United States, font design is not copyrightable, but it is patentable if novel enough.  As far as I can find, Stone and Lucida are the only two patented typefaces, and this may not hold up in court.  However, the situation is much worse in Europe.  Europe used to have the same "can't copyright typefaces" laws as the United States, but Germany (in 1981) and the UK (in 1989) have passed laws making typeface designs copyrightable.  The UK law is even retroactive (!), so designs produced before 1989 are also copyrighted, if the copyrights wouldn't have already expired (the German one is not retroactive). --Delirium 09:29, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, we may include hi-res pix of the characters, but that is still not the font information (i.e. hinting, the bezier curves, etc.). A font licensed for use in publishing should be unproblematically used here, as long as we don't include the "source-code" of the font, but only pictures of it. Or how would one use a font for, say, newspaper headlines, if large pix of the font aren't allowed in the license? -- till we *) 10:57, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)

Communication with developers
Hi, from the moved list above:


 * Recent changed sidebar -> deleted - see bug reports
 * text for empty articles -> deleted - see bug reports

As everbody knows, wikipedia bug reports is a reference to the SourceForge, in other words: "if you don't get a SourceForge account and put your feature requests there, nobody will see them". It's not the first time. I really have a problem with that attitude -- Wikipedia is a community, and I really would like to see a place inside Wikipedia where the community and the developers can communicate. I'd like to know if I'm the only one who is frustrated by this attitude, or if there are others ... -- till we *) 23:33, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)


 * ...I think, this serves as some kind of "filter". If someone has a really burning issue, he will poste it to SourceForge, otherwise it is not important enough. So the developer get only the "real important" issues. I also would like a more Wikipedia-centric approach (same for MAilinglists), but it is the current way it works. Don't get frustrated by this. If you have a really good Idea how to improve this situation, please start with it. But filters are not always just bad ;-) Fantasy 14:04, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * PS:I also have a big list of improvements for Wikipedia listed on my page, and for months already I think "one day I will post them on SourceForge"... one day or another... ;-)

Wikipedia Case User:RK
moved to Wikipedia talk:Community case RK

Punishment, type of
I am searching for the word defined by "punishment of an entire group for the misdeeds of one or a few of that group"

Violations of copyright on history pages
User:Seav posted a question on Copyright issues about a month ago regarding copyright violations on history pages. I also have this question and could not find any other discussion of this issue so I started a new metapage: Copyright violations on history pages. Sysops and other volunteers are very vigilant to remove copyright violations from the actual Wikipedia content, but that content may still remain on the history pages. I found one such example today at I have a dream. Queare: If copyright work can be found anywhere on Wikipedia isn't Wikipedia retaining a copy of that work and allowing further infringement? I understand that the history pages are a implicit requirement under the FSF GNU FDL as author attribution is still necessary as the only thing granted to Wikipedia is a non-exclusive license. Alex756 16:14, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I replied at Copyright violations on history pages. Angela

real-time computer control
In a sequence control,what is better, a PLC or an industrial PC?

real-time computer control
In a sequence control,what is better, a PLC or an industrial PC?


 * ...could you explain a little bit, what you want to know? Thanks, Fantasy 14:12, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * PS: Please sign also your question, Thanks.

Stating the basics
Move to Wikipedia talk:Establish context

This is mentioned elsewhere, but I think it's worth reminding the collectivity of it: remember to state the obvious -- or rather, remember that that is obvious to you is not so to the average reader. I had to add this to the start of the new article on the Ford Thunderbird: ''The Ford Thunderbird is a car manufactured in the USA by the Ford Motor Company. '' -- the authors did not stop to suppose that the reader does not necessarily know it's a car. This ties in with news style and the 5Ws. -- Tarquin 17:23, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Ah, that one was mine. One forgets, also, that a reader might not have arrived from a related page and therefore have context.  The word 'car' DID appear a sentence or two later, though, so it's not that it was never mentioned, just not probably as soon as it might have.  What I did utterly forget to mention was this was a vehicle by Ford USA; as a transplanted Brit myself, you'd think I would know better than being so americentric, but clearly not!   That's why second pairs of eyes help, to catch the first author's assumptions. -- Morven 06:26, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Pretend an alien anthropologist from Alpha Centauri somehow understands English, and is reading Wikipedia to learn about humans. You can't assume anything. -- Wapcaplet 19:37, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tarquin, I am not sure whether you do, it may be irony. - Patrick 20:43, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Irony? I think the word you want is sarcasm. And no, it's not :-) -- Wapcaplet 00:19, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Okay, we agree then that stating the basics is good (some people disagree and object against sentences like "A female child is called a girl, a male a boy." and "Sleeping is typically done lying in a bed"). - Patrick 06:56, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between including the necessary basic information as suggested by Tarquin and treating your reader like a moron. Everyone knows that one sleeps in a bed; not everyone knows what a Thunderbird is. -- Viajero 09:36, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * The alien anthropologist from Alpha Centauri does not. - Patrick 09:41, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Of course he does! He understands English. He couldn't have learned it without acquiring a certain amount of basic information, like what a bed is for. -- Viajero 10:03, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * He may know what it is (seen it, felt the soft surface), but not what it is used for. - Patrick 10:16, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think a better rule of thumb than imagining your audience is from Alpha Centauri may be to imagine that our civilization is destroyed utterly, and our descendants are fortunate enough to uncover an operational Wikipedia while digging through the ruins. We have so much trouble learning about the basic details of ancient civilizations because their writers generally failed to state the obvious... let us not make the same mistake. --Nelson 13:28, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * This scenario is just as ludicruous as the previous. How do we know, for example, what the ancient Greeks reallywrote about since virtually all their manuscripts were filtered by medieval monks? And a lone server running Wikipedia under the ruins of our civilization??? Get real! How about writing for an audience of people with high-school educations? That would imply an assumption of basic knowledge of common things, such as what a bed is for and why people go the beach, and behoove us to write about matters of depth and complexity, ie the arts and sciences, and current affairs. -- Viajero 17:50, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * You can't assume that people know "why people go the beach". I agree the bed thing is stupid though. Angela


 * We can still write about matters of depth and complexity, while still defining obvious things. Viajero, I think the operational Wikipedia server buried under the ruins (and the anthropologist from Alpha Centauri) are merely thought experiments. They should not be taken seriously :-) But consider what we are writing here: a record of human knowledge. If these are things that "everyone knows", then it makes sense (to me) that they be included in such a record. I've created State the obvious in order to expand this idea a bit. Feel free to comment. -- Wapcaplet 19:22, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Wapcaplet, basically I agree with your ideas. In the course of editing articles I've added quite a bit of informtion particularly to the opening paragraphs, defining the context, which, I agree, is vital. It is amazing how US-centric some of the pieces are! As such, I am all for stating the basics, defining the context, and so on, but always with a distinction between basic information and mundane details. I don't quite know how to define this distinction, only I know it when I see it. A certain user here has a propensity for filling articles with mountains of trivial information which make articles read like easy-readers. What is important? Historial/biographical/technical/statistical information of course, but also some sense of why something is important. For me, this doesn't include explaining, for example, that a towel is used to dry oneself. That's what you learn at home or at school as a kid; that's not what you turn as an adult (young or old) to an enclyclopedia to learn about. The idea that all knowledge belongs in an encyclopedia is a mistaken one; a good editor makes reasoned choices, I think, between basic, vital, and trivial information. -- Viajero 18:59, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

User SEWilco is an activist
Hi, I find that the editor named SEWilco is problematic.

He modifies the articles concerning global warming/temp in a manner to cast doubt about the IPCC results and the scientific community in general. He systematically emphasizes the position of opposition voices like Pr Lindzen (see his article about Richard S. Lindzen and IPCC TAR Summary Conflict, which is pure speculation. One doesn't even know which are Dr Lindzen's original comments). His contributions are highly biased in general.


 * Apparently the above person can't figure out the TOC which says "1 Lindzen Statement", and the horizontal rules to separate sections. He also seems highly biased in making changes in a manner to cast doubt about his recognition of the difference between a popularity poll and the scientific method. (SEWilco 05:49, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC))


 * Try Problem users. This entry should probably be moved there. -- Tim Starling 04:32, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Could people start signing their Village Pump comments? These semi-anonymous comments are annoying.  Daniel Quinlan 06:56, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)


 * No. Look at the [history].  My critic is anonymous.  Oh, and I think I'm more of a Bright than an activist. (SEWilco 15:34, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC))


 * I certainly do not see anything in the excerpts from the TAR on IPCC_TAR_Summary_Conflict that supports SEWilco's claim that model accuracy has not increased. On the contrary, considerable progress has been made in many areas, in particular in the area of clouds and water vapor. The still somewhat limited nature of our knowledge about clouds is not disputed by the scientific community, but that is simply not enough to refute man-made Global Warming completely. Besides, if the IPCC sometimes dramatizes the facts somewhat, this is justified, as it is dealing with political powers. Think George W. Bush---as long as someone has a trace of a doubt about the reality of man-made Global Warming (and some crank will always have), he won't do anything. Which is the worst thing to do in our current situation. Finally, SEWilco, this large-table style doesn't fit with the usual Wikipedia style and most of the "insightful" comments are totally POV. Please correct! Morn 18:03, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Wikiquote Bug
Help! Wikiquote, sister project to Wikipedia, needs a developer to come and help fix a bug that occurred today, not with the software per se, but with the configuration of the InterWiki setup. All links from Wikiquote to Wikipedia using en: rather than w: (which is most of them) no longer work, and in fact the whole link does not display at all. This has caused us to mostly cease working on the site, and has made many pages difficult to read. We would appreciate it if someone could come and fix it as soon as possible. Thanks. Nanobug 16:09, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Fixed. --Brion 21:35, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

request protection for ethics
Could an admin please temporarily protect ethics in any of its more recent, non-RK forms? He has decided it seems to use it as a forum to "trap" me, luring me into reverting his POV edits, and such. I would rather not deal with this. Failing that, someone else reverting his edits would be handy. It's important to keep that article neutral, for reasons I noted at list of central issues. EofT


 * I've protected it. See the talk page. CGS 18:18, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC).

The new format is driving me nuts
I've been trying to give the new article format the benefit of the doubt, but it's finally driven me over the edge. (In case this is a techie problem, I am reading and editing from Internet Explorer 5 using Windows 2000.) Since the new format has rolled out, the first line of each article consistently shows up right-justified. When the opening paragraph is fairly long, that's not a real problem but many articles have only very short first paragraphs. Stylistically, they should probably stay that way in many cases. Visually, you almost overlook them because the line doesn't start until the middle of the page. Do others agree? And if so, is there anyone out there with the technical skills to fix it? Rossami 06:54, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The [edit] option at the right of every paragraph is distracting and makes the articles harder to read. Is there a way to turn that off? (If I want to edit the article, I'd prefer to do it the old way - the whole article, not just one paragraph.) Rossami 06:54, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Turn off "Enable section editing via [edit] links", in the second column of Special:Preferences. Which will fix the first-line justification glitch as well, incidentally, because that's a side-effect of the mechanism used to position the [edit] links. &mdash;Paul A 07:09, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't it default to off? Seems much the better option to me. But then, I took one look at it when it first arrived, said "yuk" and switched it off right away, and had actually forgotten that it existed until just now. Tannin 09:05, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * How do you edit the Village pump without the EDIT-section button? It would drive me nuts always scrolling through the whole Village pump in the small edit window just to find the place I would like to replay... ;-) Fantasy 12:53, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Like this. :) Tannin
 * In your Prefs you have an option for right-clicky thingies for section edits...I think that's what you want? It's late here. I need sleep. Ignore me if I'm wrong :) Dysprosia 13:02, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * ...ups, Dysprosia, you are right, I forgot the right-click. I did not switch it on, because I really use the right click a lot and so I did not wanted to change his functions... but it is useful, I agree. Thanks for reminding me ;-) Fantasy 13:09, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Pic of fonts copyright
move to wikipedia talk:copyrights

I know that A, B, C have Microsoft puny font sample. What's exactly is the copyright limitation on font size or how much "sample" (i.e., must be under 20% of the entire character database)? Is there any? Many fonts have to be bought, would the company be happy that we do whatever we want to GNU-ize the pictures of it once we bought it? (I'm thinking of doing an article on Eight Principles of Yong using the Chinese calligraphy fonts). --Menchi 18:01, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)


 * I thought that one can't copyright a typeface (a legacy thing), only the file that produces it. If it's a rasterised image of a font, I think you can use whatever you want. I may be very wrong... CGS 18:27, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC).


