Wikipedia:Village pump/January 2004 archive 2

Image markup
Can markup be used to create an image that is smaller in size than the one that has been uploaded? (Am formatting Diving_insects.)--azwaldo 18:03, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Not yet. greenmountainboy (talk) 18:04, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Reckon I'll shrink my originals and upload new image files, ''how can the old images be removed from the server?azwaldo


 * I re-formatted Diving_insects so that the pictures stay on the right hand side without resorting to       . It looks pretty good now, and I don't think the pictures need any shrinking. --snoyes 23:57, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Re: image deletion: Images for deletion, or write a short note on a sysop's (that you see to be active ATM) talk page. --snoyes 00:00, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * If you just want to change the size, just upload them as new versions of the same files. No deletion is necessary. Check first that no other pages are using these images, this is shown at the bottom of the image description page. Andrewa 10:24, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Amount of duplication
I have a Wikipedia-philosophy question. I'm trying to figure out how much duplication there should be between articles. Do we expect people to read the most important links in a page, or should the crucial elements be repeated? As a specific example, I was trying to write Aerodynamics and put a lot of stuff in there about basic assumptions, classes of problems etc., then realized that much of that should go in Fluid mechanics. So I rewrote fluid mechanics to contain that kind of information. But now much of what's in aerodynamics is a duplication of fluid mechanics. Aerodynamics could now simply read "Aerodynamics is fluid mechanics applied to gases" and with the links, that's almost enough information. But aerodynamics is much too important a topic to have a supershort article. Thoughts? moink 18:31, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * My thoughts, since I notice the same issue, is to provide a quick background on the issue and then link to a more thorough discussion elsewhere. Wikipedia articles do not need to be long to be influential or important. Keep em short and sweet, but packed with info and link to other Wikipedia pages with more information. No need to duplicate repetitive info. -Visorstuff 18:43, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * There shouldn't be significant overlap, and the division between the two articles should be made along pragmatic lines (for some value of "pragmatic"). So in this case fluid dynamics is the theory, aerodynamics its application.  I figure the theory should be in fluid dynamics (lift, drag, bernoulli, reaction) and the aerodynamic specific stuff (wing shapes/angles/sizes/profiles/sweeps, stability Vs agility, deltawings, canards, tridekkers, flying wings, BBW, etc.) should be in aerodynamics. If something is borderline, it doesn't really matter which article it's in (ideally it shouldn't be in both) as both articles are interlinked, and its unlikely that someone who really cares about either won't read its counterpart too). -- Finlay McWalter 19:01, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * That would be a good solution if they were divided like that, unfortunately aerodynamics and hydrodynamics are also theoretical disciplines, while aeronautics and hydraulics are their practical analogs. moink 03:01, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * IMO, A small to moderate amount of overlap between articles is just fine. I really don't expect most people to really do significant cross-referencing when reading articles. It helps that all of the essential information to understand a topic is in the article itself. If duplication is really unwarranted, then explicitly say in the article that there is more in-depth information in the other article. E.g., "The theoretical foundation of aerodynamics lies in fluid mechanics, an important branch of physics. See the article on fluid mechanics to learn more." --seav 02:26, Jan 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * I see nothing wrong with a certain amount of duplication, particularly if it is a short but essential fact that would otherwise have to be found buried in a huge cross-linked article. Just imagine yourself as the reader and use common sense about what would be convenient to you. Anjouli 09:53, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * There are some people here (esp. techies) who believe that information should never be duplicated in Wikipedia, that everything should be stored once and linked as need be. From a software engineering point of view, this is an elegant solution, but we are writing an encyclopedia, not programming a computer. I believe strongly that even though Wikipedia is not paper, every article should be an organic whole; that -- figuratively speaking or otherwise -- if you print an article it, it is complete. Links should only be pointers towards additional information, not essential information. Hence, some duplication is inevitable and should be expected. -- Viajero 11:55, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I would agree that some duplication is a good thing and that Viajero's call to remember the reader is by far and away the most sensible thing any of us can do. An article should be as self-contained as possible and links are for those who want to know the finer details, IMHO. Bmills 12:06, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks all for your comments. I think my personal opinions are most closely aligned with Viajero's. Articles should be complete on their own, without being cut-and-paste copies of one another. I'm surprised there isn't more consensus on this issue around here; I thought this would have been something to come up pretty often. I'll fix aerodynamics when I have a free moment. moink 20:16, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Which subnet (range) of 142.177.0.0/16 is banned?
Are all 142.177.?.? IPs hard-banned? I believe the user has returned....none of his actions so far have been detrimental that I can tell, but if I am supposed to block him I will do so. Can someone who knows more about the history of this let me know? Jwrosenzweig 22:54, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I think the individual you are talking about (142.177.19.200) is different from the 142.177.etc that is hard banned. It is seems 142.177.19.200 is ip142177019200.mpoweredpc.net while EoT (such as 142.177.82.204) is hlfx32-204.ns.sympatico.ca . I seem to remember that Tim blocked the entire range of sympatico halifax IPs that EoT was posting from, although I could be mistaken. Maximus Rex 23:29, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * The currently blocked range is 142.177.71.0 to 142.177.114.0, which should be roughly the same as the Halifax section of Sympatico. I determined this range by trial-and-error, repeatedly calling the unix "host" command to find the edges. There are lots of innocent people using 142.177 IP addresses, please don't vilify them unnecessarily. -- Tim Starling 12:41, Jan 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks much for the information! It would be nice if this was easily available, though.  When I saw the IP, it reminded me of the banned user....when I tried to find info about him, the only thing I discovered was his "user page", User:142.177.etc.  That name, as you can see, vilifies anyone in the 142.177 range unecessarily....if I'm being chastised at all by Tim (and I can't tell if I am), all I can say is that Wikipedia needs to have a much easier way of describing for us who is banned and what the terms of their ban are. :)  Based on that user page, all I could conclude was that anyone in that IP range should be considered a suspect.  The last time I tried to talk to an anon in the 142.177 range, I was immediately chastised by other Wikipedians for trying to talk to a user who'd been hard-banned.  I really don't intend to make anyone upset, so it would be nice if everyone agreed what I can and cannot do about 142.177 IPs, and about banned users in general.  Thanks. :) Jwrosenzweig 17:18, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Request for feedback on Wikitex syntax
As some of you know, Wikipedia (through its underlying MediaWiki software) already supports embedding mathematical formulas, currently using the &lt;math&gt; syntax. Peter Danenberg is working on a complete redesign of the code to allow for much more flexibility, so that additional backends can be supported. His new scheme, called Wikitex, will not only allow embedding mathematical formulas, but also music notation (using GNU LilyPond) with auto-generated MIDI files, chemical formulas, TIPA phonetic symbols, chessboards, polytonic Greek, attribute-value matrices and parsetrees. This is very much droolworthy and there's probably more to come.

However, there is still an open question as to which "wrapper syntax" to use for the new scheme. Some (including myself) favor a simple syntax like &lt;rend math "..."/&gt;, &lt;rend music "..."/&gt; etc.

If you prefer the simpler syntax, now is a good time to make your voice heard on the discussion page. It will likely be difficult to change once we have adopted a particular syntax.&mdash;Eloquence 02:38, Jan 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * I would be against using HTML-type tags entirely. Something like "{{math\n" to topen and end the block on a "\n\n". Could I also request that all this type of content be rendered inside classed DIVs, eg DIV class="math" and so on -- Tarquin 14:26, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

When to roll up or tear off discussion pages
I'm working on a page that has a lengthy history, and the associated discussion page is pretty long. The main problem is that it's hard to see the new comments, and the old, now-irrelevant stuff is cluttering it up. Is there an established policy about erasing old discussion comments?

For example there are comments that say things like "Hey, you need to work on this some more", followed by, "OK, I worked on it". I'm inclined to erase that stuff, and without making a backup or archive page, since all the original comments are saved in the page history anyway. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:28, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Go for it. See Talk:Anti-Semitism for an example of a talk page that has a lot of archived talk. --snoyes 16:34, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * See How to archive a talk page for guidance on the various ways to go about doing this. -- Viajero 11:50, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Taraful Haiducilor

 * -->Reference desk

Wikipedia Search Program in UI Context Menu
I have a little device on my desktop called GuruNet TopicBar. It's really quite a good idea, it lets you right click on any word in any document (web browser, word processing...), or you can click on its icon in the system tray (near your clock), or a little arrow docked on the side of your screen, and search for encyclopedia articles or dictionary definitions, relating to a chosen word.

It's a wonderful concept, except after the first two months or so, you have to be a paid member of their service to get the full article on anything. And the resources are stubby, most articles quite honestly pale in comparison to Wikipedia's. Still, it's gathered lots of good press, and the endorsement of Donald Sutherland, who claims to be an active user.

Would it be possible for us to create a similar tool, available for download off Wikipedia. It would search all of the Wikimedia family: Wikipedia, Wikitonary, Wikiquote, Wikisource and Wikibooks. If we ever endorsed it, Wikitravel could be another member, September 11th Memorial Wiki would also be in the search results, just not promoted. Also, users could set it to search other language Wikipedias, if so desired.

Like GuruNet, results would be delivered in a little program; alternatively, we could make it more like Google Toolbar. The device, in which ever form, would be targeted entirely towards a viewing audience; those wanting to edit would be directed towards the actual webpage.

I really think there would be a market for this. If we don't do it, someone else surely will; already there's a research device using Wikipedia in its searching plug-in. It would take the developers away from other important projects, however, I'd be willing to scout out software developers on other Wikis.

- user:zanimum


 * The primary difference between GuruNet and Wikimedia is that GuruNet pay their programmers. It sounds like a great idea. Now, like so many other great ideas, someone just has to code it. -- Tim Starling 02:11, Jan 2, 2004 (UTC)

I made two Wikipedia bookmarklets based on other bookmarklets I have seen on the net: Wikipedia First: javascript:Qr=document.getSelection;if(!Qr){void(Qr=prompt('Text:',''))} if(Qr)location.href='http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?search='+escape(Qr)+"&go=go" Wikipedia Search: javascript:Qr=document.getSelection;if(!Qr){void(Qr=prompt('Text:',''))} if(Qr)location.href='http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?search='+escape(Qr)+' '

To use them bookmark those URLs. These make use of JavaScript and DOM. If you have a word or phrase highlighted when you click on one of them, it searches for that word or phrase. Otherwise, a window or sheet appears asking you what to search for. Wikipedia First corresponds to the Go button and Wikipedia Search corresponds to the Search button. When the Search button breaks, so is that bookmarklet. Whether these work depends on your browser. If they do not work you can try another version that always asks you what to search for rather than using the selected word or phrase:

Wikipedia First: if(!Qr){void(Qr=prompt('Text:',''))} if(Qr)location.href='http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?search='+escape(Qr)+"&go=go'" Wikipedia Search: if(!Qr){void(Qr=prompt('Text:',''))} if(Qr)location.href='http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?search='+escape(Qr)+' '

Mozdev: Mycroft downloads has Mycroft plug-ins to search Wikipedia. The Mycroft plug-in format is based on the Sherlock I & II format.

--Ellmist 22:40, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ethnicity vs. nation-state
Working on topics related to Eastern Europe, I have found it inconvenient that, for ethnicities/nationalities that have a nation-state associated with them, we always have an article about the nation-state and never, it seems, about the ethnicity. This is not a problem a single person can even begin to address -- I can tell that just by looking at some of the conflicts that have arisen about related issues such as German vs. Polish place names -- so I thought I would raise it here.

For example, the article Ethnic German (one of the few articles about an ehtnic group) is just a disambiguation page. When referring in the List of political parties in Romania to Forul Democrat al Germanilor din România, the political party of ethnic Germans in Romania, a link to Ethnic German is what is I would presume is called for. However, someone recently (and probably appropriately) changed that to link to Germany instead. Why? Presumably because Germany has a real article and Ethnic German does not.

Nonetheless, I would argue that these two concepts are separate enough to merit separate articles (and the same for ethnic Hungarians, Romanians, Poles, you name it). We would never conflate Jews and Israel. We would never conflate Celts and, say, Eire.

I admit that I have something of an axe to grind here: I am not a fan of ethnic nationalism. I feel that Wikipedia's current organization of this material constitutes an implicit endorsement of an ethnic nationalist point of view.

I am not sure if this page is the best forum for this discussion, but it seems to be at least the place to open it. If someone wants to suggest a better forum, I'm totally open to moving this.

-- Jmabel 02:07, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Good point. WormRunner 02:42, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe you want to start a project so you can first collect ethnicities and then write article on them? Kokiri 11:05, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * A fine idea. I'll start WikiProject Ethnic Groups Jmabel 22:41, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I've started WikiProject Ethnic Groups, but I really need collaborators to make anything meaningful happen here. This is not a one-person job. Consider this a solicitation! Join me! The meta article itself is still kind of a stub, but I've written quite a bit on the talk page, which I hope will trigger further ideas on how to approach this. Anyway, further discussion of this might as well move to that talk page. Thank you WormRunner and Kokiri. -- Jmabel 00:41, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Besides the meta and some discussion on the relevant talk page, there is now a draft template. I'd greatly appreciate some feedback, especially from people who have previous experience with WikiProjects. This is a very tricky area, and I'd really like to get our ducks in a row before we start writing or revising any articles. -- Jmabel 09:57, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Can anyone help?-->Reference desk

b0rked redirection...
Hi,

I think I've managed to b0rk the redirect from Northern Territory University to Charles Darwin University -- I think I managed this by deleting the redirect from CDU to NTU, then doing a "move" from NTU to CDU, when I should have left CDU alone initially, from what I can tell.

First question: did I really muck it up?

In short, could I have it fixed?

Cheers, Jonathan.

--Jonathan Ah Kit 03:40, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, Charles Darwin University is currently redirecting to Northern Territory University with no problems. It seems to me, though, that it should be the other way around. &mdash;Paul A 04:49, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Marlon Brando -->Reference desk

SpellBott
What's this SpellBott that's running? Is there any way to protect words that are already correct, but might be candidates for alteration? Something like  misspellling ? Anjouli 05:23, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * It's just a user. Check the userpage. Kokiri 11:02, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Ahh! Thanks. That wasn't on the user page the first time I looked. But she/he's very fast. Suspiciously so, for someone doing it manually. Not that I see any problem if corrections are accurate. Anjouli 05:42, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Two Questions about the GNUFDL on Wikipedia
Hi!