 * IANAL, but I think CGS is dead-on. I've run into this a few times in the past.  You can't copyright a font, but you can sell typefaces.  But the user can do whatever they want with the font, with the exception of giving the typeface away for free (or selling copies of it).  &mdash;Frecklefoot 19:12, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * This is potentially much more problematic than that, especially given international issues. In the United States, font design is not copyrightable, but it is patentable if novel enough.  As far as I can find, Stone and Lucida are the only two patented typefaces, and this may not hold up in court.  However, the situation is much worse in Europe.  Europe used to have the same "can't copyright typefaces" laws as the United States, but Germany (in 1981) and the UK (in 1989) have passed laws making typeface designs copyrightable.  The UK law is even retroactive (!), so designs produced before 1989 are also copyrighted, if the copyrights wouldn't have already expired (the German one is not retroactive). --Delirium 09:29, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)


 * I moved this comment to Copyright. Martin 11:45, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, we may include hi-res pix of the characters, but that is still not the font information (i.e. hinting, the bezier curves, etc.). A font licensed for use in publishing should be unproblematically used here, as long as we don't include the "source-code" of the font, but only pictures of it. Or how would one use a font for, say, newspaper headlines, if large pix of the font aren't allowed in the license? -- till we *) 10:57, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)

Interlanguage link in preview
Why were the interlang ln in preview removed? I'm sure most people don't feel its existence or non-existence, but I sometimes used them to make sure my inter-ln is correct when linking to and fro Chinese and English WPs. --Menchi 00:29, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)


 * It's not disabled, but it doesn't interact well with section editing. If you're editing a full page, it should work fine. --Brion 01:12, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * It was at top, before the edit box. But it isn't there anymore. And I searched "Other languages" and "Svenska". And they aren't there. If it's still there, it's really hard to find for clumsy me. --Menchi 01:39, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)


 * They're right there, at the top, where they always are. Here's a screenshot. --Brion 03:32, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * m:Image:No_interlanguage_screenshot.png in Win98/IE6. Exactly the same in Mozilla 1.4b. Then again, same in Chinese WP. They really aren't there. --Menchi 04:27, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see from the screenshot you posted on meta that you're using the Nostalgia skin. It appears to be missing the fix to show lang links in special pages and previews (so you'll also see no language links in Special:Recentchanges, for instance). I'll see about fixing that. --Brion 04:28, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Fix installed. --Brion 07:51, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Wikimedia article naming
Discussion moved to Talk:Akhenaton/rename

Is Fox News a real news source?
The discussion was getting too long for the villapge pump, so has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/News sources. Angela

User:RK vs EofT
Both accuse each other of being trolls and manipulating me (I protected ethics at the request of EofT, which seemed to be a genuine request). Which one is the troll? Both? Neither? CGS 22:26, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC).


 * I don't think it's a good idea to accuse anyone of being a troll, but some relevant information for you might be that some have proposed that RK be banned whilst EofT has been been banned in the past and is threatened with another one. You're very brave for getting involved! :) Angela


 * Both have made genuine contributions. Both bring a rather unique perspective to the project.  Neither is as pure as the driven snow, but then, few are.  RK has more sympathy with the Cabal.  You will have to review the history to decide for yourself, and it's a jumbled mess.  The matter seems to have escalated from some edits that EofT made in good faith, but which RK found unhelpful.  In many ways the whole affair is a proxy for larger issues.  There have been various confused attempts to contain the disagreement between them to a page or two.  I see the matter as an example of a need for a stronger conflict resolution ethic and process for the project.  I take no sides because it is not my fight, and have taken criticism for refusing to take a stand.   My shoulders are broad.  Are yours?  Good luck.  Kat 03:13, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Damnd if do, damnd if dont. While both Kat and Angela are right, the central issues are actually rather simple -- does anyone have a right to make /ban pages? The consensus now is no, because its problematic. Can people make accusations? Well, there is some doubt about whether those in charge are actually willing to enforce policy. If the judge or jury is likely just to acquit, why make any effort at all, until a solid case is built. Beyond that, its a case of the community taking care of itself, putting an end to irresponsible behaviour by -- traditionally the way has been to be ignorant (also called "tolerant" - as in "I tolerate you"). But how does one bring the issue to a head, when people want it to just "go away." How does one raise the issue, without themselves being accused of the crime of "raising the issue" -- to me the issue is equal treatment, and while EofT has acted like a moron, this does not mean RK gets to slide - or does it? Its really a governance issue after that, and the ability (or inability) of the Government to actually discern the crap from the custard and the shit from the shingle. - &#25140;&#30505sv 18:29, Aug 30, 2003 (UTC)


 * User:Jimbo Wales/Ceasefire
 * Someone get this junk off the village pump.
 * Martin 13:13, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Why don't we have a Nazi swastika?
I was looking at swastika and it struck we that it describes the Nazi swastika (red background, white cricle, black swastika at an angle), but the image next to this is plain grey. Is there a reason for this? It's illegal in Germany, but do we care about that (we ignored Nevada pornography laws when they were discussed)? How about France? CGS 01:19, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC).

Moving Pages
Can an administrator help in moving San Jose Del Monte City to San Jose del Monte City? An anonymous user uploaded the same content to both pages and I would like one to redirect to the other, with the edit history in the correct page. Please include Wheel of Time series of novels --> The Wheel of Time. Thanks! (Is there a page for these types of request?) --seav 03:21, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)


 * Done. --mav


 * Thanks, but User:Hephaestos already did it. You essentially repeated it. :) --seav 04:06, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia's search function
When I type in "Sutcliffe" I get Stuart Sutcliffe but not Rick Sutcliffe. Why? (I can guess the answer.) --KF 13:32, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Because Rick Sutcliffe was only created today and the search is running on a static copy of the database as explained at Searching.
 * Thanks. That's what I thought. I was just wondering how often that static copy was updated. --KF 13:48, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Help with Photoshop and PNGs
Wondering if some helpful party could aid me in resolving a problem I have - I assume it's with Adobe Photoshop, which I use in making PNGs for use here on Wikipedia. They always turn out much, much darker than they appear in the program. Check the history of Image:mtl-metro-map.png - to create an acceptable image I finally had to bombastically lighten the original image in Photoshop. This happens whether I save it in RGB mode or indexed colour mode. Is there a way to ensure that the colours in the file are the same as the colours I see when using the program? - Montr&eacute;alais 20:10, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * is it only PNGs? P-shop has its own gamma correction -- check that. -- Tarquin 20:21, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Montrealais: what browser are you using? Some have broken gamma correction in their display engines. --Brion 21:35, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * IE 5.5. Does the image look too light on some other browser? And (at least out of the formats I use) it's only PNGs as far as I know - all the GIFs I created for my website look fine. - Montr&eacute;alais 23:44, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * The first three versions are too dark, the last two are fine (I use IE 6). The only parts that could be even lighter (not the whole thing) are the small words to the right to the blue signs with white rectangles and an up-arrows in them. Like the lower-left one that says: "TRAIN DE BRAMIUE MONTRÉAL DELSON"(?) --Menchi 23:56, Aug 28, 2003 (UTC)


 * Try fiddling with the color settings in Photoshop. On my Mac at work w/ ps 7 I loaded the (older version) of the file, saw it looked fine, went into the Color Settings (in the apple menu on OSX; probably under File on Windows) and switched the 'Working Spaces' / 'RGB' to 'ColorSync RGB - Generic RGB Profile', and resaved. The resaved file looks great in Safari and Mozilla, at least for me... but I don't know how reliable this is. --Brion


 * Alternatively, try resaving the files from the Gimp. --Brion 00:07, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I noticed a problem with photoshop's png module also -- depending on how its displayed, it can even be chopped to bits (AcDsee) - with browsers, the transparency quality is inferior to that of the Gimp. Maybe try something like this (I havent tried it yet) http://www.freephotoshop.com/html/png.html - &#25140;&#30505sv 00:22, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)


 * I'll experiment with that later. Thanks so much for the help, folks :) - Montr&eacute;alais 04:33, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

WikiFiction
This discussion and the other recent discussion of fictional characters can now be found at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies/Fictional_characters

Interlanguage link in preview
move to wikipedia talk:embassy??

Why were the interlang ln in preview removed? I'm sure most people don't feel its existence or non-existence, but I sometimes used them to make sure my inter-ln is correct when linking to and fro Chinese and English WPs. --Menchi 00:29, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)


 * It's not disabled, but it doesn't interact well with section editing. If you're editing a full page, it should work fine. --Brion 01:12, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * It was at top, before the edit box. But it isn't there anymore. And I searched "Other languages" and "Svenska". And they aren't there. If it's still there, it's really hard to find for clumsy me. --Menchi 01:39, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)


 * They're right there, at the top, where they always are. Here's a screenshot. --Brion 03:32, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * m:Image:No_interlanguage_screenshot.png in Win98/IE6. Exactly the same in Mozilla 1.4b. Then again, same in Chinese WP. They really aren't there. --Menchi 04:27, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see from the screenshot you posted on meta that you're using the Nostalgia skin. It appears to be missing the fix to show lang links in special pages and previews (so you'll also see no language links in Special:Recentchanges, for instance). I'll see about fixing that. --Brion 04:28, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Fix installed. --Brion 07:51, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Naming and page size for content from E2
moved to Wikipedia talk:Guide for Everything2 noders

Requests for summaries
Speaking of boredom, those of you interested in quality reading material may want to check ot Requests for summaries, a new page for requesting summaries of reports, studies etc. freely available online to be integrated into Wikipedia. I think it's a cool idea, but it will only work if people actually adopt some of the listed documents, otherwise it will merely be a random link collection. So please choose something you find interesting, or add your own requests to the page.&mdash;Eloquence 14:28, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)


 * Sounds great. I will currently not have the time for this, but If I read public available reports in the future, I will try to summarise it immediately for Wiki. (Boredom... who was speaking about that?... ;-) Fantasy 14:47, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Can we move discussions from the Mailing lists to Wikipedia?
moved to Wikipedia_talk:Mailing_lists, Fantasy 06:56, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Discussing Wikipedia Software Updates

 * Wikipedia talk:Software updates


 * Shouldn't there be a permanent link to the above page from here? Dori 14:22, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Now it is ;-) Fantasy 14:40, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * PS:I think, a lot of questions regard the software updates, so this could redirect some to the right place...