I love this site/project! And, to help I would like to create two sites using Wikipedia data, and I want to make them RIGHT in the first place (vs. just making them and leaving out anything important). I have been reading as much as possible... but to be 100% honest, the licence isn't all that clear so I thought I would describe the two projects and see if I can get some quick feedback on what I would need to do to be a "good wikipedia content user".

Project 1 BrainyEncyclopedia Use the entire HTML content in a full mirror of Wikipedia from the content at: http://www.tommasoconforti.com/wiki/

This is perfect and easy for me since it's just plain HTML, I am not a programmer. Now, the big question is this data in the format that would be in 100% compliance with the licence as is? It contains a link to the GNUFDL on every page and a link to "Edit this page" on every page (that is hard-coded back to Wikipedia). From looking at the non-compliant sites - these seem to be the major problems that people seem to create when using your content. I don't want to make that mistake (I'd rather make new mistakes!).

I would have a nice little statement about the copyright of the data on the site and how it's GNUFDL (the only things that wouldn't be would be our site name/logo). I would also be adding headers/footers/navigation for the site.

Project 2 BrainyBiography Use only the Biographies on the site and reorganize them to be an easy to navigate biography site. The articles would not change - just the navigation. In addition most links that were not biography-related would be taken out.

This site would keep the link to edit the page and to the GNUFDL licence as well.

So... after all that: are these projects OK? Is this what you intend people to do with the content? Is there anything else that is necessary on my part? It seems so simple... but a good portion of the sites that use this content seem to be screwing up their usage in some way.

Thanks for the help,

Jeff


 * (Obligatory IANAL, but I slept at a holiday in this morning)
 * The GNUFDL is a pretty open license. Your obligations are here.
 * ''If you create a derivative version by changing or adding content, this entails the following:
 * '' your materials in turn have to be licensed under GFDL,
 * '' you must acknowledge the authorship of the article (section 4B), and
 * '' you must provide access to the "transparent copy" of the material (section 4J). (The "transparent copy" of a Wikipedia article is its wiki text.)
 * --Raul654 05:43, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I would like to add that you don't actually need the edit link. I don't know how you plan to get the html, but there is a database dump available at . You say that you are not a programmer (which you don't need to be, but it helps to know your way around), but it is not easy to make the dump work. I just wanted you to know just in case. Good luck and let us know how it works out. Dori | Talk 06:56, Jan 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * (Once again, IANAL]...) So just to clarify - if you don't modify the material, you haven't created a derivative work, and therefore you have no obligations at all. If you do modify the material, then you just have to do those three things I listed above. Happy hunting :) --Raul654 10:08, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Hello, I'm the author of the html dump you are using. The hard-coded "edit" link is there because the archive was meant as an experimental static dump, with links to get back to the main site. I could remove it, or better change it to a "see live article" that links to the live Wikipedia article in non-editing mode. Now that I think about it, the name "wikipedia" is not mentioned anywhere in the page! so it's better if I update that too. It will take time, not because of the script modification (which is trivial), but because I'm quite bandwidth-starved and uploading the gigabyte or so of the English wiki is a long task :) Alfio 14:32, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Jeff, aside from technical questions -- why not start organizing biographies right now here, as User:Jeff/Biographies? Let's do it together! ilya 23:06, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks!

I just wanted to say THANKS to Raul654, Dori, Alfio and ilya for the quick responses to my question titled "Two questions..."

I'm going to get cracking and get the new sites up this month. I'll post again when they are finished before going live. I may be able to work with the database files... if I can import them into FileMaker. I actually manage about 500,000 pages of content right now in custom FileMaker databases that I designed - so don't make fun!

Have a Happy New Year!

Jeff


 * The database dump comes as a big series of SQL insert statements; FileMaker Pro doesn't speak SQL natively, though perhaps you could rig up something with JDBC or ODBC (or a 3rd-party plugin) that would work. You'd probably have better luck just installing MySQL though, if nothing else as an intermediate stage. --Brion 06:14, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Redirection
Many writers and reviewers are redirecting poorly to false articles - e.g if you are looking for "graphics" then you will be redirected to computer graphics. Engineering graphics and computer graphics are different topics and I don't understand [why this is so]. If anyone writes a short intro to start such an article, you will find those articles deleted immediately and redirected to other releavant artilces. There is no need for redirection. You can keep that space blank. I dont know why the heck [you] guys are doing it. This will definitely distract users from using wikipedia, and those writers who want to show their articles on wikipedia are doing this redirecting thing. Also, some of people from here are actually behaving like they are moderators or something like that. Also deletion of articles is very burning issue here. Why are articles deleted if they are not copyrighted? Could [it] be due to gramatical mistakes? If [you] guys from here are deleting articles constantly due to grammatical mistakes and lableing the article as stub then this is very poor thing. Wikipedia is just born project and not taken seriously, and as this project is in [an] immature state then this very serious matter. Well I think if there are any moderators here should take this thing seriously because if this continues then many people will sign up here to delete articles and label it a stub. Well this will be fun for these guys, and wikipedia will be destroyed in few days as this project took 2 years to reach this position it will be deleted in 2 weeks. As nupedia is down otherwise there is no need for this question. Also I will immediately move to nupedia if it starts, and tell others to do the same because when nupedia was there I hadn't found such issue. It's up to you whether to take this seriously or not but let me tell you that this is not good. (--61.1.112.99)


 * If anyone writes a short intro to start such an article, you will find those articles deleted immediately and redirected to other releavant artilces. Nonsense. I dont know why the heck [you] guys are doing it. This plainly isn't the only thing you don't the heck know. If [you] guys from here are deleting articles constantly due to grammatical mistakes and lableing the article as stub then this is very poor thing..  We aren't. And deletion and stubbification are entirly different things. this very serious matter no, it isn't. wikipedia will be destroyed in few days bollocks. I will immediately move to nupedia if it starts goodbye. --  Finlay McWalter 14:06, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Although I suspect that post might be a troll (hence, the need for extensive copyediting just to understand it), I'd like to try to respond to each of the points you make in kind.

--Raul654 14:10, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Where redirection is concerned, for the most part, we'd rather set up wikipedia with all the proper links, and then split hairs (computer graphics vs engineering graphics) later, if need be. If you have a particular grudge against a particular redirect, please feel free to fix it.
 * 2) Articles are deleted in one of two ways. Either it is a candidate for speedy deletion, or it goes through the Votes for deletion page where it is voted upon for no fewer than five days. The short articles you refer to (which we call "stubs") are kept unless there is a very good reason not to. Generally, the only reasons we will delete an article is if it is (a) a copyright violation, or (b) non-encylopedic. (vandalism, of course, falls into the latter category)
 * 3) Stub warnings - when someone writes an article he does not feel is quite detailed enough, he can put a warning there. It simply means that the article could be longer. This does not, in any way, destroy wikipedia. It simply lets others know where efforts should be concentrated.
 * 4) Yes, there are moderators here - around 160 or so. In order to make wikipedia function, there has to be some seperation of privileges, to seperate vandals from legitimate contributors. As a rule, moderation is done with a very light touch.
 * 5) As a simple look at Modelling Wikipedia's growth will tell you, Wikipedia is growing by leaps and bounds. There seems to be no evidence of the destruction you imply.


 * 61.1.112.99 wrote: If anyone writes a short intro to start such an article, you will find those articles deleted immediately and redirected to other releavant artilces.
 * Finlay McWalter wrote: Nonsense.
 * Actually, this has happened several times to articles I've started (when both logged in and with a random IP). Homology modelling would be one example, off the top of my head.  (Not that it really matters, but as a new contributor I did find it very disconcerting.) Stewart Adcock 01:39, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)]


 * Redirects do not have to be redirects forever. They are often a temporary solution until a real article is written at that place. If someone enters a sub-stub and that is redirected, there is nothing stopping someone editing the redirect and replacing it with a non-sub-stub. Angela. 07:29, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Sonic question and biodiesel question-->Reference desk


 * Biology article name-->Talk:Aquatic insects

EM and italics
Throughout the Wikipedia there are quite a few articles which have a statement like 'Alternate names are in italics', referring to text marked up with two apostrophes. This does not add an &lt;i> (italics) tag, but rather adds an &lt;em> (emphasis) tag.

All nice and well, but http://en.wikipedia.org/style/wikistandard.css does not contain any rule for EM, so EM is styled according to browser preferences &#8212; which does not have to be italics. Surely it'd be best if the rule
 * em {font-style: italic;}

were added to the CSS file? &#8212; Jor 21:58, Jan 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * It's an idea. I'll add it to the stuff on meta about stylesheets. -- Tarquin 18:11, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Please Let me know asap

 * -->Reference desk

why so Sloooooowwwwww
Why does everything seem to be so slow tonight (although it seems to have improved) Has something crashed?. I was under the impression that the technical problems had been fixed by the new fancy database (obviously not) G-Man 00:54, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * See Servers. --mav


 * Or OpenFacts:Wikipedia Status. Angela.


 * Rainham -->Reference desk

Sub Stub?
I'm encountering the term 'sub stub' on various pages in WP, but Find or fix a stub or the Glossary do not mention the term. In what way is a sub stub unlike a stub, and if this is an official term, shouldn't it be added somewhere? Jor 03:26, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * It is used to mean an article which is currently too short even to deserve the name stub. This often refers to a simple definition ("An airplane is a type of winged flying vehicle") or a biography consisting only of the subject's nationality and occupation ("Douglas Adams was a British author who's dead now"). Onebyone 03:59, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I have incorporate Onebyone's useful reply to Find or fix a stub as requested by Jor. --Menchi (User talk:Menchi 04:12, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * A stub is a short article. A sub stub is not even an article. Sub stubs are often deleted instantly, but they also often undeleted by those disputing the worthlessness of them, so there is not agreed-upon definition of what a deletable sub stub is. Angela. 07:40, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Financial information
Do we really want detailed financial information on companies? International Paper. --snoyes 04:55, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Net sales and net loss is far from detailed. --mav

Disclaimer notice
I like the way the Disclaimer notice is now presented to users. However, it is much too small. I never would have seen it myself if I hadn't heard someone else talk about it. There may have been a discussion that I neglected to notice about this issue. Maybe a Disclaimer link could also be placed on the left-hand toolbar, under Contact us and above Donations. Just a thought. Kingturtle 08:53, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you! :) I removed the small tag - it was kinda ugly next to the larger 'last edited' text anyway. Instead of under "Contact us" I think it would be best to have it next to it like so Contact us/Disclaimers. --mav 09:01, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Would Contact us/Disclaimers fit? Would it look bulky? Kingturtle 19:56, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

UPDATED LISTING
in your movie studios webpage you have our company, American mutoscope and Biograph Co. in historical movie companies. we are also an active movie company. please list our link in the active studios area.

www.biographcompany.com

Thanks,


 * This is a Wiki, you could if you liked do it yourself. Perhaps you could say a few words here about just what is happening, what Biograph is today, and what it is doing or plans to do? The Biograph website appears to be under construction. Since the historical great silent movie company is generally thought to have stopped making films in 1916, I suspect there is not a great deal of continuity between it and the present company. The Biograph Girl died in 1938... Dpbsmith 15:41, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC) P. S. Apparently the current company is in the process of restoring an early silent movie called "In Old California," but the press release that says they have acquired "nearly 2000 acres of lunar real estate and plans to use it as the first lunar lot" and produce movies there sounds, um... dare I say it... like some kind of Hollywood publicity stunt? True, there is no problem with cloudy days, and the moon should be out of reach of the long arm of the patents trust...

Feature Request: Horizontal TOC flag
I'm no longer on the ML's and was wondering where on W a feature request should be posted?

The request is for a flag which may be set on a page which will switch the TOC display to a horizontal display with items unnumbered and separated by pipes |. This would be a far better rendering for lists with many sections, e.g. List_of_aviation,_aerospace_and_aeronautical_terms or just about any alphabetically grouped list. dramatic 17:29, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Would be possible now, if the TOCs were lists instead of tables :/ &#8212; Jor 13:55, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Feature requests should be made at SourceForge . Kosebamse 18:25, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * But is there somewhere they can be discussed before submission to Sourceforge? (So that there can be 1) an indication of support for the idea and 2) a group refinement of the proposal via wikiprocess?


 * Yes at meta. Dori | Talk 18:12, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

Danish recipe & Firehouse

 * -->Reference desk

Requests
Mediawiki feature request moved to Meta Green Mountain 19:37, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Image Upload
When will Image Upload be re-enabled? Adrian Pingstone 23:31, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * At the top of this page it says "sooner or later." And if you click on "Upload file," which has reappeared, it says "(sorry, no time estimate)." I doubt that anyone has a more authoritative answer than that. Dpbsmith 01:11, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Uploading should be back up now. I've got a full backup of the images now and set up a job to check for updates every hour, so in the case of one of the web servers going down it'll be not too difficult to recover things. --Brion 10:46, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Once a page has been moved without using "Move this page"...
...is there anything that can be done to merge the histories? Los Macheteros was recently moved to Puerto Rican Army of the People. Unfortunately, the person who moved it apparently didn't know about "Move this page" (hey, I didn't the first time I moved a page, either). I've used "Move this page" to get the talk page where it belongs, but it would be a very good idea if we could somehow move the history over as well; since this is an article that has raised POV and factuality issues in the past, it seems more than routinely important to have the history available. Jmabel 00:37, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Done. Check current version to see if it is up to date. --Jiang 02:47, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * See Move Dori | Talk 04:11, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

MSG shortcuts
Anyone know the link for a list of the MSG's like. I suggested to a newbe that they would find a link here, but I was wrong.... - UtherSRG 01:02, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * I asked the exact same question here about a week ago. The list is here: MediaWiki_custom_messages --Raul654 01:04, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. I added today MediaWiki:Index .. hope it redirects to the right place. -- User:Docu


 * You can also use the messages in All messages in the MediaWiki namespace in the same way, though I don't know if any of them would be of any use besides where they are used right now, which is in the interface itself. Dori | Talk 04:05, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

Talk page proposal
See Talk page proposal - Hemanshu 16:34, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Images - how do I upload them
I went to help - looked at adding images - totally useless - it discusses stuff about images but NOWhere does it tell you actually how to upload an image. So how do you do it then? I even edited the page to make this point but someone reverted it rather than fixing it -- Kevin Flude
 * Sorry, Kevin. Because of the strain on the alrady overtaxed servers, uploading has been disabled. Expect to see it back soon (I hope) when the new server is fully functional.  I think you first need to establsh a login persona; then access to the upload log for images will be seen as a menu selection near the bottom of the menu list at the left. - Marshman 17:34, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have a login persona but absolutely no reference to uploading images appears on a page either when editing or not. Can you give me further information?