Am I Being Needlessly Nordic-Centered
Moved to Talk:The_Little_Mermaid Fantasy 20:20, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Stop the Stubs
Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Find_or_fix_a_stub, Fantasy 20:28, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Question regarding a user
I've noticed a user who has, in the last 48 hours, focused on a couple of pages and made 20-30 edits on them, many of them minor. They don't seem factually inaccurate to me, but it does seem to me that this approach of seven minor edits in ten minutes takes up server space and bandwidth to store old copies of articles that could easily be prevented. Should I drop a note to this user? Is there a procedure? I'd appreciate advice. Jwrosenzweig 23:11, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't do any harm to mention it on his talk page - in a "here's a useful tip for you" way rather than a criticising way. Angela 23:31, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * When I first started, I used to make lots of these edits -- mostly beause I didnt understand the value of the preview button.- &#25140;&#30505sv 23:47, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you both! I've chatted with the user and they were very open to being slower to hit "Save Page"--sorry for taking up the pump's time on such a minor matter that is so easily resolved. :) Jwrosenzweig 23:55, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Don't people do this to up thier number of contributions? Sorry to be cyncical. CGS 18:00, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC).


 * Epsilon advice -> User talk:Jnc

A little concern about editing
I just created an account and found myself able to edit pages. With this ability for new users, how do we know that the information after edition is correct? I have this concern that valuable information could be deleted or altered intentionally or accidentally. Does Wikipedia have some sort of check in place?


 * I think you can find the answer in Replies to common objections - there are always others who will read the article later, and whenever a fact look dubious it will be researched. And we always have the editing history, so anything deleted or altered can still be traced back. andy 09:48, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * It sure does. We have a Supervising Editor who checks as many articles as possible, and adjusts them as appropriate. This editor's name is 65.148.122.196 (i.e., you). Also me. And every other Wikipedian. We all check each other's work as routine. Sometimes some horrible howlers slip through the net, but not often. Mostly, someone like you will spot the problem and either fix it (if you have the expertise) or at least bring it to the attention of someone who is a specialist in that field.


 * Welcome aboard, by the way. Stick around, it's a great place. Tannin


 * You don't even need a user account to edit articles. CGS 10:19, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC).

Donations are now working, you can start donating ;-)
This question came up many times, I just thought people may want to know this:

There is a first way to donate money to Wikipedia (e.g. for a new Server ;-) Just have a look at Donations

Thanks a lot for your support, Fantasy 22:15, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Why not put the Wikimedia Foundation mailing address on that page? As it is protected it cannot be added except by sysops/administrators/developers. Not everyone can contribute using a credit card. The official public record address of Wikimedia Foundation is:


 * Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
 * 3911 Harrisburg St. NE
 * St. Petersburg, FL 33703


 * &mdash; Alex756 23:20, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Good Idea, it is now there! (And I look forward, that you can add it yourself ;-) Fantasy 08:22, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Are we going to have some sort of progress bar listing how many/how much donations we have received? -- Ram-Man 16:23, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)


 * This Village pump Entry was just to advertise Donations. For discussion, please go to Wikipedia talk:Donations. Btw: I think, this is a good Idea ;-) Fantasy 07:55, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Teaching with the WikiPedia - curriculum development project
move to Wikipedia talk:School and university projects

Hello all. This is my first post here.

I'm thinking about developing a "Teaching with the WikiPedia" curriculum. It would be aimed at kids from about grades four through eight (US). The idea is for the kids to use the WikiPedia as the main reference source to complete their assignments, but also to understand the special issues associated with it. For example They might look up civil rights on the Wiki. What do they see? How to the entries in the Wikipedia differ from what they may see in a mainstream encyclopedia? Is it better or worse? Does the ability to edit other people's work improve the content, or is it a chance for personal opinions and political philosophies to creep into the entries?

I think this could be a great teaching tool because of the classroom discussions it would inspire. But this prompts two questions.

1) I don't want to re-invent the wheel. Is anyone else working on this?

2) I worry that kids, being kids, will quickly figure out they can add to the Wikipedia, and they will make a mess of it. (Swear words, spam, etc.) I know that's the way I would have behavved if left unsupervised back in 7th grade. So I'm thinking of creating a read-only version of the Wikipedia just for use in this curriculum. That would solve potential vandalism, of course. But it would sort of also change the way The Wiki operates for them. (Though this might be a necessary compromise.)

Thoughts? --Shawn McCarthy service@diagonalmediagroup.com


 * Regarding your second question, I'd have to say that this would be wrong. If they're using a pedia they can't edit, they might as well use some other (and officially approved thinking about school) pedia. I think there's a kid-wikipedia being made somewhere, I read about it here not so long ago. Maybe you could use that instead? I want that everyone can edit, but I don't want 11 year olds spamming the place, either. - Sigg3.net 15:36, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I think we can handle a class-full of kids trying to muck about with articles. We've had far worse! There's a textbook wiki project, that might be what you're looking for -- Tarquin 17:12, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you might want to try finding that kid-friendly Wiki. In addition to academic subjects, this 'pedia discusses some subjects you may not want kids delving into. For an example of what I mean, you probably wouldn't want kids following all the links from human sexuality. &mdash;Frecklefoot 18:04, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * That's the web. -- till we *) 18:14, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)


 * See School and university projects.
 * I think that sounds like a great project, Shawn - it'd be interesting to see how they rate Wikipedia versus competing universities. Go for it - preferably allow them to edit, because not being able to edit is going to change the feel of wikipedia considerably. Martin 14:08, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Donations are now working, you can start donating ;-)
see Donations

How do you revert a page?
An article has been made POV and I was wondering how to revert it to a NPOV article. Moros 20:39, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)


 * How to revert a page to an earlier version explains it all... Evercat 20:40, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Recent changes
moved to Wikipedia talk:Recentchanges

Wikipedia Case User:RK

 * moved to Wikipedia talk:Community case RK
 * now moved to meta

Violations of copyright on history pages
Moved to: Copyright violations on history pages.

Teaching with the WikiPedia - curriculum development project
moved to Wikipedia talk:School and university projects

Recipes
Do cooking recipes really belong in an encyclopedia? Has there ever been discussion of a separate wiki for them? It would seem a good idea to me. -- Viajero 07:58, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes. Yes. No. :) Martin 09:53, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * For non-famous ones: Culinary arts textbook @ textbook.wikipedia.org. --Menchi 08:06, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)

Broken Redirects
Is there a quick and easy way (i.e., not involving DDQs) to find broken redirects? I, for one, wouldn't mind going around making sure that any redirect that points to a red link either gets deleted or given a stub at the redirect site. Broken redirects are A Bad Thing because people won't realize that an article doesn't yet exist if they see the link in text, because it's blue, even if it doesn't go anywhere. This makes it that much harder for people who might be inclined to write an article if they new one was needed. --Dante Alighieri 04:21, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Special:Maintenance has a tool for this, but of course all that's presently disabled to keep the server from dying. At some point these things need to get reworked to be usable. Anyone who wants to code up improvements is welcome. --Brion 04:48, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Until an online query is again available, this might easily be extracted from the weekly SQL dumps, just like Short pages, Long pages, Orphaned pages, Most referenced pages, Most wanted pages. If Brion thinks this a good idea and is willing to run the scripts just like the Statistics scripts and upload the output, I will prepare a production version (= optimized, etc) of my current scripts in a few weeks time. The scripts produce two files per report, one in html format, one in wiki format which someone can copy/paste to the Wikipedia (in order to be able to edit the lists after corrections have been made). Erik Zachte 18:22, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Queries can be requested at SQL query requests. I have it on my watchlist and so I usually run them within 24 hours, but so far Angela is the only one using it. In this case, an appropriate query would be "select cur_title, cur_namespace from cur,brokenlinks where cur_id=bl_from and cur_is_redirect=1 limit 100". I'll run it now. -- Tim Starling 15:01, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Off-site links made to "pop-up links"?
The off-site URLs listed at the bottom of those pages which have them take users away from the site (unless one right-clicks "Open in new window"). Why not have all off-site links pop up into a new window, thereby allowing one to remain on Wikipedia while still clicking the off-site link? All that would be required is the (target="_blank") tag to be added in the link. IE: (a href="www. URL. com" target="_blank"), replacing the brackets "(" and ")" with "<" and ">". I assume an administrator could set this up easily for all off-site links to work this way. -- Kaijan 00:42, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'd rather they didn't. If I want links to open in a new window, I'll tell my browser that's what I want - I'd rather not have it thrust upon me. --Camembert


 * In addition to being very annoying, forcing links to open in a new window violates the W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines . Creating a new pop-up window without warning can be disorienting for a blind visitor using a screen reader program, for instance.


 * If you want to open links in a new window, your browser almost certainly gives you this ability through a menu or shortcut key. (Right-click + "open in new window"...) Modern browsers with tabbed windows are often even easier at this; if you're using Internet Explorer, give Mozilla Firebird a try. (There's also something called 'AvantBrowser' which wraps a more modern interface around Internet Explorer if you're using Windows and like that sort of thing.) --Brion


 * Amen to that. I used to not mind them so much (and even used them myself in many site designs) but soon came to realize they are troublesome and annoying. Let the user decide whether they want a new window. -- Wapcaplet 01:41, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I maintain several web sites myself. I do use the target="_blank", but for non-html files only (like .pdf).  I think Kaijen makes a valid point, but I can see there are arguments against. - Marshman 02:43, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Actually those are among the most annoying, in my opinion :-) On my Linux box, PDF, PS, and similar documents are opened in a separate application (gv or xpdf), so when there's a target="_blank" to go with it, I end up with an additional empty browser window to close. -- Wapcaplet 03:04, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I can see your point, but sounds like you are more advanced than 99% of web browsing persons. I regard the .pdf as a separate document as opposed to a hypertext webpage, and it is annoying to me to find myself downloading a big paper in what a few seconds before was my browser.  On that problem you must agree, as you have them opening elsewhere by another means. Unfortunately my preference in dealing with it is not especially compatible with yours. I mark the links (.pdf) to caution the browser - Marshman 20:09, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Offensive user name
moved to User talk:Saddam Hussein

Ever read Logan's Run
Has anyone read Logan's Run? If so, take a look and what I've done. It's ages since I read it, but I've been bold and put down what I could.

Ancient Rome directory
I would like to invite everybody to criticize my proposal for reorganization of Ancient Rome topics. I plan to create a Home Page for Rome following the links: Wiki Main Page &#8211; History &#8211; Ancient History &#8211; Ancient Rome. This directory &#8211; I think &#8211; will make life easier for people looking for Rome's topics. The proposal for the directory can be found in Ancient Rome Proposal. If there are no serious objections I'll make the substitutions during the weekend. Cheers all Muriel Gottrop 08:06, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

GFDL issues when moving between Wikipedias
If I am moving stuff from here to the Simple English Wikipedia, are there any issues involved in the fact that I am not copying the history of the original? Is it ok just to state in the edit summary that this is from en: or wherever? Angela


 * IANAL. You should behave as we ask all our other sub-licensees to behave - add a comment that "an earlier version (LINK) of this article was published on Wikipedia on DATE", on the page itself. Assuming that all those words are simple enough... ;-) Martin 22:43, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason it needs to be any different to moving info between pages within en:. If half the info at somewhere was more appropriate at somewhere else, you would copy it over without stating that the info had previously exisited at somewhere. The new page will usually be fairly different anyway as it's being simplified. Angela


 * It's about the same, but I don't think moving within Wikipedia is technically in compliance with the GFDL either. If we can move stuff around without preserving history, then anyone can just copy our stuff without providing a citation to us as well, which we'd like not to allow. --Delirium 02:18, Aug 24, 2003 (UTC)


 * There is an argument to be made (which may not be determinative) for a non-exclusive license being given to Wikipedia when someone submits it, i.e. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here" is actually a different license than the GNU FDL which is what Wikipedia is releasing the material under. Under such argument, copying between pages (or projects) would be allowable as all subsequent editors are given the right, not only to copyedit (which is what would conserve copyright between versions) but actually change it, thus everyone who does a substantial edit on a page is a co-author of that page, and co-authors can modify each others work; and as the US does not have any moral rights protection regarding attribution, i.e., it really does not matter what happens once someone submits work to Wikipedia wihtin Wikipedia, the work can be completely changed, blanked, reverted, etc.. However, by cross-attributing between pages one is showing respect and acknowledging the contribution of other Wikipedians, and, if someone is releasing the material to Wikipedia from another GFDL source then attribution histories should definitely be cross-linked as suggested above, IMHO. Alex756 15:11, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

creating a link
Twice I've been scolded for using "sandbox" to create a link for which no present link exists. One said something about "creating a link on your page", but I can't find any instructions expaining what that means. Three days ago I tried to ask about this at the Village Pump and lost contact completely with Wikipedia and no subsequent answer. What can I do? HELP!!!!!