 * Sure. First, whenever you ask a question here, end it with - ~ . That will sign and date your entry. When the upload log selection appears (it is not there anymore, as it has been disabled) below "special pages" on the left column menu, you click on it. An instruction page will appear requiring you to browse to the image on your computer, check that you have the rights to the image, and create a name for the image at Wikipedia. You then click upload and the image is copied to Wikipedia. You should then go to the image info page indicated to edit and fill in info on the photo. Also, keep images to be displayed on pages under 400 pixels in width.  There are many other details you need to know that are explained on the "How to edit" page. I'll need to track down the link unless someone has it available? - Marshman 17:52, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The instructions are here How to edit a page. They are clear to me because I have been doing it for a long time, but it will quickly make sense to you too once you try it a few times. Unfortunately, you will have to wait until that feature is reenabled - Marshman


 * You can access Special:Upload in many ways, but image uploading is disabled for everybody until the situation with hardware is finally solved. ilya 18:03, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Uploading should be back up now. I've got a full backup of the images now and set up a job to check for updates every hour, so in the case of one of the web servers going down it'll be not too difficult to recover things. --Brion 10:46, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Open directory project
From Wikipedia talk:Announcements

As a web site operator I can answer questions about Wikipedia's Google Page Rank. The homepage rank is currently 7/10. Medicine has a rank of 5/10 which incidentally is the rank of the homepage of my small website.

Google has its own private system of ranking. The ranking of the homepage is relatively meaningless as nobody really uses the homepage unless you are trying to sell advertising for it, for which you are not. What counts is the ranking for each individual article. When somebody searches in Google for medicine the Google Page Rank determines where the Wikipedia hit will show up. The higher the rating the higher on top the hit will show up. But, since there are tens of thousands of web pages that uses the word medicine a rank of only 5/10 could mean that the person searching for medicine on Google might have to wade through several hundred hits before coming across Medicine.

I have noticed that Wikipedia has not joined the relatively new Open Directory Project at: http://www.dmoz.org/ Most of the major search engines are now using the Open Directory Project. Joining simply means classifying your web site by their classification system and providing a brief description. As this description is not displayed on Google search Hits, Wikipedia is NOT a member.

By joining, Wikipedia could up its page rank automatically by a couple of points. Only the owner or webmaster of Wikipedia can join the Open Directory project. But, once Wikipedia has been accepted into the Open Directory, it may take anywhere from 2 weeks to several months for your site to be listed on partner sites which use the Open Directory data, such as AOL Search, AltaVista, HotBot, Google, Lycos, Netscape Search, etc. -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:45, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, this was discussed on Wikipedia before (can anyone give a link?). The problem with that could be: "Joining simply means classifying your web site by their classification system and providing a brief description." -- see the lengthy debates about the new category system; Wikipedia just isn't an automated, categorizable system yet, and I doubt it ever will be, and I especially doubt it ever will be using the DMOZ open directory classifications. -- till we *) 19:04, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" classifies "Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. How are the other online encyclopedias classified?  What is wrong with an objective classification?  NOTHING -- Mr-Natural-Health 21:42, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * If Mr-Natural-Health by joining dmoz means having Wikipedia listed in their directory, Wikipedia has been listed for quite some time now (and prominently, too):.
 * Besided, as far as I can see, Wikipedia has a page-rank of 8/10. And have had that for some time, too: User:Nintendo noted it on 7 Nov 2003. Of course I might be mistaken. I do not operate any web sites.
 * Of course having individual articles listed might be interesting, too. We already have about 750 listed -- especially about demons... -- but a systematic process might be interesting, too.
 * In my opinion, though, it should be up to individuals to submit their favourite pages for dmoz review. I cannot find any policy that prohibits other than owners from submitting sites.
 * Rasmus Faber 22:05, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Websites don't join ODP. Individuals can join if they want to edit there, but anyone whether connected with ODP or Wikipedia or neither can submit a page or a site for review by the editors there. Wikipedia is already listed 750 times in the directory according to a DMOZ search. Angela. 22:35, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

The amount of misinformation posted under this simple topic is truly amazing. -- Mr-Natural-Health 03:38, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)~

Scanning Printed Encyclopaedias
This may be a FAQ, but:

Is there any mileage in obtaining an out-of-copyright copy of e.g. the Encyclopaedia Britannica (such as, I believe, the 1910 one currently in my parents house in the UK), splitting it up, distributing the pages to volunteers and OCRing articles of importance on subjects whose important content was fixed at that time (e.g. the Wars of the Roses)?

Would this way of expanding the content available in Wikipedia (or, at least, providing a base for people to edit) be better than writing articles from scratch?

Gerv


 * There are quite a few wikipedia articles based on (or even identical to) articles from the 1911 Britannica. The trouble is that 1911 articles usually aren't very good - for example look at History of Africa. Even in history, opinions and attitudes change over time. Onebyone 23:29, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Project Gutenberg might be a better way of getting out-of-copyright material OCRed, and formatted. They have a Distributed Proofreaders scheme where they split up the text into pages, and have volunteers who proofread each page.  Presumedly we could still use the pages they process, although I'm not sure on that, hopefully someone with more knowledge on the subject could clear this up.

In any case, presumedly even if there are restrictions on the use of text produced by the project, we could still use your original scans for wikipedia..

Silverfish 23:30, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * BTW the Distributed Proofreaders are currently going through volume 4 of the 1911 encyclopaedia... Anyway, I have to echo Onebyone; most times "no article" is better than an article from the 1911 encyclopaedia. I used to think they might make a good starting place, but now (after having reviewed several actual examples) I think it is purely wasted effort in the vast majority of cases. If you really put your effort in searching articles from the 1911 Encyclopaedia on subjects that you yourself know intimately and judge to still be up to date (I don't really think there are that many), then maybe, just MAYBE, you might be able to scrounge something genuinely useful. Frankly I think it may well be more trouble than it is worth, but remember, you are the best judge of what you like to do; everything that moves us forward, moves us forward, at whatever pace... -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 23:58, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * I have to take mild issue with those who knock the Britannica 11th Edition. I own a copy and I love it. (Actually mine is the 12th addition and has three additional volumes that include information about the Great War and the many advances in aeronautics, etc.


 * And, yes, it does need to be used with caution. Whoever did many of the music articles (I could find out, because the articles are all signed, but I can't remember offhand) simply hated Meyerbeer and knocked him at every opportunity. It's really great for any kind of science, engineering, or technology that existed before 1911 and you'll find much more stuff on how telegraphs or lighthouse lenses worked than in any modern encyclopedia. It's also pretty good on soft stuff like theology... but it should never be just used as-is as a raw starting point for an article.