 * It means, "do not create new pages simply for newbie experiments. Or we will have to delete your experiment manually, because it is rubbish, not article." A sandbox is where you experiment, you can also see the results directly by clicking on "Show preview". --Menchi 00:59, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)


 * You can go to your user page, User:Jonhays0, and edit this page like any other page. Maybe that's what you're trying to do? By the way: to sign a comment on a user page or on the village pump, just write four tildes: ~ -- they will convert automagically to your name and the current date and time. If you want to write only your name, use three tildes. -- till we *) 01:00, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia's database schema
Is there any way to add new fields to the MySQL database schema used by Wikipedia? This way one would be able to perform a much more sophisticated search.

For instance, if I would like to find all artists born before 1955 or all butterflies of the UK, there currently is no way to do this, or is there? Jurriaan 27 Aug 2003


 * That would be nice - articles could contain meta information to set fields. Howevever, as even out plain text search seriously sucks, we should probably concentrate on that first. CGS 15:25, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC).


 * You have also to consider one problem: Editing in Wikipedia has to be easy. That is exactly the success of Wikipedia. If you have to click here, fill in that field, add this there... you will not get many people to use it. We have: ONE editfield, ONE comment and a SAVE button. That is great, and people like that. Sorry for not supporting your Idea... ;-) Fantasy 15:37, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand the problem. But still, as Wikipedia grows, it will become quite difficult to actually find information. I think the basic idea is to have a central, open content place of information. This is one of my reasons to contribute here, rather then starting my own project. I think it would be a shame if all this information would be of limited use.
 * My proposal would be to create some kind of template with standardised fields, like name, date of birth, place of birth etc etc. I don't feel this would make contributing any more difficult. It could even make things easier since with these templates, we could also standardise the lay out. I find it a great hassle that I also have to think about lay out and all those tags while all I want to do is to enter some knowledge.
 * One more thought. Those template fields could also greatly reduce the size of the database. Imagine for instance all the duplicated references I now have to use for each article I write on Phelsuma species (most of which are described in the same books)! I could of course turn a reference into an article and link to that "article", but that seems a bit silly.
 * Regards, Jurriaan


 * This sounds like a utility that may have to exist separate from Wikipedia itself. Perhaps a database of some kind that would access the database once per day and compile basic information of that sort?  --Modemac 16:10, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's easy to add fields to the database schema, the hard thing is writing a decent user interface to go with them. The standard so far has been to include meta-information in the article itself, by using characteristic text of various kinds. The interlanguage links are an example of this. In some cases the characteristic text is extracted as the article is saved, and duplicated in another DB field, to make searching easier. This is the case with redirects, for example. -- Tim Starling 08:57, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I think "metadata" describes part of what is desired. The ability to define information which describes an entry would allow more searching abilities.  "Author" and "Creation Date" are common examples.  More specialized situations might want "Species", "Publisher", "ISBN", etc.  There are formal metadata methods, although a simple one would be to allow entry of "metadata field name" and "metadata field value" pairs, so people could create whatever labels they want.  It would get uncontrolled, but this is a wiki... (SEWilco 15:40, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC))


 * I found something, that could be interresting in this context: http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slotipedia_-_A_Proposal Fantasy 13:14, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Before I say very much, let me say that I believe that it should be possible to let users edit content in any manner they wish, and then we can derive meta-information from the documents that result. This is, in the short run, more difficult, but in the long run will make the choas that is wikipedia more interesting. RayKiddy

Second, could somone who knows how to do so go ahead and make this into its own disc page? Thanx.

Logo voting and account names
I went to vote on the new international logo, but it said I needed to create an account. Can I vote without creating a new account? Can I vote anonymously? Is this extra hurdle going to skew the voting somehow? --Fritzlein 19:38, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * That's because it is on a different wiki, meta.wikipedia.org. It has its own user database, like the other languages (fr., de., etc...). Just register the same user ID as here. -- 212.238.218.165 20:25, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Getting an account just means making up a username and password. You can use the same one you here. You don't have to give an e-mail address or anything. Compared to how long it'll take to look through all the logos, getting an account will take no time at all. Angela


 * In case anyone hasn't already noticed, the vote for logo's started today. More information can be found at International logo vote.  { MB | &#12510;&#12452;&#12459;&#12523; } 20:39, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)


 * I haven't read the rules or anything, but why in my own name do you want to change the logo? When I first saw the contest, I thought of participating, but you can't create a logo just like that. It's a thorough process that requires teamwork and alot of effort. In the world of business, the logo is the most important designs ever! When I then find this logo, the one you can see just up in your topleft corner there, I find it extraordinary; it's simple and it gives you a clue about what WikiPedia is all about. Pleasure, according to the last word on the globe there. Brilliant:) - Sigg3.net 22:04, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * You better post your opinion somewhere else where it will matter, like somewhere on meta, or the mailing list. { MB | &#12510;&#12452;&#12459;&#12523; } 22:24, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)

Search Engine
It seems to me like the search engine needs to be updated. For instance, typing in "death of a salesman" gives you "Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act," "Blue Screen of Death," "Black Death," and "Dotcom Death" in that order, without brininging up a link to Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman at all. How can this be fixed?

--Alex S 20:17, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * ...yes, it can be improved, and will be. But it needs time (or someone who does it...). To understand your search-result, please read Searching. Sorry, Fantasy 20:32, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, searching really shouldn't be case sensitive. Seems like an easy thing to fix. Mkweise 20:42, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * It's actually not. If you search for "Death of a Salesman" (click on the "search" button, not "go"), you get the same odd results, despite there being an article with that exact title.  It's the "go" button that's case-sensitive, since it looks for an article with exactly that name.  I do agree that perhaps "go" should be case-insensitive.  But in any case, the odd search results here are a result of some other problem (likely the reliance on MySQL's default ordering, which isn't very good), not a case problem. --Delirium 20:55, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)

Please read Searching. --Brion 21:18, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Date conversion
It seems the automatic date conversion is not working anymore. The preference option has disappeared. What's going on? --Wik 06:25, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Should be enabled now. (Was it before?) --Brion 07:48, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Trying Something New
I know that generally we don't want pages on songs with lyrics listed, but have a look at what I've done with Billy Joel's We Didn't Start the Fire. It needs work (not all the links are right - perhaps an American might have more insight), but I think it's a great starting point for browsing. CGS 17:16, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC).


 * I like the page, but I'm still worried whether it is ok from a copyright perspective. Andre Engels 09:43, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Mailing list access
I am trying to post to the mailing list using the news gateway. It doesn't work. Shouldn't it? I do not have a suitable e-mail address to use for participation via e-mail. Kat


 * Get a free mailbox from Yahoo or Hotmail. After signing up, for Hotmail, go to Option -> Mailing Lists -> add wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org and/or wikien-1@wikipedia.org . Then you can send and receive. --Menchi 22:22, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)

www.4reference.net
The above site has copied almost the entire content of the English Wikipedia and despite a friendly warning sometime ago, apparently still does nothing more than link to the main page and still does not mention the GFDL. I thought I'd mention this here as ignoring violations of our copyright could cause us problems in the future. Original talk is still at Sites_that_use_Wikipedia_for_content. Pete 15:11, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Coincidentally I just stumbled upon that web site in researching names for Lemnaceae (duckweeds). They copied (and mentioned Wikipedia) "their" duckweed article word for word from duckweeds. Their problem is that the version now presented is complete with erroneous information that I corrected out of our article. This in itself is a problem, unless they update their stuff very often (doubtful). - Marshman 17:29, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but that's their problem. CGS 17:33, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC).


 * Once someone finalizes a more sternly worded follow-up letter as discussed at Wikipedia talk:Standard GFDL violation letter, someone can send out a follow-up letter. { MB | &#12510;&#12452;&#12459;&#12523; } 19:46, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks MB, I have offered some changes to the proposed stern follow up letter on that page. Pete 14:59, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think it's best if this page is just deleted.
OK, so I'm a new Wikipedian and I recently created a stub for a non-existent (red) link that I found. Later, I realized that the same info was on a page with a more appropriate name. I edited the original link (from which I made the stub) to point to the more approproate page and now I think that the stub I created would best be deleted. The page that I changed the link on is Game which used to point to massive multiplayer online game (my stub which I believe should be deleted), but now more appropriately points to MMORPG. I guess that we could also just turn the full spelling into a redirect page, but currently nothing links to it (although I guess it might in the future). Let me know what you think we should do. Thanks. PolymerTim 00:25, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Hi Tim, I think the long title is a sensible redirect in this case, which is what I've done. If you want to move any of the content you wrote into the MMORPG page, you can retrieve your content from the article history. There is a deletion page which you can leave future requests for deletion on. Angela 00:32, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

For/against ordering
I'd like to propose a new addition to the Wikipedia style, and I'm not sure where else to suggest it. What I would like to see is a guideline that in any article, if there is more then one point of view, descriptions of the article subject come first, and arguments against it come later. So when I went to an article on Global Warming, say, I got a description of Global Warming first and objections to it later. Likewise when I go to Creationism I should find out what creationists believe first, and only then any reasons why people might think they are wrong. DJ Clayworth 20:49, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable to me. Apart from the fairness issues, it makes the article more comprehensible, as it's rather difficult to contextualize arguments against a position without first having explained the position.  In fact, this is my major complaint with the reverse ordering some articles currently have -- they seem to present the arguments as if they're talking to someone who already is familiar with the subject, and I have to read further to find out what it was they were actually talking about.  On the other hand, if it's a controversial topic, the intro should mention this; it's just the specific objections that should be left for later in the article, not the fact that there are objections in the first place. --Delirium 20:58, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)


 * Has some overlap with Village_pump. See above. Angela

British Columbian
Hi there! I have problems about famous Canadians or notable British Columbians. Who counts as a Canadian? I have added Leslie Cheung in the list of Canadians, but I am not quite comfortable with it. Leslie Cheung had lived in BC for just three years and then returned to Hong Kong after getting a passport, and he is not a rare example. Did I do the right thing? Or should this kind of "non-Canadian" Canadian be removed from the lists? Wshun


 * One of the rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the right to leave Canada. No Canadian must maintain any ties with Canada (this is not true for landed immigrants) in order to maintain Canadian nationality. This is protected in sec. 6(1) entitled Mobility rights.  There are many Canadians that live outside Canada; this does not (IMHO) make them less Canadian &#8212; perhaps other Canadians think otherwise. Many Canadians are forced to live in the US for financial reasons, jobs, or career opportunities. Even some Canadian corporations have many employees stationed in the United States; being in this situation does not make any Canadian less Canadian, they can always return to their mother country and take up residence there again; of course an immigrant who comes to Canada and becomes a Canadian citizen may also have other nationalities. Canada does recognize dual national status; one does not have to renounce their other citizenship(s) when taking the oath to the Queen of Canada like the United States requires of its immigrants. Alex756

Cory's Shearwater link problem
Help! At Shearwater, I've put in a link to Cory's Shearwater, which is written. The link stays red, but clicking on it goes to the edit page of the new article, not the article itself or a blank page. I'm sure it's something to do with the apostrophes, but I can't sort it out. jimfbleak 06:38, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Works fine for me - blue link leading to Cory's Shearwater, no problem. Are you sure it's not just a caching persistence problem? &mdash;Paul A 07:38, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Jim retyped it, and it worked...miraculously. The 1st time I visted that time (after Jim finished Cory's Shearwater), the same thing happened to me: Edit page opened up. And I never visited Shearwater before. The apostrophes look identical to me. --Menchi 07:43, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it's relevant, but Cory's Shearwater (Cory%27s_Shearwater) has a redirect page linking to it called Cory& (Cory%92s_Shearwater). The different between the straight apostrophe of the article itself and the slanted/curved (depending on font) apostrophe of the redirect page is quite distinct on my computer, though. &mdash;Paul A 07:56, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Several people attempted to fix that link (See its hist), but now when we access the old versions -- which didn't work before -- they all work now: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. If it didn't work before, and it works now -- it must be some time lapse or temporal anomaly due to the approach asteroid. Maybe tomorrow will be yesterday. --Menchi 08:02, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Caching problem. (Lest I bet that's what it is. Sure as today is Friday.) Refresh your browser and it will go away. Or just wait. I've met similar weirdness before, now and then. Tannin

Sidebar for minor use of terms
I've noticed that there are pages on Wikipedia that are articles that include, sometimes at the top, but usually way down at the bottom, alternative "definitions" of the article name. These pages are not disambiguation pages because the common use of the word is overwhelmingly the one most people would be seeking. Nonetheless, the alternative word use, separated by a 4-dash line, is sometimes completely lost below the main article. Some Wikipedians solve this problem by putting a one line link to the alternative at the very top, but this is a distraction. I've set up a sidebar box under Elm as a proposed alternative for these situations. As long as the alternatives link out (do not expand on page into another article), this would seem to separate the links from the article text while affording them a bit more visibility. Any comments? - Marshman 18:42, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * It's fine in IE6, but the whole page is squashed up in Mozilla. It seems to work in both if you put the table in a div. Angela 19:08, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks Angela. Someone fixed it so -- Marshman
 * That was me doing a dodgy logged in and logged out at the same time. :) Angela

''Move in discussion from my talk page on this subject. I can move it all back later; but better exposure/participation here I think''

sorry but the floating sidebar on elm is no good -- most screens are simply not wide enough to support it. -- Tarquin 18:53, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * I realize that I have a high resolution screen and therefore will not encounter that problem. But how does the other sidebar on that page not cause an identical problem? The sidebar I suggest (as presented at Elm) is right justified and will expand as far left as needed to accomodate text. Use of &LT;BR&GT; can control that to keep it from filling across screen. - Marshman 19:00, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * it's best to use tables as little as possible; as for the line, I don't really see how right-aligning it is any better. It's only an extra formatting convention we would now have to replicate throughout wikipedia, and it's ugly markup that confuses the novce editor. Simple is best, in my opinion -- Tarquin 19:16, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * If we do not use table formatting as you suggest, I think a standard &LT;DIV&GT; "right" format with bullets or similar at the top would still be preferable to the current practice of dividing lines and bottom billing for these minor alternatives. Of course a disambiguation page is a better solution, but obviously needs to be used only where there is a clear need to split articles. The problem with the bottom billing once the lead artyicle gets large is that a person looking for the minor word use is not going to scroll down through the text he is not interested in (human nature). - Marshman 19:36, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree that bottom billing is no good, but I think right-align is needless clutter -- Tarquin 19:42, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * At least in IE6, if you have the standard wikipedia sidebar set to right hand side, it overlays the "disambiguation sidebar", no matter what the window width is. This is very ugly. DrBob 23:22, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * How about this? Why not use colour for a change? CGS 20:48, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC).


 * Hmmmm. I can see (in edit) you added gray, but does not look like anything different in my IE6. I'm trying to run a line between having the "secondary" or minor term be right up front (a distraction for most users) and being hidden on the bottom (unnoticeable by the few actually looking for it).  At present only top-mounted side-bar box or similar shifted right seems suitable, despite Tarquin objection that this complicates formatting. Eliminating the box simplies formatting a bit, and maybe color is an answer. But shifting right seems necessary to get it separated from main text. - Marshman 22:48, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * The English spelling of grey was used which seems to be accepted by Mozilla but ignored by IE. I changed it to #C0C0C0 which will be recognised by both. This might be a bit too light though. Angela 22:58, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It is needless HTML clutter for no good reason. please remove it -- Tarquin 23:14, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Tarquin. Please avoid HTML whenever possible until we have a template system, it makes pages harder to edit for newbies.&mdash;Eloquence 00:10, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * At the bottom is not hidden, hence not a problem, as long as it is in the TOC. - Patrick 00:16, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer it at the top. It's clear enough why it is there that it is not going to confuse people wanting info on trees. Not all pages that this applies to have a TOC and a quick glimpse at the article would suggest that it is about trees so people aren't going to scroll down just in case there is an unrelated topic at the bottom. I agree with Tarquin and Eloquence about the HTML issue. It's more trouble than it's worth. Angela 00:24, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

List formatting
In adjoining an item to the list in the article "Disability", the list-closure marker was not available in the EDIT window so that I could precede it by my item. Is this a CORRECTABLE GENERAL PROBLEM? --Jonhays0


 * It is not a GENERAL PROBLEM like a bug is a GENERAL PROBLEM, no, and I've FIXED the page in question. Unordered lists are formatted by just putting an asterisk before each item (for ordered lists, put a hash before each item). See How to edit a page for more details on formatting. By the way, you put your new item at disability under &quot;see also&quot;, which is a heading usually reserved for internal links to other Wikipedia articles; I've changed it to &quot;Further reading&quot;, but if you used that article as a reference, you might want to change it to &quot;References&quot; instead. --Camembert

Why don't we have a Nazi swastika?
I was looking at swastika and it struck me that it describes the Nazi swastika (red background, white cricle, black swastika at an angle), but the Image:CWswastika.png image next to this is plain grey. Is there a reason for this? It's illegal in Germany, but do we care about that (we ignored Nevada pornography laws when they were discussed)? How about France? CGS 01:19, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC).


 * While Nazi symbols are illigal in Germany, it is however allowed to display them inside a encyclopedia, so this law will give us no problem here. And the Swastika itself is much older then the Nazi - in the Germanic museum in Cologne is a Roman floor mosaic featuring it as well, and that isn't illigal either. andy 08:02, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I'll put together a Nazi swastika as described. CGS 10:28, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC).

I see a question mark instead of an apostrophe.
In the page for 1945 for November 29 I see People?s instead of People's. Why is this? Do I need to download some more font's? I'm using windows 98 with IE 6.0.2600.0000IC Thanks


 * No, your computer is fine. One of the contributors accidentally screwed that up, I think it was "smart quotes" before ( ' looking like a miniature 9). I've manually replaced them now (with the plain quotes). If you're interested, we have Special characters info-page.
 * Also, you can easily sign your name & date by ~ . Feel free to raise any further questions or concerns here.
 * -- Menchi 05:34, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your prompt response.
 * davidzuccaro 06:25, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ancient Rome directory
Moved to Requests for comments

I think it's best if this page is just deleted.
answered and moved to User talk:PolymerTim

Moving Pages
deleted - request fulfilled

User SEWilco is an activist
moved to User talk:SEWilco

Wikiquote Bug
''deleted fixed bug. Brion is a God.''

The new format is driving me nuts
deleted - duplicated at wikipedia talk:software updates

Logo voting and account names
moved to meta:talk:International logo vote

Wikipedia's search function
deleted - question answered at Searching

I see a question mark instead of an apostrophe.
answered at Special characters

creating a link
moved to User talk:Jonhays0

Lyrics, songs, fires
re: We Didn't Start the Fire - moved to Requests for comments

Votes for Deletion
''Comments on the new format have been moved to 'Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion.

Technical term definition style
moved to Wikipedia talk:Technical terms and definitions

When you move a discussion...
Can people please remember to update the list of moved discussions when they move a discussion off the page? It's hard work keeping the list up to date retrospectively. &mdash;Paul A 04:18, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Useless Redirects in Talk:
I'd like to suggest that when we move pages which have associated Talk: pages, we ought to (in general) not keep a Redirect from the old Talk: page to the new Talk: page when there's no use for that link; i.e. if nothing links to the old Talk: page. I.e. when moving a page from Foo to Bar, if there is a Talk:Foo page it is moved to Talk:Bar, and a redirect to Talk:Bar would be left at Talk:Foo. If nothing actually links to Talk:Foo, that "tombstone" redirect will probably never be used (since clicking on the "Discuss this page" link on Bar will get you straight to Talk:Bar), and just clutters up the database. So is there any problem if we just delete them? (And perhaps someday, when we are knee deep in Developers and all bugs and really needed features have been seen to, the code will be changed to avoid automatically creating them when they are not needed. :-) Noel 23:54, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Rule one of responsible web publishing: never knowingly break links to your pages, no matter how useless you think they are or how sure you think you are that no one's got them stored and is going to use them. Anyone who's deleting redirects really really needs to not do so. (Here, read this.) --Brion 01:00, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

TV screenshots
This is probably a stupid question, but does it violate copyright to upload images from television shows if I capture them? - Evil saltine 08:34, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Probably. Try our boilerplate request for permission. Martin 12:41, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I think TV newscasts are exempt from copyright. IANAL, but I seem to remember this a loophole in the copyright law. You can't plagerize them, but you may rebroadcast their content. You may want to research it further. &mdash;Frecklefoot 14:51, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't a single screenshot qualify under fair use? --Dante Alighieri 01:37, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... Wikipedia needs a lawyer. I found the thing about news (bottom of here), but that's not what i'm interested in. Evil saltine 05:10, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * This is a good site for fair use info Copyright and Fair Use, Stanford University Libraries. News images are generally exempt as being part of the historical record. Other images? Probably would be if you make sure to keep the attribution information (so that someone else can get permission later if it might not fall under fair use for a downstream licensee; not all subsequent uses under GFDL may qualify as fair use). I'd also put a caption on it somewhere directly accessible on the page (alt text maybe) i.e. "Broadcast image, Sept 4, 2003, CBS Television Network" and make sure that it is relevantly connected to the informational purpose of the article in which it appears. (putting a hidden note inside the article explaining why you think it is fair use is a good idea, i.e. ).  BTW, IAAL, however, Wikipedia does not give legal advice (even to itself). Alex756 05:24, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

TV screenshots
move to the image copyright discussion - linked from wikipedia talk:image somewhere

This is probably a stupid question, but does it violate copyright to upload images from television shows if I capture them? - Evil saltine 08:34, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Probably. Try our boilerplate request for permission. Martin 12:41, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I think TV newscasts are exempt from copyright. IANAL, but I seem to remember this a loophole in the copyright law. You can't plagerize them, but you may rebroadcast their content. You may want to research it further. &mdash;Frecklefoot 14:51, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't a single screenshot qualify under fair use? --Dante Alighieri 01:37, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... Wikipedia needs a lawyer. I found the thing about news (bottom of here), but that's not what i'm interested in. Evil saltine 05:10, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * This is a good site for fair use info Copyright and Fair Use, Stanford University Libraries. News images are generally exempt as being part of the historical record. Other images? Probably would be if you make sure to keep the attribution information (so that someone else can get permission later if it might not fall under fair use for a downstream licensee; not all subsequent uses under GFDL may qualify as fair use). I'd also put a caption on it somewhere directly accessible on the page (alt text maybe) i.e. "Broadcast image, Sept 4, 2003, CBS Television Network" and make sure that it is relevantly connected to the informational purpose of the article in which it appears. (putting a hidden note inside the article explaining why you think it is fair use is a good idea, i.e. ).  BTW, IAAL, however, Wikipedia does not give legal advice (even to itself). Alex756 05:24, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Whatever you decide to do, describe what you did on the image description page. Martin 09:40, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Difference between town and CDP
Just recently someone created a new article about Farmington, Maine, and when I wondered why the county seat does not even have the automated entry yet I discovered there are in fact two, but both orphans. But what is the difference between Farmington (CDP), Maine and Farmington (town), Maine - I can see the numbers are different, but I don't know the meaning of CDP. And there are many more of the CDP/Town entries, which are not linked in the county articles. andy 09:32, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * As far as I understand, CDP means something like Census-Designated Place and is used only for counting people, not for administration. It probably includes the town proper plus some farms or settlements around. -- till we *) 11:50, Sep 3, 2003 (UTC)


 * Seems to be opposite, as the CDP has a smaller area and population then the town. But the actual question is: what to do with these entries? Merge them? Create redirects like Farmington, Maine (pointing to town, CDP, or both)? And how to find them all? Having red links in the counties and orphan articles is definitely not a good situation. andy 12:11, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Communication with developers
move to wikipedia talk:bug reports?