 * But what I wanted to mention, since nobody else has yet, is that the Britannica 11th edition is already online at http://www.1911encyclopedia.com . I'm somewhat concerned by the fact that they've changed its presentation&mdash;they now call it "The LoveToKnow Free Online Encyclopedia." This change suggests that they're trying to figure out how to market it, which suggests that the old marketing wasn't working, which suggests to me that they may not be around for much longer. But, for now, there it is. And generously replete with scannos, various strangenesses with respect to searching and tables of contents, and none of the illustrations. (I wonder if the thin, translucent pages are especially hard to scan?) Dpbsmith 02:44, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * LoveToKnow, the "free" encyclopedia, as long as you agree to 4 pages listing the terms and conditions of the sale of your soul... (According to the bottom of the pages there...) &#922;&#963;&#965;&#960; Cyp  03:22, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Pnyx
[moved to the Reference desk]

Spelling of Swiss Cantons
I've tried to initiate a discussion/vote on the spelling of Swiss cantons at Talk:Switzerland. I've used Google to establish common use and now wish that those with an interest join in. Kokiri 00:11, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Anyone bothered at all? I just wanted to involve the community... Kokiri 11:28, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What is a troll?
Is there somewhere, where common jargon used in Wikipedia is listed? I have been here since April 2003, and still have absolutely no idea what a troll is, or a definition of the term 'trolling'. -- Graham :) 00:36, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Try looking at Internet troll. :-) Evercat 00:41, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link, I am now in the know. Odd that I've never come across the term before, I must just spend far too much time in the real world... ;-) -- Graham :) 00:55, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * We do need a "learn to speak wikipedian" page somewhere, defining (at least) VfD, copyvio, rv, tyop, and sock puppet (the last of which was entirely new to me, and the philology of which remains obscure) -- Finlay McWalter 00:52, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Well not that hard to figure out, really. Imagine you want support within a group, but no one steps forward on your side. You put a sock on your hand, paint some eyes on it, and make it talk by moving your thumb and fingers (forming a mouth); and trying not to move your lips too much. "Hello. I think X is great"! You have a friend, and he always supports your point of view. - Marshman 01:15, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I guess all this means Glossary isn't visible enough, and it looks like it's fallen behind current usage... Stan 01:29, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I added the ones mentioned above (except for sock puppet, which is new to me too) to Glossary. -- Merphant 01:56, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Apologies
Apologies for my ill-conceived and poorly executed Sock puppet escapade. Proof, if it were needed, that Opera and mediawiki do not play very well together. -- Finlay McWalter 02:41, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Art images
I have read several interesting articles that include portraits of historical figures - Diane de Poitiers, Catherine de Medici, Elizabth I of England and more, but I do not know who the artists are who painted the portraits so I can locate these pictures for teaching purposes. Is there some way to identify who created the art included in the articles? Please respond directly if possible as I am a novice at the mechanics on Wikpedia beyond searching for informative articles.

Thanks, Janet LeBlanc  Associate Professor of Art History


 * To find out about a picture, click on it. This takes you to the image description page. All pictures should, theoretically, have the source on the description page, but two out of the three images you mentioned don't. Hence all you can do is contact the people who uploaded them. However Image:Eliza1.JPG was uploaded by Isis and Image:DianedePoitiers.jpg by DW. By an unlucky chance you have chosen two wikipedians who are essentially uncontactable. One is a lawyer who left Wikipedia in a rather angry state, and later demanded that all information about her be removed. The other is a well known "troll" who has been banned from Wikipedia since July 2003, although he has been seen several times since, under different names. (I'll send this by email as well) -- Tim Starling 04:44, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)

Use of Wikipedia
Is there any indication to what extent people are using Wikipadia as a source of information, people other than Wikipedians that is? ping 07:38, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * You can find some at Press coverage or Wikipedia in academic studies - but of course these are only those a Wikipedian has noticed and noted there. But just a simple search in groups.google.com will give you many many hits where questions are answered with wikipedia articles. andy 08:33, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * A lot of people on the Opera forums and Opera newsgroups use Wikipedia as an additional or the main encyclopedia of their Hotclick menu. &#8212; Jor 12:31, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks,  ping 10:01, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * It's great for setteling arguements :) --Raul654 16:24, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Brilliant Prose Voting
Decision time approaches. Lots of votes cast and the picture is a bit clearer. Here's a proposal:


 * All unopposed Keeps are kept.
 * All articles with one or more Remove votes go.
 * All articles with no votes are added to Brilliant prose candidates

Anyone got a better idea?

To view the votes so far:


 * Refreshing brilliant prose - Science
 * Refreshing brilliant prose - People and culture
 * Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion
 * Refreshing brilliant prose - Others


 * All articles with 1+ remove votes are out? In my opinion too harsh. Why are remove votes weighed heavier than keep votes? Even the most excellent article will be disliked by someone. Tuf-Kat has voted about 80% of the articles out. Maybe limit votes per person to 10 items? Erik Zachte 12:21, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Erik - a single remove vote is far too little to justify removal, particularly if there are keep votes too. If there are the same number, or more, keep votes than removes then it ought at least to go to Brilliant prose candidates. -- Arwel 12:34, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * That seems to be the most reasonable compromise. Any differences of opinion can then be resolved on the candidates page, which, unlike the voting page, also requires a justification for an opinion.&mdash;Eloquence


 * My own view is that to keep something as Brilliant Prose, consensus is required. Anything that is removed can always be added to candidates for reconsideration. Bmills 12:38, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

So how about:


 * All articles with at least one vote and no Removes stay.
 * All articles with at least one vote and no Keeps are removed.
 * All other articles go to candidates under the heading Moved after voting.

???? Bmills 13:51, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Not a bad idea. As Eloquence says above, moving things to the Candidates page has the advantage that the opinions come with justification. Even an article that has one lone advocate against the world probably merits some statement of what the rejectors think needs to be changed, even if that turns out to be "Everything." Dandrake 00:17, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * London Congestion Charge has 7 votes to 1 in favour of keeping but under these rules will be removed... in the name of consensus! I don't really understand but would appreciate it if someone would tell me what to do to the article to improve it. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 07:20, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Not exactly removed, but moved to candidates where it will sit for one week. Assuming no objections, it will go back, if there is an objection, it will have to be explained. Have you asked the user who voted to remove why they did so? Bmills 09:07, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I have no direct disagreement with any specific interpretation of the voting results, as long as everyone is allowed a reasonable time to switch their votes after the final method of interpreting the votes is decided. If any of the above interpretations are implemented, I will certainly be changing a couple of my votes... -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 12:49, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * Mortgage payment question moved to the Reference desk.

Image upload not working
I have been trying to upload some images but every time I press the upload button it sends me to the "This page cannot be found" page. G-Man 19:44, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * It was finally working this morning, but probably has been swamped by the backlog. Pollinator 19:58, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

ionization energy of Astatine
According to your web page, the first ionization energy of astatine is 20KJ/mol. But i have contacted many universities to check if the first ionization energy has been discovered, and so far all of them have denied of the idea. please contact me to tell me where you got your source for this info. My name is Maulik Shah and my email is: shah_maulik23@yahoo.com

Thanks


 * This discussion belongs at talk:Astatine.