Hi, from the moved list above:


 * Recent changed sidebar -> deleted - see bug reports
 * text for empty articles -> deleted - see bug reports

As everbody knows, wikipedia bug reports is a reference to the SourceForge, in other words: "if you don't get a SourceForge account and put your feature requests there, nobody will see them". It's not the first time. I really have a problem with that attitude -- Wikipedia is a community, and I really would like to see a place inside Wikipedia where the community and the developers can communicate. I'd like to know if I'm the only one who is frustrated by this attitude, or if there are others ... -- till we *) 23:33, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)


 * ...I think, this serves as some kind of "filter". If someone has a really burning issue, he will poste it to SourceForge, otherwise it is not important enough. So the developer get only the "real important" issues. I also would like a more Wikipedia-centric approach (same for MAilinglists), but it is the current way it works. Don't get frustrated by this. If you have a really good Idea how to improve this situation, please start with it. But filters are not always just bad ;-) Fantasy 14:04, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * PS:I also have a big list of improvements for Wikipedia listed on my page, and for months already I think "one day I will post them on SourceForge"... one day or another... ;-)


 * I think we should submit bug reports and feature requests in the manner that the developers wish us to submit them, out of sheer gratitude for all the hard work they put in, developing Wikipedia. Currently that's SourceForge, and not the village pump. Martin 11:57, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia's database schema
delete - feature request - see bug reports

Is there any way to add new fields to the MySQL database schema used by Wikipedia? This way one would be able to perform a much more sophisticated search.

For instance, if I would like to find all artists born before 1955 or all butterflies of the UK, there currently is no way to do this, or is there? Jurriaan 27 Aug 2003


 * That would be nice - articles could contain meta information to set fields. Howevever, as even out plain text search seriously sucks, we should probably concentrate on that first. CGS 15:25, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC).


 * You have also to consider one problem: Editing in Wikipedia has to be easy. That is exactly the success of Wikipedia. If you have to click here, fill in that field, add this there... you will not get many people to use it. We have: ONE editfield, ONE comment and a SAVE button. That is great, and people like that. Sorry for not supporting your Idea... ;-) Fantasy 15:37, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand the problem. But still, as Wikipedia grows, it will become quite difficult to actually find information. I think the basic idea is to have a central, open content place of information. This is one of my reasons to contribute here, rather then starting my own project. I think it would be a shame if all this information would be of limited use.
 * My proposal would be to create some kind of template with standardised fields, like name, date of birth, place of birth etc etc. I don't feel this would make contributing any more difficult. It could even make things easier since with these templates, we could also standardise the lay out. I find it a great hassle that I also have to think about lay out and all those tags while all I want to do is to enter some knowledge.
 * One more thought. Those template fields could also greatly reduce the size of the database. Imagine for instance all the duplicated references I now have to use for each article I write on Phelsuma species (most of which are described in the same books)! I could of course turn a reference into an article and link to that "article", but that seems a bit silly.
 * Regards, Jurriaan


 * This sounds like a utility that may have to exist separate from Wikipedia itself. Perhaps a database of some kind that would access the database once per day and compile basic information of that sort?  --Modemac 16:10, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's easy to add fields to the database schema, the hard thing is writing a decent user interface to go with them. The standard so far has been to include meta-information in the article itself, by using characteristic text of various kinds. The interlanguage links are an example of this. In some cases the characteristic text is extracted as the article is saved, and duplicated in another DB field, to make searching easier. This is the case with redirects, for example. -- Tim Starling 08:57, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I think "metadata" describes part of what is desired. The ability to define information which describes an entry would allow more searching abilities.  "Author" and "Creation Date" are common examples.  More specialized situations might want "Species", "Publisher", "ISBN", etc.  There are formal metadata methods, although a simple one would be to allow entry of "metadata field name" and "metadata field value" pairs, so people could create whatever labels they want.  It would get uncontrolled, but this is a wiki... (SEWilco 15:40, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC))


 * I found something, that could be interresting in this context: Slotipedia_-_A_Proposal Fantasy 13:14, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Before I say very much, let me say that I believe that it should be possible to let users edit content in any manner they wish, and then we can derive meta-information from the documents that result. This is, in the short run, more difficult, but in the long run will make the choas that is wikipedia more interesting. RayKiddy

Second, could somone who knows how to do so go ahead and make this into its own disc page? Thanx.


 * See bug reports for info on submitting feature requests. Martin 14:53, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

www.4reference.net
delete - current status is at Sites_that_use_Wikipedia_for_content

The above site has copied almost the entire content of the English Wikipedia and despite a friendly warning sometime ago, apparently still does nothing more than link to the main page and still does not mention the GFDL. I thought I'd mention this here as ignoring violations of our copyright could cause us problems in the future. Original talk is still at Sites_that_use_Wikipedia_for_content. Pete 15:11, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Coincidentally I just stumbled upon that web site in researching names for Lemnaceae (duckweeds). They copied (and mentioned Wikipedia) "their" duckweed article word for word from duckweeds. Their problem is that the version now presented is complete with erroneous information that I corrected out of our article. This in itself is a problem, unless they update their stuff very often (doubtful). - Marshman 17:29, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but that's their problem. CGS 17:33, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC).


 * Once someone finalizes a more sternly worded follow-up letter as discussed at Wikipedia talk:Standard GFDL violation letter, someone can send out a follow-up letter. { MB | &#12510;&#12452;&#12459;&#12523; } 19:46, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks MB, I have offered some changes to the proposed stern follow up letter on that page. Pete 14:59, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Search Engine
delete - answered at searching

It seems to me like the search engine needs to be updated. For instance, typing in "death of a salesman" gives you "Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act," "Blue Screen of Death," "Black Death," and "Dotcom Death" in that order, without brininging up a link to Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman at all. How can this be fixed?

--Alex S 20:17, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * ...yes, it can be improved, and will be. But it needs time (or someone who does it...). To understand your search-result, please read Searching. Sorry, Fantasy 20:32, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, searching really shouldn't be case sensitive. Seems like an easy thing to fix. Mkweise 20:42, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * It's actually not. If you search for "Death of a Salesman" (click on the "search" button, not "go"), you get the same odd results, despite there being an article with that exact title.  It's the "go" button that's case-sensitive, since it looks for an article with exactly that name.  I do agree that perhaps "go" should be case-insensitive.  But in any case, the odd search results here are a result of some other problem (likely the reliance on MySQL's default ordering, which isn't very good), not a case problem. --Delirium 20:55, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)

Please read Searching. --Brion 21:18, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Alexa
According to a recent Wikipedia:announcements:announcement Wikipedia is as popular as Slashdot. I was quite surprised! Is it really true? Anyone know how Alexa measures popularity? I see they offer a toolbar to download... do they extrapolate data from toolbar downloaders? Are Wikipedians more likely to have a toolbar than other users? [Alexa Website [[User:Pcb21|Pete]] 12:05, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Alexa
According to a recent Announcement Wikipedia is as popular as Slashdot. I was quite surprised! Is it really true? Anyone know how Alexa measures popularity? I see they offer a toolbar to download... do they extrapolate data from toolbar downloaders? Are Wikipedians more likely to have a toolbar than other users? Alexa Website Pete 12:05, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, everyone who have the Alexa toolbar installed effectively send the URL currently watched to the Alexa server, thus allowing them to monitor which sites are visited, and how often. How much valid these data are can of course be debated - those who worry about privacy will probably not install it for sure. But in the range of 1000th popular site I doubt that a few very active Wikipedians with toolbar can make that much change anymore, around the 100.000th it makes much more impact. andy 12:21, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Alexa installs by default, whether you want it or not, and without your permission, simply as part of a Windows install. Ad-Aware and other similar spyware protection programs disable it, however. Tannin 12:40, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info guys. I wonder if the nature of Wikipedia, where each edit means two page views (or more if you preview!), has an inflationary effect on our figures. I am pretty sure if we got another slashdotting we would still have to batten down the hatches pretty hard because of weight of numbers. And Tannin, just to check.. did you mean Alexa is activiated with every installation of the Windows OS?? That's a lot of data! Pete 14:49, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Alexa does separate between page views (e.g. the numerous views in an edit process) and number of viewers (independent IP addresses) - and then adds both together in a magic formula to get the actual rank. But don't forget that a big percentage of viewers will not edit, but just view. andy 14:53, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Pete: this page (which I found more or less at random on Google) has quite a bit of detail. Someone should write this up for the 'pedia. I see (from another page) that here is a class action against Alexa pending. As spyware goes, there are worse ones. But just the same, I don't like people messing with my computer without my knowledge, and (I understand) neither does the law in most countries. I think Alexa is installed as part of Internet Explorer, rather than as part of Windows - not that that distinction makes much of a difference these days. Tannin

Broken Redirects
move to wikipedia talk:redirect

Is there a quick and easy way (i.e., not involving DDQs) to find broken redirects? I, for one, wouldn't mind going around making sure that any redirect that points to a red link either gets deleted or given a stub at the redirect site. Broken redirects are A Bad Thing because people won't realize that an article doesn't yet exist if they see the link in text, because it's blue, even if it doesn't go anywhere. This makes it that much harder for people who might be inclined to write an article if they new one was needed. --Dante Alighieri 04:21, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Special:Maintenance has a tool for this, but of course all that's presently disabled to keep the server from dying. At some point these things need to get reworked to be usable. Anyone who wants to code up improvements is welcome. --Brion 04:48, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Until an online query is again available, this might easily be extracted from the weekly SQL dumps, just like Short pages, Long pages, Orphaned pages, Most referenced pages, Most wanted pages. If Brion thinks this a good idea and is willing to run the scripts just like the Statistics scripts and upload the output, I will prepare a production version (= optimized, etc) of my current scripts in a few weeks time. The scripts produce two files per report, one in html format, one in wiki format which someone can copy/paste to the Wikipedia (in order to be able to edit the lists after corrections have been made). Erik Zachte 18:22, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Queries can be requested at SQL query requests. I have it on my watchlist and so I usually run them within 24 hours, but so far Angela is the only one using it. In this case, an appropriate query would be "select cur_title, cur_namespace from cur,brokenlinks where cur_id=bl_from and cur_is_redirect=1 limit 100". I'll run it now. -- Tim Starling 15:01, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Can't find the article I wrote - and saved. HELP!
Hi, I just wrote an article about Rose O'Neal Greenhow. I saved the page, and I saw what it was supposed to look like after saving it. (Just like a Wikipedia page looks!) However, when I typed in Rose O'Neal Greenhow into the search box, nothing came up. Also, when I clicked on "My Contributions," nothing came up. Does it take awhile for articles to post? How long? When can I see my article as a part of Wikipedia and a part of "My Contributions"? Thanks
 * The search function is static so it is not automatically updated. Use the "go" button instead. Rose O'Neal Greenhow is here. I would, hoever, recommend that you wikify it, i.e., put brackets around certain phrases and words to create links. You can sign your name with 4 "~". The article was contributed by an ip address. Maybe you werent logged in.... --Jiang 03:40, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

ISBN
What's going on with this ISBN book link? ISBN 019824908X - I've only typed it once but 2 links are coming up... Evercat 14:15, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Rever request
Could someone rever Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Japanese)? Thanks in advance. -- Taku 02:52, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Useless Redirects in Talk:
move to wikipedia talk:redirect/delete

I'd like to suggest that when we move pages which have associated Talk: pages, we ought to (in general) not keep a Redirect from the old Talk: page to the new Talk: page when there's no use for that link; i.e. if nothing links to the old Talk: page. I.e. when moving a page from Foo to Bar, if there is a Talk:Foo page it is moved to Talk:Bar, and a redirect to Talk:Bar would be left at Talk:Foo. If nothing actually links to Talk:Foo, that "tombstone" redirect will probably never be used (since clicking on the "Discuss this page" link on Bar will get you straight to Talk:Bar), and just clutters up the database. So is there any problem if we just delete them? (And perhaps someday, when we are knee deep in Developers and all bugs and really needed features have been seen to, the code will be changed to avoid automatically creating them when they are not needed. :-) Noel 23:54, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Rule one of responsible web publishing: never knowingly break links to your pages, no matter how useless you think they are or how sure you think you are that no one's got them stored and is going to use them. Anyone who's deleting redirects really really needs to not do so. (Here, read this.) --Brion 01:00, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * What Brion said. I hand-type a lot of links to talk pages: unless you're planning to follow me around changing them all to point to the correct place, then keep them. Thanks. Martin 09:38, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * If you will note, I clearly made an exception for cases where "[anything] links to the old Talk: page". I think that covers this case, yes? Noel 18:25, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't. If you delete a redirect today, I may hand-type a link to it tomorrow. Hence my suggestion that you follow me around to ensure that I'm not adversely effected by your deletion. Martin 18:53, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Hand-typed article names are in basically the same boat as off-site URL's - and see my reply to Brion about those. Are you also proposing that we never, ever, delete a page that ever had any non-bogus content? Noel 19:57, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Wiki encourages links to articles which do not exist, indeed that is one of the published ways to create an article. In what way is a link to an article which could exist different from a link to an article which no longer exists?  If there is no content, is there an article?  Of course, links themselves carry information, so before deletion it is nice if someone ensures that the text with the links makes sense without the link.   SEWilco 19:40, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Hmm - you asked if there was any problem if you just delete talk page redirects. I'm answering: yes, there is a problem. The only problem you mention in respect of these links is "cluttering up the database", and Brion, who knows more about the database than both of us, doesn't think that's a problem. Thus, in the case of these particular talk pages, they should not be deleted. Martin 20:14, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * If so, you should also have the ability to reach through the internet and change people's personal bookmarks, and have a perfect web spider able to check every web page in existence to be sure there are no external links to the page. And be aware of all printed material and scrawled post-it notes in the world to make sure that no one, anywhere, has that URL. Only then should you delete a redirect. --Brion

Look, I understand, and sympathize with, the sensitivity to leaving dangling pointers out there in URL-space. I maintain more than one page of the form "this page isn't here any more, go " because I reorganized some stuff; and I also really hate it when you follow a link and it 404's. At the same time, delete logs show that Wikipedia clearly doesn't have a policy that "no Wikipedia URL that ever contained valid content (i.e. not just insults, rubbish, copyvio, or something like that) shall ever stop working". A small amount of trolling through deleted articles turned up "Beadwork patterns" and "Gold Faced Pumpkins", both of which contained real content at one point. I understand why they were deleted, but that's not the issue: the point is that someone out there may have them bookmarked, and now they don't work anymore. In addition to them, I saw a whole series of "Emperor_ _of_Japan" which are now gone too, moved somewhere else, with no redirects left behind (probably because the "What Links Here' page for them was empty, I would assume.) Again, someone might have saved URL's to them out there somewhere. So, if what you're saying is that you want to have such a policy, that no Wiki URL that ever pointed to non-bogus content shall ever stop working, fine, but those aren't the ground rules that seem to be in place at the moment. Are you proposing such a change? Noel 18:25, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm happy enough with the deletion advice currently at redirect, and I was reasonably happy with the prior deletion policy of "do not delete valid redirects", which we had for over a year. Those are the ground rules. Some sysops are either unaware of those guidelines, or choose to ignore them, which is unfortunate. Martin 20:14, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but discussing only the redirects doesn't answer my basic point: there are pages with real content - i.e. not junk, not insults, not copyvios - being deleted.
 * If "not orphaning pointers residing outside the Wikipedia database" (be they mental or electronic) is so important, why do we even have a VfD page? Junk and insults get deleted on sight, and for copyvio we can just blank the page. If not orphaning external pointers is so important, why do we ever delete anything?
 * I'm not trying to be difficult, I just don't understand what seems to me to be a disconnect between the goals y'all have stated here, and how things actually work. Noel 20:37, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * You seem to have conflated two separate concepts here. I apologize if I was unclear above; for clarity let me state my position again:
 * Links to material that Wikipedia continues to publish must continue to work unless there is a real reason they can't (such as, the www.wikipedia.org domain name is taken away from the project somehow and none of us can control what's at that address; or if the link was in fact an invalid URI in the first place due to a software bug and can't be maintained once the bug is fixed). This includes talk pages, and redirects to renamed talk pages are the way this link continuity is maintained in that case.
 * Corollary: links to material that Wikipedia no longer publishes (ie, garbage pages and copyright violations that have been deleted from the database) are free to turn up a blank slate. That is the purpose of deletion: to un-publish material that wasn't supposed to be published in the first place (because it's 100% garbage, or is legally unusable).
 * If you do see any deleted redirects to existing pages, please restore them or list them on Votes for undeletion. --Brion 23:35, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * People seem to use VfD for purposes outside its ostensible aim; I'd say more than half, maybe more than three-quarters, of the stuff posted there should not be deleted. Many people seem to use VfD as a place to post articles that need work in the hope that someone will be inspired to 'save' them from deletion.


 * Is the problem that the only 'problem article' page anyone reads is VfD? --Morven 03:39, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

GFDL issues when moving between Wikipedias
move to wikipedia talk:copyrights

If I am moving stuff from here to the Simple English Wikipedia, are there any issues involved in the fact that I am not copying the history of the original? Is it ok just to state in the edit summary that this is from en: or wherever? Angela


 * IANAL. You should behave as we ask all our other sub-licensees to behave - add a comment that "an earlier version (LINK) of this article was published on Wikipedia on DATE", on the page itself. Assuming that all those words are simple enough... ;-) Martin 22:43, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason it needs to be any different to moving info between pages within en:. If half the info at somewhere was more appropriate at somewhere else, you would copy it over without stating that the info had previously exisited at somewhere. The new page will usually be fairly different anyway as it's being simplified. Angela


 * It's about the same, but I don't think moving within Wikipedia is technically in compliance with the GFDL either. If we can move stuff around without preserving history, then anyone can just copy our stuff without providing a citation to us as well, which we'd like not to allow. --Delirium 02:18, Aug 24, 2003 (UTC)


 * There is an argument to be made (which may not be determinative) for a non-exclusive license being given to Wikipedia when someone submits it, i.e. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here" is actually a different license than the GNU FDL which is what Wikipedia is releasing the material under. Under such argument, copying between pages (or projects) would be allowable as all subsequent editors are given the right, not only to copyedit (which is what would conserve copyright between versions) but actually change it, thus everyone who does a substantial edit on a page is a co-author of that page, and co-authors can modify each others work; and as the US does not have any moral rights protection regarding attribution, i.e., it really does not matter what happens once someone submits work to Wikipedia wihtin Wikipedia, the work can be completely changed, blanked, reverted, etc.. However, by cross-attributing between pages one is showing respect and acknowledging the contribution of other Wikipedians, and, if someone is releasing the material to Wikipedia from another GFDL source then attribution histories should definitely be cross-linked as suggested above, IMHO. Alex756 15:11, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

GFDL issues when moving between Wikipedias
moved to wikipedia talk:copyrights and repeated ibn part on the Simple Wikipedia

Category tags?
what's the deal with these category tags? All it seems to do is an an ugly "?" link at the top of the article, eg electrode. -- Tarquin 16:42, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Please see User talk:The Anome -- The Anome 17:48, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Instead of deleting the tags would it not be possible to create an empty article in the Category namespace.. there would only be about 4 of them but it would make the ?s go away for people who view dead links that way. For people in view empty links in red... there would be no change... the link remains in visible. Pete 20:00, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Mailing list access
move to wikipedia talk:mailing lists

I am trying to post to the mailing list using the news gateway. It doesn't work. Shouldn't it? I do not have a suitable e-mail address to use for participation via e-mail. Kat


 * Get a free mailbox from Yahoo or Hotmail. After signing up, for Hotmail, go to Option -> Mailing Lists -> add wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org and/or wikien-1@wikipedia.org . Then you can send and receive. --Menchi 22:22, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)

Communication with developers
''move to wikipedia talk:bug reports? wikipedia talk:developers?''

Hi, from the moved list above:


 * Recent changed sidebar -> deleted - see bug reports
 * text for empty articles -> deleted - see bug reports

As everbody knows, wikipedia bug reports is a reference to the SourceForge, in other words: "if you don't get a SourceForge account and put your feature requests there, nobody will see them". It's not the first time. I really have a problem with that attitude -- Wikipedia is a community, and I really would like to see a place inside Wikipedia where the community and the developers can communicate. I'd like to know if I'm the only one who is frustrated by this attitude, or if there are others ... -- till we *) 23:33, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)


 * ...I think, this serves as some kind of "filter". If someone has a really burning issue, he will poste it to SourceForge, otherwise it is not important enough. So the developer get only the "real important" issues. I also would like a more Wikipedia-centric approach (same for MAilinglists), but it is the current way it works. Don't get frustrated by this. If you have a really good Idea how to improve this situation, please start with it. But filters are not always just bad ;-) Fantasy 14:04, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * PS:I also have a big list of improvements for Wikipedia listed on my page, and for months already I think "one day I will post them on SourceForge"... one day or another... ;-)


 * I think we should submit bug reports and feature requests in the manner that the developers wish us to submit them, out of sheer gratitude for all the hard work they put in, developing Wikipedia. Currently that's SourceForge, and not the village pump. Martin 11:57, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Flags and Coats of Arms
Can graphic representations of Flags and Coats of Arms be copyrighted? It seems a bit strange to me - but if the answer is yes, does someone know where one could find ones that are in the public domain? Sandman 08:38, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * While national flags at least are NOT restricted in such a way (I don't know one way or another about coats of arms, but most are too old to be still under copyright), legally a particular DEPICTION of either can be copyrighted as a derived work. Can't help with the public domain versions, sorry --Morven 18:39, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I have a vague impression that CIA World Factbook has them. And Images used in Wikipedia are from there. I could be wrong, though. Tomos 13:06, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Some coats of arms are covered under specific legislation to prevent them from being used without the permission of the government in question; for example I had to get special permission from the government to reproduce the Coat of Arms of Saskatchewan. - Montr&eacute;alais 15:26, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Help with Photoshop and PNGs
graphics tutorials?