Walon language wikipedia ?
http://wikipedia.walon.org: Is this a wikimedia project? Do inter-language links to this encyclopedia work? Thanks to Dori for pointing the site out. An anon added it to the list of wikipedias on Multilingual coordination. --snoyes 21:04, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * looks pretty substantial (although it's a mix of Encyclopedia and dictionary). I don't think I've ever before seen anything substantive in Walloon written down. Those with at least a reading knowledge of French should find this quite interesting. -- Jmabel


 * Yes, I also fill it with dictionnary entries (from http://moti.walon.org/ ), the reason is that, as there is no modern and easily available dictionnary for walloon language it may be helpfull to have those entries too (they are all prefixed with "Motî:" so they can be taken out some day if needed). As that dictionnary is growing, the simple interface in use at the main site is becoming less and less usable (as huge pages are loaded each time), the ability to display by article, and to use query functions, is a big advantage.
 * I don't know what you call "substantive", but there is quite a lot of written material in walloon language (even more on paper than on the internet, btw), a lot is available trough various *.walon.org addresses (I got that domain to solve one of the worst problems that walloon pages were facing: each time a page was becoming popular and had its url listed in lots of places, it changed of provider, and urls were invalid... quite a common problem :) ). Among the things available online are two novels, various smaller ones, a translation of the Genesis book and the various Evangiles, learning stuff, a lot of journalistic-like writtings, and archives of mailing lists (that should now amount to a lot of text as they are quite old).
 * For the encyclopedia part I put emphasis on walloon and Wallonia related stuff (for example, I plan to make articles of all old municipalities existing before the municipalities fusion of 1977) Srtxg


 * If it were a wikimedia project, it would be walon.wikipedia.org. In otherwords, no it isn't a wikimedia project, and no interlanguage links to that encyclopedia will not work.  Green  Mountain 22:54, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll post a note to the wikilegal list, as this concerns our aspirations for filing a trademark for "wikipedia". --snoyes 23:17, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Seems as if (see below) they were offered, and want to move to wa.wikipedia.org, so I doubt there will be a trademark issue in this case. I suppose they couldn't figure out how to ask for a new language to be started, but they could figure out how to start one on their own... &#922;&#963;&#965;&#960; Cyp  23:49, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, cool. Shouldn't have been so hasty in sending that email. --snoyes 23:56, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Looks like it was started on the 22nd of June 2003, and has 760 articles. The address was added to Multilingual_coordination on the 26th of November, by an anonymous ip, which has also edited the Walon main page. I doubt these would work test walon:test... Judging by recent changes, there's at least one active user there... Ancient pages didn't work (not implemented?) there. &#922;&#963;&#965;&#960; Cyp  23:05, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * User Srtxg on the French Wikipedia seems to be quite active on the Wallon one, too. Maybe you should contact him to learn more about it (seems that he speaks French, Spanish and a bit of English)? Other active users are User:Brion VIBBER and User:ArnoLagrange (see ). -- till we *) 23:25, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * User:Brion VIBBER has over 2 contributions there, one seems to suggest moving to wa.wikipedia.org (posted the day after wikipedia.walon.org was mentioned on Wp:Multi.. Coord... In user contributions, there is at least 1 contribution that doesn't show, as far as I can tell... (Database error?) [wa:Uzeo:Pablo] seems to have accepted the offer, so I guess it's just a matter of time... &#922;&#963;&#965;&#960; Cyp  23:40, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Which contributions don't show? the ones from ::1 ? (that is an IPv6 adress, from localhost); indeed there is a bug in the wikimedia code, the IPv6 adresses should be enclosed with square brakets; if you use them the contribs can be shown: w:wa:Sipeciås:Contributions&target=&#91;::1&#93; (mmh, not that easy to put [ and ] inside a wikilink... had to use html numeric entities &amp;#91; and &amp;#93;).
 * Well, as probably the wikipedia servers won't have IPv6 connectivity for a while it doesn't matter that much; and the special address for localhost is even less relevant (special cases of at home trying, it never happens); anyway, the wikimedia scripts work very well in IPv6. Srtxg


 * Yes, I started it on a different machine for some reasons, first, there was no wa.wikipedia.org available, then, I wasn't sure how it would evolve, and I would prefer, in case the idea was dumped, to do some experimentations on my own rather than clobbering wikipedia.
 * Now, the goal is indeed to switch to wikipedia.org, it's just that I'm quite busy, I could have asked just before New Year, as I had some time, but at that time the wikipedia servers were in trouble, so I thought there were most urgent tasks for them.
 * The LanguageWa.php is almost 100% finished (most of the remaining stuff are admin strigns anyway), so I suppose I could ask now. But I still have some questions, and I don't know exactly whom to ask...
 * I would like to remove the "WikiDeveloper" and "WikiSysop" accounts (they are there just because I don't know how to remove them, and I don't know how to add myself sysop status (to be able to remove occasional myspelled pages)
 * And I want to ensure that walon.wikipedia.org will continue to work as an alias for wa.wikipedia.org (that requires virtual host configuration on the wikipedia servers)
 * Note however that the interlanguage links are another matter, they work only if an url is defined for "wa" in Interwiki.php, and technically the url doesn't have to be on wikipedia.org; in other words, the interlanguage links to "wa" can work even using walon.wikipedia.org, and conversely, even when walloon wikipedia is switched to wa.wikipedia.org they can be innactive if not defined.
 * Srtxg 17:42, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Methane Digesters
(Moved to Reference desk) --snoyes 03:34, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

General Disclaimer
I notice that the standard interface includes a disclaimer at the bottom of each page. Does this mean that other disclaimers added to article content are no longer necessary? Or, when is an additional disclaimer necessary?

Also, in my opinion, putting the disclaimer link at the very bottom of the page (on a line by itself) is not prominent enough. We don't have to shove it in anyone's face, but this almost seems to be hiding it. -Anthropos 04:49, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Spoiler warnings are still OK. Everything else can thankfully be axed. --snoyes 04:53, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * There's now a disclaimer link at the top as well, thanks to Angela. It is controlled using the new messages MediaWiki:Disclaimers and MediaWiki:Disclaimerpage. Set MediaWiki:Disclaimers to "-" to hide it. -- Tim Starling 07:39, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * How are these used? -- till we *) 11:37, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Does this apply to all languages? I've just tried edit them on cy.wikipedia but can't find them (though "Disclaimers" is appearing in the header). -- Arwel 13:06, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * You have to create them. When the articles don't exist the software falls back to Language.php. I should probably run a script to generate all the articles. "Disclaimers" is the link text and "disclaimerpage" is the page title it links to (with underscores). -- Tim Starling 14:04, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Aha! OK, thanks. -- Arwel 15:43, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm not sure we really need Disclamer on top. I think there are also people who like me don't like too much law stuff hanging around. May be the bottom one is enough? And we could sum up Copyrights and Disclaimer and name them Terms of Use. ilya 18:21, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * See the prior discussion at MediaWiki talk:Risk -- Tim Starling 23:47, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

I started a vote at MediaWiki talk:Risk about this disclaimer. ilya 02:38, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

New articles a user has written
Is there a way for someone to find out what new articles they have created? The contributions page only lists articles by major or minor edit, nothing about new ones. --Raul654 10:11, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Puppy to Malta
-->Reference desk

You have new messages
I have a sense that this was addressed before, but cannot find on archives: why doesn't my You have new messages message go away after I click it? Bmills 12:11, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a returning bug, addressed here several times already. The easiest way around it: just edit your talk yourself once. andy 12:39, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * thanks. I will. Bmills 12:59, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I find that clicking the (Talk) link in the top right corner is more likely to get rid of the message than clicking the message itself. Failing that, try watching and unwatching the page. Angela (with thanks to Cyan and Pakaran)

Why does Wikipedia allow anonymous editing?
I've never quite understood why Wikipedia allows anonymous edits - the list of vandals almost entirely consists of anonymous IPs. Is there a policy reason for this? Wouldn't it be better to require everyone to have an account so that there can at least be some accountability for edits? -- ChrisO 16:45, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Continued at m:Talk:Anonymous users should not be allowed to edit articles. Please reply there, not here.