Wondering if some helpful party could aid me in resolving a problem I have - I assume it's with Adobe Photoshop, which I use in making PNGs for use here on Wikipedia. They always turn out much, much darker than they appear in the program. Check the history of Image:mtl-metro-map.png - to create an acceptable image I finally had to bombastically lighten the original image in Photoshop. This happens whether I save it in RGB mode or indexed colour mode. Is there a way to ensure that the colours in the file are the same as the colours I see when using the program? - Montr&eacute;alais 20:10, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * is it only PNGs? P-shop has its own gamma correction -- check that. -- Tarquin 20:21, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Montrealais: what browser are you using? Some have broken gamma correction in their display engines. --Brion 21:35, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * IE 5.5. Does the image look too light on some other browser? And (at least out of the formats I use) it's only PNGs as far as I know - all the GIFs I created for my website look fine. - Montr&eacute;alais 23:44, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * The first three versions are too dark, the last two are fine (I use IE 6). The only parts that could be even lighter (not the whole thing) are the small words to the right to the blue signs with white rectangles and an up-arrows in them. Like the lower-left one that says: "TRAIN DE BRAMIUE MONTRÉAL DELSON"(?) --Menchi 23:56, Aug 28, 2003 (UTC)


 * Try fiddling with the color settings in Photoshop. On my Mac at work w/ ps 7 I loaded the (older version) of the file, saw it looked fine, went into the Color Settings (in the apple menu on OSX; probably under File on Windows) and switched the 'Working Spaces' / 'RGB' to 'ColorSync RGB - Generic RGB Profile', and resaved. The resaved file looks great in Safari and Mozilla, at least for me... but I don't know how reliable this is. --Brion


 * Alternatively, try resaving the files from the Gimp. --Brion 00:07, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I noticed a problem with photoshop's png module also -- depending on how its displayed, it can even be chopped to bits (AcDsee) - with browsers, the transparency quality is inferior to that of the Gimp. Maybe try something like this (I havent tried it yet) http://www.freephotoshop.com/html/png.html - &#25140;&#30505sv 00:22, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)


 * I'll experiment with that later. Thanks so much for the help, folks :) - Montr&eacute;alais 04:33, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Creating disambiguation pages
When someone replaces an existing page with a disambiguation page, they should make sure to follow the directions in Disambiguation:


 * Before creating a disambiguation page, click on "What links here" to find all the pages that link to the page you are about to change. Make sure those pages are fixed or that they won't be adversely affected before you do the split.

Also (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong), the old page should be moved to the new name, instead of just moving the text - that way the edit history goes with it. If a duplicate page already exists at the destination (because someone created it not realizing that the other page already existed), you'll need to get an admin to help you, by using the procedure outlined here.

Now that I'm done saying that, can someone more expert than me help with sorting out the edit histories on ITS and Incompatible Timesharing System? Thanks... Noel 22:53, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I've had a go. Incompatible Timesharing System now has a full history, but ITS has none. It looks like I created the page. Is this ok or is there a way to keep the history of both of them? Angela 16:52, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Alas, I think it's going to take some major wizardy (i.e. above and beyond the procedure I referenced above) to sort this out, since the edit histories of the two different pages (the disambig page ITS, and the OS page Incompatible Timesharing System) were mixed together (originally on the disambig page, now on the OS page), due to the error on the part of the person who set up the disambig page (who didn't follow the guidelines reproduced above).


 * If anyone can grovel directly, the following versions of the OS page are for the disambig page:


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * and belong in its edit history; the rest are for the OS and can stay where they are. Noel 17:26, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * If you want to swap two pages but maintain the edit history of both pages, you can do it by using a temporary third page. i.e. If you want to swap A and B.


 * 1) move A to C (a newly created page)
 * 2) delete A, (which is a redirect to C)
 * 3) move B to A
 * 4) delete B (which is a redirect to A)
 * 5) move C to B
 * 6) delete C (which is a redirect to B)
 * Mintguy


 * That doesn't solve the problem that only one of them has an edit history currently. The Incompatible Timesharing System has the edit history of both documents, whereas ITS has no edit history. I just did the move A to B to C thing before realising this. :) Angela


 * Can you create a copy of Inc Timesh Sys somehow, and then paste the text of ITS into it as a standard edit? CGS 18:19, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC).


 * If I'm understanding you properly, that's basically what the person who did the original (incorrect) creation of the disambig page did, and it left the edit history of the OS page on the disambig page. Noel 18:24, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Looks like you've merged page histories. That can't be undone except by a developer. Add an appropriate explanation and author credits to the talk page of both pages. Martin 10:04, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

please help????????????
A 1.5k ohm resistor is found 2 have 22.5V across it, a. what is the current in the resistor? I got 15A is this right? b. What is the power dissipated in the resistor?_____ & please tell me how u came 2 this answer so I can figure it out 4 myself next time? c. Could a 1/4W resistor be used in this application? Explain why? What physical characteristic determines the power rating of a resistor?

What happens 2 electrical energy in a resistor?

Death to software patents!
Can you guys do something with http://swpat.ffii.org/group/demo/ or would it violate the neutrality of Wikipedia? -- 212.127.214.105 00:29, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * See the thread on the Wikipedia-L mailing list . Jimbo said "While I'm sympathetic to the cause, I'm not really comfortable with Wikipedia per se taking part in a political act..."


 * Can it at least be (neutrally) mentioned on the main page as a "current event"? -- 212.127.214.105 01:31, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * There would have to be an article about it first. Something more specific than just the article on Software patent I think. A


 * I think software patent is just great; it's got lots of background on the subject, and that's what an encyclopedia is for. You hear about the present protests all over, and look up what it's all about on Wikipedia! :) I've put in the link. --Brion 01:43, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)~

We can still make an individual statement by putting messages on our user pages. -- Tim Starling 03:43, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

For/against ordering
move to wikipedia talk:establish context

I'd like to propose a new addition to the Wikipedia style, and I'm not sure where else to suggest it. What I would like to see is a guideline that in any article, if there is more then one point of view, descriptions of the article subject come first, and arguments against it come later. So when I went to an article on Global Warming, say, I got a description of Global Warming first and objections to it later. Likewise when I go to Creationism I should find out what creationists believe first, and only then any reasons why people might think they are wrong. DJ Clayworth 20:49, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable to me. Apart from the fairness issues, it makes the article more comprehensible, as it's rather difficult to contextualize arguments against a position without first having explained the position.  In fact, this is my major complaint with the reverse ordering some articles currently have -- they seem to present the arguments as if they're talking to someone who already is familiar with the subject, and I have to read further to find out what it was they were actually talking about.  On the other hand, if it's a controversial topic, the intro should mention this; it's just the specific objections that should be left for later in the article, not the fact that there are objections in the first place. --Delirium 20:58, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)


 * Has some overlap with Village_pump. See above. Angela

'Classroom-like' English literature question
I asked the contributor of Death of a Salesman to modified the "Themes and Points of Interest" so that it's more encyclopedic. But when he asks how it can be so, I'm not sure! I mean, the questions are valid: "Why? Do the Loman men have a tragic flaw? What could it be?" -- But I don't think encyclopedia should asks its reader like an English-class teacher asks his/her students (although this may not be the contributor's intent). Those are general questions that can asked of most tragedies.


 * Should we just provided some possible analysis? Or should we remove those question-sentences? Or should we convert those questions into statements, somehow? --Menchi 21:05, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)


 * Seems simple enough in principle: instead of asking questions, give the answers. (But perhaps I only think that because I'm not familiar with the play.) &mdash;Paul A 00:57, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * The problem is that they're not questions that have a "right" answer - as with most studies of humanities, for each question there are many interpretations. --Alex S 02:16, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * So make the section bigger, and describe the different interpretations. &mdash;Paul A 02:50, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sidebar for minor use of terms
move to wikipedia talk:disambiguation

I've noticed that there are pages on Wikipedia that are articles that include, sometimes at the top, but usually way down at the bottom, alternative "definitions" of the article name. These pages are not disambiguation pages because the common use of the word is overwhelmingly the one most people would be seeking. Nonetheless, the alternative word use, separated by a 4-dash line, is sometimes completely lost below the main article. Some Wikipedians solve this problem by putting a one line link to the alternative at the very top, but this is a distraction. I've set up a sidebar box under Elm as a proposed alternative for these situations. As long as the alternatives link out (do not expand on page into another article), this would seem to separate the links from the article text while affording them a bit more visibility. Any comments? - Marshman 18:42, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * It's fine in IE6, but the whole page is squashed up in Mozilla. It seems to work in both if you put the table in a div. Angela 19:08, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks Angela. Someone fixed it so -- Marshman
 * That was me doing a dodgy logged in and logged out at the same time. :) Angela

''Move in discussion from my talk page on this subject. I can move it all back later; but better exposure/participation here I think''

sorry but the floating sidebar on elm is no good -- most screens are simply not wide enough to support it. -- Tarquin 18:53, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * I realize that I have a high resolution screen and therefore will not encounter that problem. But how does the other sidebar on that page not cause an identical problem? The sidebar I suggest (as presented at Elm) is right justified and will expand as far left as needed to accomodate text. Use of &LT;BR&GT; can control that to keep it from filling across screen. - Marshman 19:00, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * it's best to use tables as little as possible; as for the line, I don't really see how right-aligning it is any better. It's only an extra formatting convention we would now have to replicate throughout wikipedia, and it's ugly markup that confuses the novce editor. Simple is best, in my opinion -- Tarquin 19:16, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * If we do not use table formatting as you suggest, I think a standard &LT;DIV&GT; "right" format with bullets or similar at the top would still be preferable to the current practice of dividing lines and bottom billing for these minor alternatives. Of course a disambiguation page is a better solution, but obviously needs to be used only where there is a clear need to split articles. The problem with the bottom billing once the lead artyicle gets large is that a person looking for the minor word use is not going to scroll down through the text he is not interested in (human nature). - Marshman 19:36, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree that bottom billing is no good, but I think right-align is needless clutter -- Tarquin 19:42, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * At least in IE6, if you have the standard wikipedia sidebar set to right hand side, it overlays the "disambiguation sidebar", no matter what the window width is. This is very ugly. DrBob 23:22, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * How about this? Why not use colour for a change? CGS 20:48, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC).


 * Hmmmm. I can see (in edit) you added gray, but does not look like anything different in my IE6. I'm trying to run a line between having the "secondary" or minor term be right up front (a distraction for most users) and being hidden on the bottom (unnoticeable by the few actually looking for it).  At present only top-mounted side-bar box or similar shifted right seems suitable, despite Tarquin objection that this complicates formatting. Eliminating the box simplies formatting a bit, and maybe color is an answer. But shifting right seems necessary to get it separated from main text. - Marshman 22:48, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * The English spelling of grey was used which seems to be accepted by Mozilla but ignored by IE. I changed it to #C0C0C0 which will be recognised by both. This might be a bit too light though. Angela 22:58, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It is needless HTML clutter for no good reason. please remove it -- Tarquin 23:14, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Tarquin. Please avoid HTML whenever possible until we have a template system, it makes pages harder to edit for newbies.&mdash;Eloquence 00:10, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * At the bottom is not hidden, hence not a problem, as long as it is in the TOC. - Patrick 00:16, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer it at the top. It's clear enough why it is there that it is not going to confuse people wanting info on trees. Not all pages that this applies to have a TOC and a quick glimpse at the article would suggest that it is about trees so people aren't going to scroll down just in case there is an unrelated topic at the bottom. I agree with Tarquin and Eloquence about the HTML issue. It's more trouble than it's worth. Angela 00:24, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)