Does universal wikipolicy really exist?
This issue was first brought up by User:Stardust in connection with a painful and bloody debate regarding Settlers of Catan and related pages. How familiar is the average wikipedist with wikipolicy? Do wikipedists (and more importantly, sysops) routinely take action based on limited and imperfect knowledge of wikipolicy? Is brilliant policy formulated on pages that nobody ever reads? A quick examination of the Policy page reveals that it is far from complete, listing only the most basic, fundamental and common-sense policies. -Smack 00:56, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Painful and bloody debate is the only real policy. New users often want to appeal actions to some higher authority (sysops, policy, jimbo) when really things are decided on talk pages, the pump, and vote pages like vfd. The policy articles are largely the rough consensation of the last consensus of the rabble, not tablets from the mountain. Consequently, if "nobody ever reads" a policy page, then it ain't policy. That's whay the policy pages are so threadbare - that's mostly what folks could (by and large) agree on.  Oh, and I utterly refute any suggestion that sysops have any more responsibility to behave "better" than non-sysops (with the strict exception of the exercise of their sysop "powers").  When not actively pushing a sysop-only button, a sysop carries no more responsibility than anyone else, and no less. Concomitantly, sysops don't enjoy special status, golden votes, or anything like that. -- Finlay McWalter 03:20, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Max Schmeling
-->Wikipedia:Reference desk

Interwiki problem
I don't know y, but it seems that wiki can't encode Chinese translation for foreign names as interwiki in English wiki well, esp. when the name in Chinese contains the mark "·", it will links to a nonsense page. Is that a bug? --&#24555;&#33351; (Talk)&#9786; 05:45, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

Votes for deletion
The accessory articles of votes for deletion (images for deletion, redirects for deletion, lists for deletion, etc.) seem neglected. Here's a request that I moved from Lists article:


 * The page here is useless and should be deleted. The correct version is here Vít Zvánovec 20:27, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

--Jia ng 06:57, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * The subpages are hugely neglected, including by me I sorry to say. I've written Wikipedia maintenance to explain how VfD needs to be dealt with if anyone is interested in helping with it. Angela. 09:58, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

Official titles/names that are invalid article names
When filling out the list of of Sanrio characters, the character "U*SA*HA*NA" wouldn't link, because you can't have a "*" in an article name. However, the "*"s are actually a part of the name, as decreed by Sanrio. So, what do we do in cases like this? Make it "U-SA-HA-NA"? -- Khym Chanur 07:31, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * Choose something, and make sure you add it to List of pages whose correct title is not allowed by MediaWiki. Morwen 07:34, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * You could even put the description of this character in the Sanrio page: how long would your proposed article be (the article on Hello Kitty, another Sanrio character, isn't very long and I've actually heard of that one)? Phil 08:43, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * I was just stuffing the Sanrio page with a list of character names I found on the Sanrio website, even though there's no articles for them (and I don't plan on writing them). I was just wondering if there was some canonical way for dealing with these sort of things, so I could point U*SA*HA*NA to the correct title for the not-yet-existing page. -- Khym Chanur 14:50, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Isn't U& the best solution? (you should use Unicode encoding then: it's character 65121) ilya 23:56, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * If you do that, you'll end up with a page called Uï¹¡SAï¹¡HAï¹¡NA - click on the link above and see. Wikipedia's linking thingy has trouble with a lot of Unicode characters. &mdash;Paul A
 * Hm. IE shows correctly if encoding=utf-8, but otherwise it's bad thing. ilya 23:35, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Proposed Metapage - "What Wikipedia Wants"
I was looking around the metapages and whatnot for a page that talks about what articles are "encyclopedic" - that is, articles that we want on wikipedia. I could not find one, but I think that one should absolutely exist. So here's my initial draft:

What is encyclopedic?
 * Anything with name recognition - That is, anything that an average person would have heard of.
 * Anything academic - Someone or something that would be mentioned in a textbook or research paper. This includes technical jargon and historical events.
 * Cities, municipalities, physical landmarks or regions


 * Post-secondary schools - Colleges and Universities
 * Political entities
 * Fictional Fixtures - Notable (that is, having at least limited fame) fictional works, events, characters, and places.
 * Popular culture - People/places/things in sports or the media or that are suddenly-famous.

What is not encyclopedic
 * Nonfamous people, websites, and companies
 * Specific elementary or high schools
 * Nonfamous Roads, buildings, locations
 * Definitions that can be found in a dictionary (except in conjuction with an encylopedic article on the topic)
 * Original thoughts or research

What else? Wikipedia does take some non-encyclopedic articles: --Raul654
 * Relavant Tutorials - How-to's on relavant topics
 * Relavant Lists - Lists on relavant topics


 * Be bold, and create the page. Don't allow the discussion to unfold here, though, I anticipate this one running forever... Onebyone 12:29, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Add


 * High culture - Literature, visual arts, art music, performance arts, etc.
 * General culture - Mythology and religion, language, patterns of social organisation, human behaviour, etc

Those are too broad. For example, Jesus's quote in the Talmud (or something clos to that) was just deleted, and rightly so - but I could argue that it is religious, and by your catagories, belongs here. What about a language I make up? It's a language, all right, so why not include it? --Raul654 12:46, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * If you take the many years required to construct a language, it would definately be noteworthy and should be included in the encyclopedia.  Green  Mountain 15:05, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I could make up a famous person or a college and they would also likely be deleted. In fact, there was a made-up Political entity only yesterday, as I recall. I don't see that my categories are any more vague or broad than the ones you put up at first, just addressing other, and equally important, areas of content. Bmills 15:09, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * As far as your suggestions - I like your catagories, but I think you need to be a bit more specific. For example - mythology is pretty cut and dry, but religion gets pretty hazy.


 * Now, like Onebyone suggests, I propose we dump my draft to What Wikipedia Wants (where people can do some actual editing on an existing article), and copy and continue this discussion on that talk page. --Raul654 15:15, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Site is slow
just wondering why your site is so slow other wise great site tkthecorr@yahoo.com
 * If I recall correctly, we've been having hardware issues with the servers. Thanks to our little fundraising effort a couple weeks ago, these should be cleared up within a couple weeks. --Raul654 15:15, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to donate. :) http://wikimediafoundation.org/fundraising --snoyes 15:49, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Is it just me or is it particularly slow today? Bmills 16:05, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * en2.wikipedia.org is really *&)#ing slow today. Use en.wikipedia.org and you should have no problems. --Raul654 16:07, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * en.wikipedia.org seems to be a lot faster than yesterday, I've not had any timeouts today. &#8212; Jor 16:08, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, that's better. I've lost so much work today!!! Bmills 16:21, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)